Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Doc Rivers Reportedly Interested in Clippers

If Boston uses the amnesty clause on him won't that screw over teams above the cap like the clippers preventing them from bidding on him? Maybe that would be their trump card to screw any team trying to low ball for him. I know the clippers would be pissed

 

They dont have to use their amnesty on him. They have a 5 million dollar buyout which (im suspecting) the Clippers MIGHT be sending cash over in the KG deal to ultimately pay towards. Just a hunch.

-It actually would be much more risky financially to use the amnesty over the buyout amount. If they amnesty, they run the risk of his waiver bid only reaching a few million dollars and leaving the Celtics forking over maybe 8 to 10 million as opposed to the 5 million needed to buy him out.

I believe in this case, Pierce would almost certainly become a un-restricted free agent after clearing waivers (Pierce would be over-priced on waivers), and free to sign where he pleases and for however much he pleases.

There is the case that a team like Dallas, Cleveland, Atlanta, etc. Communicate to Ainge that they will say screw free agency, and trade for Pierce and pay him his full salary for 2013/14... But with the crop of free agents coming up, I doubt any of them bite on a Pierce trade before the start of the season.

I think regardless of the outcome of this KG/Doc trade, the Celtics will probably end up buying out Pierce for the 5 million required, and hope he goes to a team in the Western conference to finish his career. I dont think any teams will trade for him this summer at this point in his career.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Source tells ESPN that Celts &amp; Clips have today begun discussing new trade scenarios to try to satisfy league's misgivings on these deals</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347753616699969536">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Nice!

 

Is this amateur hour?

 

Btw per the new CBA teams are limited to $3 million cash that they can send via trade.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Last tweet means that Celts/Clips deals -- IF agreed -- won't necessarily take form of DeAndre Jordan &amp; two firsts going to Boston</p>&mdash; Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/347755575091789825">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

More basketball reasons

 

In this case it's well warranted. All the NBA needs now are side deals for big market teams.

 

This confuses me. What form would make this trade suitable to the league? Does anyone have a guess?

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Celtics&amp;src=hash">#Celtics</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Clippers&amp;src=hash">#Clippers</a> forced to explore adding players, swapping of picks, to deals that ultimately will get KG and Doc to LA.</p>&mdash; A. Sherrod Blakely (@SherrodbCSN) <a href="https://twitter.com/SherrodbCSN/statuses/347804192842321920">June 20, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

If ultimately KG and Doc are moving together to LAC this summer, I am not sure that changing the compensation package makes that much of a difference as to whether it is OK under the CBA.

 

Stern Shut down the trade ahead of time.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports....ts-down-clippersceltics-trade-as-constructed/

 

I agree. Some of these writers are talking about adjusting or re-doing the trade package, as if that's going to do anything?

 

Well the logic is that the trade package agreed to has the Clippers sending assets in exchange for the release of Doc. They may not say it, but everyone knows it. So the theory is that if the Clippers end up giving up less, fair value for just Garnett, and then the Celts let go of Doc, it wasn't a trade for Doc which breaks the CBA.

The basic theory is that the Celtics have to let go of Doc for no value, getting only fair value for Garnett in this deal.

 

They should... they get out of his 35 mil contract

 

<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?playerBrandingId=4ef8000cbaf34c1687a7d9a26fe0e89e&adSetCode=91cDU6NuXTGKz3OdjOxFdAgJVtQcKJnI&pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:9407119&thruParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

Espn saying this also.

 

The problem I see in all of this is that the Celtics don't want to give up Doc for nothing. They only wanted to let him go to get compensation. Even if the league would approve a deal constructed differently, doesn't that put the Celtics right back where they were when they walked away the first time? Unhappy with the offer?

 

The issue, though, is that as long as the Garnett deal is done with the expectation that Doc gets released from his BOS contract in mind, this is a packaged coach+player deal. It should not matter if the price that BOS gets for "just Garnett" is high or low.

Also, given that the "Garnett portion" of the deal that was reported to have been agreed upon is just DeAndre Jordan (with Doc costing the Clips 2 1st rounders), I am not sure how the teams will convince that the NBA that any kind of compensation package for Garnett that includes Jordan plus anything else is what they think is fair for "just Garnett" and that extra portion doesn't go to a related release of Doc as well.

Ultimately, I am no expert on the CBA, just thinking through things logically based on available info. There is some judgment/interpretation of the NBA league office involved in whether to let any particular trade fly in this kind of situation where something like the intent of the parties, as opposed to the nominal structure and salary math of the deal, is in question.

 

That can't be right when Stern used "the rules" as his basis for this not happening yet.

Like I said, its something they arent telling us yet