PDA

View Full Version : Croshere or Bender



Jose Slaughter
07-18-2005, 01:04 AM
This was discussed at the party & I thought I'd toss it out to get some more thoughts.

The Pacers will be permitted to waive one player this year. They will still have to pay the players salary but that money will not count against the luxury tax penalty.

Until recently most assumed that Crosher would be the guy to go, if in fact a cut is even made. However, I think Bender is already targeted.

Both have 2 years remaining, Croshere is listed at 8,910,000 & Bender at 7,100,000 on HoopsHype

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/indiana.htm

So, who goes?

Suaveness
07-18-2005, 01:07 AM
They won't waive anyone. They should, but I don't think they will

Young
07-18-2005, 01:07 AM
I will go with Croshere. His contract is worth roughly 4 million. I'd rather see that glass pogo stick get cut/wavied though. Atleast Croshere can suit up and doesn't ride the bench to his millions of dollars salary.

foretaz
07-18-2005, 01:14 AM
I will go with Croshere. His contract is worth roughly 4 million. I'd rather see that glass pogo stick get cut/wavied though. Atleast Croshere can suit up and doesn't ride the bench to his millions of dollars salary.

if not for all the injuries and suspensions, croshere does ride the bench and doesnt ever play ;)

its not gonna be bender....they wouldnt continue to spend all the money and effort on his rehab with dyrek...

plus if he doesnt recover, its possible they could get a medical exception for him....

now, whether they waive anybody or not is a different question...i have a feeling they may wait to see if they end up using the MLE or not as well as what happens to jj and dale....ie if they sign saras and resign the other two then i really believe they waive austin....if those things dont work out, then he may continue on the team..

Bball
07-18-2005, 01:23 AM
Well... Croshere probably hurt his value to some fans by playing last season when he should've been on the IR list. The guy was suddenly asked to play big minutes and he did so admirably but he hit a wall and injuries mounted. Being shorthanded, IMHO he opted to be a warm body and make himself available to play even tho he was hurt. I think some forget what Croshere initially meant to this team following the suspensions. He stepped up big time.

He's been a good soldier all during his time here. On a loyalty basis I would keep Croshere.

Bender, OTOH, didn't hurt his legend with his :sunshine: fans much if at all by spending time watching the games in street clothes. His legend only grew in some eyes...

On a business basis... It's a little tougher. I'm sick of Bender being on this team and being an albatross. I think cutting him would send a signal about what is expected and what won't be tolerated. As far as the winning side of the ledger goes I think there would be some benefit to cutting Bender BUT it might not be as tangible or easily seen by the fans as cutting Croshere and recouping the extra 1.7 mil of his tax hit on our salary (since he makes more than Bender). That ASSumes that the Pacers would USE that savings to do something for the team's on the court product and not just use it to make the Simon's some more money (or save them some as the case may be).

If it just comes down to saving money then obviously it is Croshere that gets punted.

If it comes down to anything else then I think the decision is tougher... and if loyalty counts for anything then it is Croshere who will stay.

Since one of the knocks on Walsh is that he's loyal to a fault then I think it's not a foregone conclusion either gets punted. Still this could be viewed as a win/win situation since the cut player still gets paid AND gets a chance for a new start on another team.... and the Pacers save some money.

croz24
07-18-2005, 01:24 AM
they shouldn't get rid of either. both will be worth a lot next yr and could be used to get a very quality player through a trade.

foretaz
07-18-2005, 01:28 AM
or....


they could waive reggie miller....

which in the end wouldnt change a thing.....but save them the luxury tax this year only...

but then they will have pollards contract coming off plus an additional year to purge some salary..

Young
07-18-2005, 01:32 AM
or....


they could waive reggie miller....

which in the end wouldnt change a thing.....but save them the luxury tax this year only...

but then they will have pollards contract coming off plus an additional year to purge some salary..

I think they would simply not pay him at all. I think they could still do that since he is retired.

Jose Slaughter
07-18-2005, 01:34 AM
Kegboy

Sorry about not making this public.

foretaz
07-18-2005, 01:37 AM
I think they would simply not pay him at all. I think they could still do that since he is retired.
whoever they waive they still have to pay....

but if they waive reggie, there is no chance reggie is going to play anywhere else....

so in some respects hes a logical candidate....they still pay him...which was the idea....but his salary doesnt count for luxury tax purposes...

now theres nearly a 3 million dollar difference between reggie and austin...but the point is reggie isnt gonna play anyway...

Young
07-18-2005, 01:40 AM
whoever they waive they still have to pay....

but if they waive reggie, there is no chance reggie is going to play anywhere else....

so in some respects hes a logical candidate....they still pay him...which was the idea....but his salary doesnt count for luxury tax purposes...

now theres nearly a 3 million dollar difference between reggie and austin...but the point is reggie isnt gonna play anyway...

Oh I know what your saying, I just meant that I know the Pacers had a choice to pay Reggie for next season or not to pay since he is retireing and all but I would think it would be to late anyways to not pay him since they already said they would.

Bball
07-18-2005, 02:05 AM
Oh I know what your saying, I just meant that I know the Pacers had a choice to pay Reggie for next season or not to pay since he is retireing and all but I would think it would be to late anyways to not pay him since they already said they would.

Rommie,
We'll never get confirmation of this, since it would be admitting to skirting the spirit of the NBA bylaws, BUT I think Reggie, Walsh, et al knew that he would be getting paid for this third year when he signed the contract. IMHO it was a way to backdoor him more money and spread the hit out over 3 years instead of 2.

Reggie told us when he'd be retiring years ago... all he did this past season was to confirm what he'd said before.

That doesn't negate them from taking advantage of this new CBA leniency and using Reggie in and of itself tho. Obviously the Pacers save less money this route but then they don't have to cut a player from the real roster either. That said, I wonder if there's any stickiness there with him going to the waiver wire and somebody attempting to take him in some kind of situation where they could use him as part of a trade (that would be like a salary dump to somebody). Do you have any say if somebody picks you up before you clear waivers? IE: Reggie is waived. Before clearing waivers somebody takes him (and his full salary) and then uses that in a trade with another team (allowing the other team to move a player in a salary dump since Reggie would be retiring).

But then that messes up what I believe to be a backdoor handshake to see that Reggie's last contract was really 9mil per year but they were slick and deferred 6 mil of it until a 3rd year.

As complicated as the NBA salary stuff is I am sure I overlooked something... (like could you even trade a player claimed off waivers?)

-Bball

8.9_seconds
07-18-2005, 02:21 AM
Well... Croshere probably hurt his value to some fans by playing last season when he should've been on the IR list. The guy was suddenly asked to play big minutes and he did so admirably but he hit a wall and injuries mounted. Being shorthanded, IMHO he opted to be a warm body and make himself available to play even tho he was hurt. I think some forget what Croshere initially meant to this team following the suspensions. He stepped up big time.

He's been a good soldier all during his time here. On a loyalty basis I would keep Croshere.

Bender, OTOH, didn't hurt his legend with his :sunshine: fans much if at all by spending time watching the games in street clothes. His legend only grew in some eyes...

On a business basis... It's a little tougher. I'm sick of Bender being on this team and being an albatross. I think cutting him would send a signal about what is expected and what won't be tolerated. As far as the winning side of the ledger goes I think there would be some benefit to cutting Bender BUT it might not be as tangible or easily seen by the fans as cutting Croshere and recouping the extra 1.7 mil of his tax hit on our salary (since he makes more than Bender). That ASSumes that the Pacers would USE that savings to do something for the team's on the court product and not just use it to make the Simon's some more money (or save them some as the case may be).

If it just comes down to saving money then obviously it is Croshere that gets punted.

If it comes down to anything else then I think the decision is tougher... and if loyalty counts for anything then it is Croshere who will stay.

Since one of the knocks on Walsh is that he's loyal to a fault then I think it's not a foregone conclusion either gets punted. Still this could be viewed as a win/win situation since the cut player still gets paid AND gets a chance for a new start on another team.... and the Pacers save some money.



I totally agree. Everybody is so quick to blame Cro for being a bench warmer of sorts but A)He did really step up for us when we needed him the most B)He plays right through the pain when he knows that his team needs him C) He's played in more than 70 games in the past 6 seasons.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I am sick of waiting for the great athlete that is Jonathan Bender. Athletecism is great, but heart and loyalty make a great player. Austin Croshere may not be ever considered one of the best, but hey, he wasn't voted one of the biggest draft busts either, was he?!

fooddaman
07-18-2005, 04:16 AM
Rommie,

That said, I wonder if there's any stickiness there with him going to the waiver wire and somebody attempting to take him in some kind of situation where they could use him as part of a trade (that would be like a salary dump to somebody). Do you have any say if somebody picks you up before you clear waivers? IE: Reggie is waived. Before clearing waivers somebody takes him (and his full salary) and then uses that in a trade with another team (allowing the other team to move a player in a salary dump since Reggie would be retiring).


I'm pretty sure with the new CBA that the one time waiver player will sign a new contract with another team, while the old team still pays for the old contract. Therefore, there could not be any trade value to Reggie's current deal.

IMHO, I don't think they waive Reggie, just the idea of that doesn't sound right, does it? I understand it would be for LT reasons, but still...

IMHO, Croshere is the one to go, with 2 years still on his contract and with Granger signed, I believe he will be the odd man out. The pacers feel they have invested too much into Bender at this point to simply waive him. IF they do anything with Bender, it would be with a trade to get something in return.

Unclebuck
07-18-2005, 08:41 AM
I gave about three different answers at the party. At first I said I thought they should waive Reggie Miller. He's not going to play anyway, There is no chance he'll help the Pacers.

Then later in the evening, I said they should waive Bender instead of Croshere. As the point was made Cro has done everything asked of him, and it would send a bad message to the rest of the team if Bender is kept and Cro is waived.

But then what if Bender gets healthy and can help the Pacers in some way.

I really don't think the pacers will cut anyone unless Cro askd to be waived

beast23
07-18-2005, 09:39 AM
The Pacers definitely will do something. Bird publicly stated that the Pacers were limited in what they could do with free agents because they weren't allowed to carry salaries that might cause them to pay the luxury tax.

I think the Pacers will waive Croshere. His is the largest salary of a player that could be released.

By waiving Croshere first, they even have a chance of further shedding salary in the event that Bender's recovery is premature and he chooses to retire due to his medical problems. That's probably not going to happen, but what the heck... it's my post right? And a fellow can dream. I figure Bender is untradeable, so I have to dream up some loony scenario to get rid of him.

Bball
07-18-2005, 10:42 AM
I'm pretty sure with the new CBA that the one time waiver player will sign a new contract with another team, while the old team still pays for the old contract. Therefore, there could not be any trade value to Reggie's current deal.

IMHO, I don't think they waive Reggie, just the idea of that doesn't sound right, does it? I understand it would be for LT reasons, but still...

IMHO, Croshere is the one to go, with 2 years still on his contract and with Granger signed, I believe he will be the odd man out. The pacers feel they have invested too much into Bender at this point to simply waive him. IF they do anything with Bender, it would be with a trade to get something in return.

I thought if a player cleared waivers he was basically the same as a free agent and could sign with anybody for whatever he wanted while his old team was still on the hook for the balance. OTOH, if he was claimed off waivers (before a set period of time expired) then his new team was assuming the existing contract. Therefore (assuming you could trade a player immediately after claiming them from waivers) a team could take Reggie and then trade him to a team wanting salary relief.

My point being, if that type of scenario is correct, there could be some sticky situations arise IF Reggie was expecting 6 mil this year from the Pacers as part of a handshake deal. Plus he'd then be expected to retire 'officially' (file the papers) from a team other than the Pacers.

I doubt anyone would claim Reggie from the waiver wire BUT especially if there were some backdoor shenanigans going on with his contract it might not be a gamble the team would want to take. It might not even be a gamble they'd want to take for PR reasons of Reggie being a Pacer his entire career.


-Bball

foretaz
07-18-2005, 11:17 AM
I thought if a player cleared waivers he was basically the same as a free agent and could sign with anybody for whatever he wanted while his old team was still on the hook for the balance. OTOH, if he was claimed off waivers (before a set period of time expired) then his new team was assuming the existing contract. Therefore (assuming you could trade a player immediately after claiming them from waivers) a team could take Reggie and then trade him to a team wanting salary relief.

My point being, if that type of scenario is correct, there could be some sticky situations arise IF Reggie was expecting 6 mil this year from the Pacers as part of a handshake deal. Plus he'd then be expected to retire 'officially' (file the papers) from a team other than the Pacers.

I doubt anyone would claim Reggie from the waiver wire BUT especially if there were some backdoor shenanigans going on with his contract it might not be a gamble the team would want to take. It might not even be a gamble they'd want to take for PR reasons of Reggie being a Pacer his entire career.


-Bball

as weve discussed before....until the final cba is ratified and all the details are released we wont know exactly how things work...

but keep in mind this amnesty provision is something new...

and more than likely will have its own parameters....and it will probably be a combination of waiving a player, an outright cutting of a player, and a player whose contract expires....

i would be surprised if the normal waiver procedure is used...meaning they have to clear waivers....i dont think the players association would have ever agreed to that....

it would seem when these players are released, they are instantly free agents...meaning they may then choose to play for whomever they please...

to me , the big question is with regard to compensation with regard these players...

are they free agents, free to go to the highest bidder???

if so, is there any limit of how high this bidding can go?

if so, how does this amount affect the previous team?? their cap situation??

or will the compensation be a set amount (vet min for example)??

if so, how is the previous team affected(im guessing in no way)??

does the player collect his whole salary from the previous team plus the vet min from new team? (im guessing this is the most likely scenario)

is there a new compensation scenario for these players....

it would certainly seem that these players would have some options, if they are indeed released.....the question is do they have more options than just choosing the team they want to play for....by using the waiver system that is currently in place, it is feasible that these players would be forced to play for someone they dont want to-which is why i dont believe there is anyway that will be utilized....

the players will become free agents....with the only real question being what kind of compensation they are entitled to by their new team and how that affects the previous team....

which means, in reggies case, he could be waived under this new provision, and continue to be paid by the pacers, and unless he chose to play somewhere else, there would be nothing more to it....with one small exception, he wouldnt be able to return this coming season, as some have discussed-though not likely anyway...

ChicagoJ
07-18-2005, 11:26 AM
I still think Rick would go ape-**** if Croshere is cut. He might be the only "coachable" guy on this team.

Who did Rick bring with him to the press conference after the suspensions last season? Austin and Reggie.

Since Foster needed a second surgery on his hip, pardon me for not immediately buying into the company line that "all will be fine come training camp." Croshere could still be a valuable reserve for this team at two positions.

Bball
07-18-2005, 11:28 AM
as weve discussed before....until the final cba is ratified and all the details are released we wont know exactly how things work...

but keep in mind this amnesty provision is something new...

and more than likely will have its own parameters....and it will probably be a combination of waiving a player, an outright cutting of a player, and a player whose contract expires....

i would be surprised if the normal waiver procedure is used...meaning they have to clear waivers....i dont think the players association would have ever agreed to that....



...which all underscores my point... There may be a lot of variables involved that would make Reggie not an attractive option to be the one released under this amnesty program.

It all depends on how it shakes out.

With Cro and Bender it would be a straighforward choice. With Reggie you have to consider other implications which could include any wink and nod agreements they had about this year's salary plus if the new system could create any PR difficulties for Reggie officially retiring as a Pacer.

-Bball

foretaz
07-18-2005, 11:30 AM
...which all underscores my point... There may be a lot of variables involved that would make Reggie not an attractive option to be the one released under this amnesty program.

It all depends on how it shakes out.

With Cro and Bender it would be a straighforward choice. With Reggie you have to consider other implications which could include any wink and nod agreements they had about this year's salary plus if the new system could create any PR difficulties for Reggie officially retiring as a Pacer.

-Bball

and thankfully we should have those details in the not so distant future...however odds are, if the pacers are going to release a player, it might be quite some time before they do so....meaning we will be in suspense for a while longer...and can have these discussions for months to come, only with more of the parameters in place....

grace
07-18-2005, 12:13 PM
Who did Rick bring with him to the press conference after the suspensions last season? Austin and Reggie.

Dude, at the time we only had 6 people on the team.

ChicagoJ
07-18-2005, 12:16 PM
Dude, at the time we only had 6 people on the team.


Well, true. Reggie wasn't even "on the team" for that matter.

rabid
07-18-2005, 12:25 PM
Dude, at the time we only had 6 people on the team.

Austin was a team captain btw, either at that point or shortly after.

ChicagoJ
07-18-2005, 12:30 PM
Austin was a team captain btw, either at that point or shortly after.

That's my point. Nobody in the organization wants to "get rid" of Croshere. They may decide to make a financial decision and let him go, and they undoubtedly they wish, as an organization, they were paying him less. But he's still a contributor with both his basketball abilities (when healthy, in the right role), and most importantly, with all the intangibles (coachable, gets along well with his teammates, willing to play hurt, doesn't complain about his role, always a winner, tends to step up when the pressure is on, etc.)

beast23
07-18-2005, 01:04 PM
Jay, I agree that no one really wants to dump Croshere. However, in doing so, I think they can easily sell to everyone, even Croshere himself, that better opportunities for minutes exist elsewhere.

Unless we have another season from hell, Croshere just won’t be seeing many minutes this season. With a healthy Granger, Harrison and Foster, Croshere probably won’t see 10 minutes a game. And, if Bender is healthy and retained, Croshere will watch while the Pacers use whatever minutes are left over to evaluate Bender.

The Pacers will NOT cut Reggie, not just because of the PR nightmare, but also because it really doesn’t gain them anything. All that will do is to postpone their luxury cap threshold problem until the following season. And then we will still be looking for some kind of a trade to dump Croshere and/or Bender to reduce our total salary. We can either take a step to resolve our problem now, or try to find some ingenious way to resolve it in another year, when the amnesty provision will most likely not be available to us.

Foretaz, I think you are over-thinking the whole amnesty process. First of all, the idea that drove the process was a one-time benefit to teams to get their fannies back under the luxury tax threshold.

Teams are going to waive a high-dollar player, not a $2M man. No other GM in this league in his right mind is going to claim an $8M bench player off of waivers and have to pay out his full salary. That sort of makes the process of clearing waivers a “moot point”, does it not?

And since I doubt that the league is going to institute some kind of dispersal draft for these players, it seems almost certain that they are free and clear to negotiate with other teams. The league said that the amnesty waiver would be a win-win situation for all concerned, so they are not going to establish some kind of a pecking order in teams’ rights to re-sign these players… and they are not going to restrict what these players can earn on their new contracts because that would be treating them differently, and worse I might add, than “normal” free agents.

Kegboy
07-18-2005, 02:19 PM
Kegboy

Sorry about not making this public.

That's okay. I still say we should make the default "public", and the poster can make it anonymous if they want, not the other way around.

As I said Saturday, we should cut Austin, as much for his sake as for ours. We will cut nobody, because Donnie can't admit he screwed up.

Unclebuck
07-18-2005, 02:45 PM
If Cro is cut who will grab Carlisle when he goes after the refs.

beast23
07-18-2005, 03:14 PM
If Cro is cut who will grab Carlisle when he goes after the refs.Bender. He's got to do something to earn his money. Besides, he'll be well rested and should be able to easily catch Rick.

Young
07-18-2005, 03:23 PM
Bender. He's got to do something to earn his money. Besides, he'll be well rested and should be able to easily catch Rick.

Not Bender either. We wouldn't want him to injury that glass like knee even more. ;)

Maybe we will re-sign John Edwards have give him this job.

Diamond Dave
07-18-2005, 03:34 PM
I stated at the party that it would be a tragic event if they cut Croshere. Has there ever been a player who has put up with as much crap and remained a constant professional?

Bender deserves to be cut, in addition to several reasons (lack of any fundamental skills), look no further than his leaving the summer league.

If you haven't played basketball for 2 years with the Indiana Pacers and you were finally healthy would you not play as much as possible to prove that you could?

I believe it was Roaming Gnome who said that "In the Pacers darkest hour, Jon Bender couldn't even suit up and play five minutes to give someone else a breather."

Yet it was Croshere who was the brighest remaining light of hope in that darkest hour, with several injuries, and we're questioning who to cut?

Austin Croshere deserves better than that, and the only way he should be waived is if by his request.

Los Angeles
07-18-2005, 03:56 PM
If Cro is cut who will grab Carlisle when he goes after the refs.
LMAO!

Los Angeles
07-18-2005, 03:57 PM
I stated at the party that it would be a tragic event if they cut Croshere. Has there ever been a player who has put up with as much crap and remained a constant professional?

Bender deserves to be cut, in addition to several reasons (lack of any fundamental skills), look no further than his leaving the summer league.

If you haven't played basketball for 2 years with the Indiana Pacers and you were finally healthy would you not play as much as possible to prove that you could?

I believe it was Roaming Gnome who said that "In the Pacers darkest hour, Jon Bender couldn't even suit up and play five minutes to give someone else a breather."

Yet it was Croshere who was the brighest remaining light of hope in that darkest hour, with several injuries, and we're questioning who to cut?

Austin Croshere deserves better than that, and the only way he should be waived is if by his request.
This is a good post.

grace
07-18-2005, 04:02 PM
If Cro is cut who will grab Carlisle when he goes after the refs.

David Craig. Oh wait, he was "promoted" to the front office.

beast23
07-18-2005, 04:30 PM
I stated at the party that it would be a tragic event if they cut Croshere. Has there ever been a player who has put up with as much crap and remained a constant professional?

Bender deserves to be cut, in addition to several reasons (lack of any fundamental skills), look no further than his leaving the summer league.

If you haven't played basketball for 2 years with the Indiana Pacers and you were finally healthy would you not play as much as possible to prove that you could?

I believe it was Roaming Gnome who said that "In the Pacers darkest hour, Jon Bender couldn't even suit up and play five minutes to give someone else a breather."

Yet it was Croshere who was the brighest remaining light of hope in that darkest hour, with several injuries, and we're questioning who to cut?

Austin Croshere deserves better than that, and the only way he should be waived is if by his request.From strictly a perspective of sentiment, I agree totally with what you have stated. I RESPECT Croshere's professionalism more than perhaps any other player in the league.

But, business is business.

If the Pacers want to have a chance of significantly improving the roster either this year, by the trade deadline, or next year, then I think the first logical move is to reduce the salary by getting rid of Croshere.

The second move would be to force Bender's retirement due to his inabilty to play due to medical reasons. That would probably result in some sort of roster exemption that could be used.

Those two moves would reduce the total salary by $16M, well under the luxury tax threshold.

Hopefully this season, Pollard's $6M+ expiring contract, maybe along with whatever exemption resulted from the Bender situation, could be used to acquire a rotational player.

And next summer, maybe the full value of the MLE could then be used to acquire a decent player.

If we can somehow dump both Croshere and Bender, we would be able to acquire a couple of good players and still remain under the luxury tax threshold, whatever it will be under the new CBA.

Diamond Dave
07-18-2005, 04:39 PM
From strictly a perspective of sentiment, I agree totally with what you have stated. I RESPECT Croshere's professionalism more than perhaps any other player in the league.

But, business is business.

If the Pacers want to have a chance of significantly improving the roster either this year, by the trade deadline, or next year, then I think the first logical move is to reduce the salary by getting rid of Croshere.

The second move would be to force Bender's retirement due to his inabilty to play due to medical reasons. That would probably result in some sort of roster exemption that could be used.

Those two moves would reduce the total salary by $16M, well under the luxury tax threshold.

Hopefully this season, Pollard's $6M+ expiring contract, maybe along with whatever exemption resulted from the Bender situation, could be used to acquire a rotational player.

And next summer, maybe the full value of the MLE could then be used to acquire a decent player.

If we can somehow dump both Croshere and Bender, we would be able to acquire a couple of good players and still remain under the luxury tax threshold, whatever it will be under the new CBA.

See, I honestly don't care about the cap. Historically the Pacers do NOT sign any big name, or medium name, free agents. So why is it important to be under the cap? I understand it allows for more trade possibilities, however I think the Pacers are pretty stuck as far as that goes. We have alot of untradable players due to contracts and not being able to get equal value in return.

So if I don't care about the cap, and I don't think we'll make any trades, then why do I not want to keep both you might be asking yourself.

Because it sends a message. It says that the Pacers appreciate consumate professionalism, and playing with injuries. It tells Jamal Tinsley that he needs to make sure that he stays in shape. It tells Jackson that his hot-headedness will not fly. It tells each and every player that you better be ready to go at a moments notice. Because thats what Austin Croshere does, and even though he is grossly overpaid, he will have a spot on this squad.

LONG LIVE THE MILKDRINKERS!!!!!

beast23
07-18-2005, 05:25 PM
If I were in charge, I assure you I would take exactly the actions you suggest. And for exactly the same reasons as you have stated.

But, neither of us are in charge. I really do think the Pacers will relese Croshere.

Unfortunately, I don't think they will release Bender. They somehow still seem to be infatuated by his "potential". The only way Bender goes is if he just can't play period and finally gives it up. And I think that is truly sad... I've been trying to unload him for a case of Doritos to KStat for about two years now.

Diamond Dave
07-18-2005, 05:29 PM
If I were in charge, I assure you I would take exactly the actions you suggest. And for exactly the same reasons as you have stated.

But, neither of us are in charge. I really do think the Pacers will relese Croshere.

Unfortunately, I don't think they will release Bender. They somehow still seem to be infatuated by his "potential". The only way Bender goes is if he just can't play period and finally gives it up. And I think that is truly sad... I've been trying to unload him for a case of Doritos to KStat for about two years now.

IMO, the only way Donnie lets Cro go is if Cro asks for it. Same with Bird. Remember he was Bird's first draft pick. :D

But I don't think Cro will, I don't think we'll release anyone.

able
07-18-2005, 06:20 PM
All these sentimental reasons are beautiful, truly, and I'll subscribe to them to, however.....

DW & LB are running a multi million dollar business, money lost is bad enough as it is and if you are going to influenceyour bottomline because of sentiments, you have found the exact right way to losing money big time.

Look for reason: cutting Cros saves close to 20 million dollar over two years.
That is 10 million on the bottom line in each year.

Add to that the fact that the likelyhood we would fetch anything for him in a trade is zero, while JB might fetch something, there's more out there that still believe in the P word.
Add to that the investement in JB, outrageous amounts for no return, if he is unable to play, he can ALREADY be dumped on permanent injury waivers, which is straight of the cap and an exception for the same amount.
Finally there's the odd chance he gest healthy and actually starts contributing, now we are taking a risk that he will amass to more then Cro.

Bottomline is I am sorry for Cro, but on the other hand, I will offer the P's to fire me instead and give me just 10% of his salary over the next two year.

I.e. he is suitably compensated.

foretaz
07-18-2005, 06:25 PM
All these sentimental reasons are beautiful, truly, and I'll subscribe to them to, however.....

DW & LB are running a multi million dollar business, money lost is bad enough as it is and if you are going to influenceyour bottomline because of sentiments, you have found the exact right way to losing money big time.

Look for reason: cutting Cros saves close to 20 million dollar over two years.
That is 10 million on the bottom line in each year.

Add to that the fact that the likelyhood we would fetch anything for him in a trade is zero, while JB might fetch something, there's more out there that still believe in the P word.
Add to that the investement in JB, outrageous amounts for no return, if he is unable to play, he can ALREADY be dumped on permanent injury waivers, which is straight of the cap and an exception for the same amount.
Finally there's the odd chance he gest healthy and actually starts contributing, now we are taking a risk that he will amass to more then Cro.

Bottomline is I am sorry for Cro, but on the other hand, I will offer the P's to fire me instead and give me just 10% of his salary over the next two year.

I.e. he is suitably compensated.

:applaud: :applaud: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :amen: :amen:

Bball
07-18-2005, 07:22 PM
I am following this thread and see some of you breaking this down into pure business models. IF the team was ran that cold and things strictly done on pure business, and the resulting bottom line, then we wouldn't be this far over the cap in the first place (IMHO).

Therefore, I say it's hard to speculate how the team will use this amnesty opportunity... and it wouldn't totally surprise me to see it not used at all.

-Bball

able
07-18-2005, 07:27 PM
Bball, I remember a LOT of posts biatching about hte Simons and DW for "not going over the cap to get the team over the hump".

"Cheap" a lot of people called the organization.

And now that we are threatening of having the 3rd higest payroll in the league you think they wll not save money along the line?

You do realize that if we move on like this we will only have the Knicks ahead of us in payroll.

able
07-18-2005, 07:35 PM
moauh, Im getting old that's old: geezeritis

Bball
07-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Bball, I remember a LOT of posts biatching about hte Simons and DW for "not going over the cap to get the team over the hump".

"Cheap" a lot of people called the organization.

And now that we are threatening of having the 3rd higest payroll in the league you think they wll not save money along the line?

You do realize that if we move on like this we will only have the Knicks ahead of us in payroll.


Most posts I remember were about the allocation of the funds... not the team being cheap. That certain high dollar BAD contracts had painted the team into a corner and now all of a sudden they were unable or unwilling to do what was needed to get over the hump.

-Bball

CableKC
07-18-2005, 08:06 PM
Question.....is Donnie/Simons still able to back out of the offer to pay Reggie for one more year?

Although its a nice gesture....Reggie is clearly not going to play again. I'm confused. Since Reggie still has a contract for another year but is retiring....would his salary count for another year against the cap?

or

Is it only counting against the cap since Reggie is retiring BUT the Donnie/Simons chose to pay him for the year despite him not playing?

CableKC
07-18-2005, 09:03 PM
I chose Croshere. I know what we have in Croshere.....I still hope that we still have something in Bender. However, I am seeing what some of you are suggesting about not waiving anyone and to simply use their huge@ss contracts as expiring contracts to attract a Big trade next season....which maybe alluring.

If it had to be done for this season...waive Croshere and see what Bender can do for another year. If he craps out again...then trade him after this season before the trade deadline.

Bball
07-18-2005, 09:08 PM
I chose Croshere. I know what we have in Croshere.....I still hope that we still have something in Bender. However, I am seeing what some of you are suggesting about not waiving anyone and to simply use their huge@ss contracts as expiring contracts to attract a Big trade next season....which maybe alluring.

If it had to be done for this season...waive Croshere and see what Bender can do for another year. If he craps out again...then trade him after this season before the trade deadline.

Here's the issue... I believe we actually know what we have in Bender as well... it's just that few want to admit it or are blind to it.


-Bball

Kegboy
07-18-2005, 11:16 PM
If Cro is cut who will grab Carlisle when he goes after the refs.

Ron.

And yes, I'm being completely serious, for those of you who haven't seen how many times he's holding guys back. Cro just gets to Rick first because he's always on the bench, hence he's closer.

Shack80
07-19-2005, 09:39 AM
I say nobody, because it is not my money that the luxury tax hits and I don't see how it helps us competitively. I really don't have a strong understanding of the bizarre salary cap in the NBA so that may be wrong. Austin has his moments and would be a much better player if he could get more minutes I think, never going to happen with the pacers though. Bender concerns me if we cut him, he will turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread if we do, but if we don't he will never do anything. If only his knees could stay healthy.

foretaz
07-25-2005, 05:54 AM
u know, theres is one other angle on this, that hasnt really been discussed much.....

where the released player ends up....and how that could possibly affect whos released....

for instance, anyone think detroit, miami, or new jersey might be interested in croshere if hes released???? i think they might....in fact miami and nj would probably love to have austin, especially at the minimum.....

now while i believe austin would be inclined to head back home to cali, this sort of thing probably warrants a little bit of consideration....fact of the matter is, he would be a pretty decent fit in miami and nj as a backup 4....

on the other hand, where would bender end up??? thats probably a loaded question...new orleans is the obvious choice...and im sure many on here would argue bender would be much less likely to hurt us versus how austin could possibly hurt us if he were to go to miami or nj....

either way, it does make this amnesty provision just a wee bit more interesting...

ChicagoJ
07-25-2005, 01:29 PM
u know, theres is one other angle on this, that hasnt really been discussed much.....

where the released player ends up....and how that could possibly affect whos released....

That's not really true. That's why I've been saying all along (although not necessarily in this thread) that the Pacers are unlikely to use the amnesty provision on Croshere. I think they'd rather bite the bullet and pay the LT on a coaches' favorite than pay him anyway while he's playing for one of our rivals.

Now, with Bender that's anyone's guess. Again, his perceived inability to pass a physical will keep many teams away.

Anyway, thanks for conceding my point, even if you didn't do it on purpose. :D

Bball
07-25-2005, 01:45 PM
That's not really true. That's why I've been saying all along (although not necessarily in this thread) that the Pacers are unlikely to use the amnesty provision on Croshere. I think they'd rather bite the bullet and pay the LT on a coaches' favorite than pay him anyway while he's playing for one of our rivals.

Now, with Bender that's anyone's guess. Again, his perceived inability to pass a physical will keep many teams away.

Anyway, thanks for conceding my point, even if you didn't do it on purpose. :D


It's turns like this that makes me wonder if foretaz has really been paying attention to a debate or just enjoying arguing his point and not really 'listening' to the dissenting opinions.

There are several reasons why Croshere might not be the amnesty casualty as Jay, Diamond Dave and myself (and probably others) have mentioned.

I don't think it is cut and dried who it would be let alone if we'd take advantage of it at all. I know who it would be if I had the decision ;)
As I said in another post in this thread... Everyone is quick to put this in pure business terms. I countered that if the Pacer salary situation was handled in pure business terms we wouldn't be in this salary bracket or situation (grossly overpaid players) in the first place.

Heck... it could be Gill which wouldn't make much sense for LT reasons but would clear out the 4th PG slot now on the roster.

-Bball

foretaz
07-25-2005, 08:31 PM
It's turns like this that makes me wonder if foretaz has really been paying attention to a debate or just enjoying arguing his point and not really 'listening' to the dissenting opinions.

There are several reasons why Croshere might not be the amnesty casualty as Jay, Diamond Dave and myself (and probably others) have mentioned.

I don't think it is cut and dried who it would be let alone if we'd take advantage of it at all. I know who it would be if I had the decision ;)
As I said in another post in this thread... Everyone is quick to put this in pure business terms. I countered that if the Pacer salary situation was handled in pure business terms we wouldn't be in this salary bracket or situation (grossly overpaid players) in the first place.

Heck... it could be Gill which wouldn't make much sense for LT reasons but would clear out the 4th PG slot now on the roster.

-Bball


Originally Posted by Jay@Section204
That's not really true. That's why I've been saying all along (although not necessarily in this thread) that the Pacers are unlikely to use the amnesty provision on Croshere. I think they'd rather bite the bullet and pay the LT on a coaches' favorite than pay him anyway while he's playing for one of our rivals.

Now, with Bender that's anyone's guess. Again, his perceived inability to pass a physical will keep many teams away.

Anyway, thanks for conceding my point, even if you didn't do it on purpose.

ok...lemme see if i can kill two birds with one stone here...

first and foremost, i am quite intriqued by this issue of the new cba....thats probably obvious by now....and i just love to keep discussing it...and im very excited to see how it gets used, doesnt get used, and what the final details are regarding it...

jay, i know u made mention of why u thought teams would not use it...that no team would pay a player to go play for someone else....but some will ...and it will be despite what u mention, and what i mentioned above....because despite what impact finley might provide phoenix, despite what impact croshere might provide miami, there might be many more reasons to do so versus not-each team will have to decide-and thats what intriques me....bottom line if the impact those players made were that dramatic, they wouldnt be subject to discussing them in this clause anyway...

i still feel that IF the pacers choose to use this provision, that croshere makes the most business sense....and this move would be a business oriented move...

i also wouldnt be shocked if they used it with reggie, though it wouldnt have nearly the same impact, business wise....

bender is less likely, because they have other potential options with him with regard medical exceptions as time goes on, not to mention insurance is helping them out a great deal with his contract....

i also wouldnt be surprised to see a deal involving croshere, f. jones, and aj going to portland in some sort of exchange for van exels contract....we will see....

most of all, i dont really think im changing any stance on the subject(though if it makes either of u 2 feel good-then by all means;)), its just i love the subject and all the possible discussion regarding it...

ChicagoJ
07-25-2005, 09:18 PM
-snip-bender is less likely, because they have other potential options with him with regard medical exceptions as time goes on, not to mention insurance is helping them out a great deal with his contract....


Do we even know if this is true?

foretaz
07-25-2005, 09:32 PM
Do we even know if this is true?

well im not sure which part u are referring to....

as far as the medical exception goes.....and retiring due to medical reasons....and getting a replacement player...all those things are ongoing with bender....in other words it remains to be seen what happens as his health is still in question, but as it plays out there might be other options depending on what happens...

regarding the insurance....its my understanding that all nba contracts are insured....and when a player is physically unable to perform due to injury, as in benders case, the team is entitled to 80% of his salary....one of the many reasons passing the physical is so important....

ChicagoJ
07-25-2005, 09:59 PM
That's my point exactly, you're guessing that since Bender is physically unable to perform, by some defininition that you are using, that the Pacers are getting insurance payments.

I don't think that's true. First of all, that doesn't apply just because a guy spends part, most, or all of a season on an injured list. Secondly, since they keep putting Bender on a court from time-to-time, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude that Bender is "physically unable to perform."

If Bender retires/ is forced to retire because of injury, that's when insurance might or might not kick-in.

foretaz
07-25-2005, 10:16 PM
That's my point exactly, you're guessing that since Bender is physically unable to perform, by some defininition that you are using, that the Pacers are getting insurance payments.

I don't think that's true. First of all, that doesn't apply just because a guy spends part, most, or all of a season on an injured list. Secondly, since they keep putting Bender on a court from time-to-time, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude that Bender is "physically unable to perform."

If Bender retires/ is forced to retire because of injury, that's when insurance might or might not kick-in.

hmmm...

ok....he played 7 games this past year for a grand total of 93 minutes...

the reason he was physically unable to play is not a definition "im using"....it has more to do with the fact everytime he tried to play his knee swelled up to the size of a bowling ball...

now...as far as insurance goes..do u think an insurance company would like to continue to make payments for an injured player without any rehab or any attempts at getting that player back out on the floor...surely they would want to see some effort made to see if progress was being made..or at the very least, some attempt was being made to play him to prove indeed that he was unable to perform due to physical reasons.....the fact that he was put in the direct care of the physician(dyrek) only further indicates that he probably was being scrutinized by not only the pacers but by the insurance company that was making the payments...

as far as him being forced to retire or what have u...thats when the salary cap relief would come in....not the insurance....the insurance isnt in case the player dies, though that would be the extreme case....a team isnt going to give a player a contract for 45 million dollars or whatever and eat that whole amount if the guy gets injured....its not unlike urs and i's health insurance....the league has an insurance carrier that underwrites all player contracts...all of them....and as i mentioned, thats one of the primary reasons teams have physicals that have to be passed...

Bball
07-25-2005, 11:31 PM
But the Pacers can't force a player to retire... AFAIK....
So if Bender wants to keep making an appearance in 1 percent of the games played (I guess it was actually less than that last year (.09 percent)) then the Pacers are stuck paying him and get no salary relief. (I'm using your number of 7 games played. I don't know if that is accurate or not)

And I don't know that his knee ever swelled to the size of a bowling ball... do you know that?

-Bball

foretaz
07-25-2005, 11:45 PM
But the Pacers can't force a player to retire... AFAIK....
So if Bender wants to keep making an appearance in 1 percent of the games played (I guess it was actually less than that last year (.09 percent)) then the Pacers are stuck paying him and get no salary relief. (I'm using your number of 7 games played. I don't know if that is accurate or not)

And I don't know that his knee ever swelled to the size of a bowling ball... do you know that?

-Bball

no question they cant force him to retire....as i alluded to, alot depends on what happens from here on out....this all could be moot if he remains healthy....but if it happens again...the number of games hes been able to play in has dropped dramatically the last 3 years....to almost nothing last year....and if it persists....well....he wouldnt be the first guy to say adios due to injury....

as far as the bowling ball....ok...i might have been embellishing just a wee bit ;) ;)

ChicagoJ
07-26-2005, 10:40 AM
I had written out a reply on the insurance topic last night, when the thunderstorm caused the power to flicker and I lost it. So I gave up. We've had almost an inch of rain in the past week, and that was more than the amount we'd received from May 1 to July 15 so I'm not complaining (and that's what they mean by "extreme drought").

But to summarize it in one sentence, there's no way the insurance company is paying a dime if they believe Bender has any chance of playing again.

Every time he's healthy enough to make an audition on the court it just postpones that decision even longer.

You said,


not to mention insurance is helping them out a great deal with his contract....

That's written in the present tense. I believe that's not only false, but if Bender never plays another NBA game then its probably still 1-3 years away from a reaching a settlement with the insurance.

What did Orlando do with the insurance money they got for Grant Hill's career-ending injury? Wait... they didn't get any, it wasn't really career-ending.