Pierce Opts Out

[Boston.com story]

Before we all panic, this doesn't mean we've lost him, and I personally think there's a very good chance he re-signs with Boston and ultimately retires as a Celtic. But I'm sure there are some questions running through many people's heads, so let's take a look at them:

What does it mean to opt out? Basically, Paul Pierce had an option to stick around for another season at about $21.5 million, then become a free agent next year. Instead, he's chosen to forfeit that year in search of a long-term deal. I don't have a complete grasp of NBA salary cap rules, but I believe that I read that such a deal could be up to four years for $96 million if it comes from Boston, and four years for $93 million if it comes from another NBA team.

How can Pierce walk away from so much money? There are many considerations here:

• The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is up after this year, and the next one -- if there isn't a lockout -- is almost certainly going to be less lucrative/favorable to players. Pierce wants to get his new contract under the terms that are most favorable to him.
• It's insurance against having a bad year or getting injured. It's unlikely that Pierce's new deal, wherever he signs it, will pay him the $21.5 million in 2010-2011 he would have earned if he had opted out, but he's eliminating some risks that you have to worry about more and more when you're an NBA veteran entering your mid-30s. (He's currently 32.) Let's say, for the sake of using round numbers, that Pierce gets $80 million over four seasons in a new deal. Averaged out -- and that's now how the NBA works, but for simplicity's sake, it works -- that's 20 mil per year. In such a scenario, Pierce would be paying $1.5 million to hedge against the chance that he suffers some career-ending injury or has a dip in performance next season that would reduce his value to less than what he could get this offseason (4 for 80, in our hypothetical). The risk is that he'll have a great 2010-2011 season and would actually command more in free agency next summer, but that seems unlikely at age 32 -- and don't forget the CBA.
• If there was a summer that Pierce was going to get overpaid, it's this one. Forget his performance and the fact that the Celtics made a surprise run to the seventh game of the NBA Finals. You may not have heard this, but a large number of very high-profile NBA players are free agents this summer, and for two years now, teams have been giving away players to create cap room to sign one or two of them. But there's more cap room than there are marquee guys to fill it, and the teams that miss out on LeBron James and Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh may look to guys like Pierce to ensure they don't come away empty-handed. It's probably not the smart move, but GMs and coaches have pressure to win from fans, owners, and players. Besides, this is the NBA, where most moves aren't smart.

Why not let Pierce go instead of overpaying him and sign one of those free agents instead? Because we can't. NBA salary cap rules allow you to exceed the cap to re-sign your own free agents, but we wouldn't be able to go over the cap to sign someone like LeBron. I think I read somewhere that even if Pierce and Ray Allen leave, Boston would only have about $15 million in cap room. That's not enough to get a player that you could team with Kevin Garnett and Rajon Rondo and contend for a championship.

That leaves Danny Ainge with a couple options. He can let Pierce walk, in doing so signaling the closing of the current window and probably more or less eating the last two years of Kevin Garnett's hefty contract. Or he can bring back Pierce, and probably Ray, too, and making another run or two at it, perhaps throwing a way a couple of years in the future.

I think the latter is most likely, for a couple of reasons. First of all, and I wouldn't have said this when the playoffs started, but it's a little premature to say the window's closed. We came damn close to winning a title this year. I promised I'd never say the words "we would've won if Perk had played," but show me a Lakers fan who says he's convinced LA wins that series if Kendrick Perkins hadn't blown out his knee in the opening minutes of Game 6, and I'll show you a liar. Giving up now is a bad PR move; even if Danny thinks the window's closed, the team spent the last couple of months convincing a whole lot of people who pay for tickets that it isn't. I also have to think that it will be easier to rebuild with a 34-year-old Pierce making who knows what than it will to rebuild with a post-injury, 35-year-old Garnett. It's conceivable that a contender could take on Pierce's contract in a couple of years if we wanted to move him out for picks or other young assets; I don't see that happening with KG. Finally, re-signing Pierce and Ray buys a little time; the team should be relatively competitive with those two guys and that gives Danny time to find some diamonds in the rough through the draft or free agency. I'm not saying it's likely to happen; just that it's possible.

Mostly, though, I think we're re-signing Pierce because Doc Rivers announced he was coming back to coach, and I don't think he'd do that if we were re-building. But that's another post. Stay tuned.