PDA

View Full Version : Can we win a title without paying for one?



Hicks
01-17-2006, 05:18 PM
Allow me to explain. Throughout the trade rumors this past month, it's come up more than twice that we won't trade for X, Y, or Z because he makes too much money, even when said player's market value is as such (in other words, I'm talking about the Paul Pierce, Lamar Odom types, not Troy Murphy or Kwame Brown).

My question is: Does this paint the picture of this franchise? Are we willing to pay whatever the cost for one very good/great player, but not two? Are we willing to spend the money on having at least 2 great players and at least one more that's pretty damn good in his own right? Or are we always going to let at least one of them go because their expensive, and keep ourselves a notch below a true contender?

The old Pacers (90s/2000) made it with just about the least amount of talent possible. Don't get me wrong, they had plenty, but nothing off the charts, and certainly it was not a roster filled with star players. Personally, I don't see us getting that lucky again. We need stars to win. Are we willing to pay for them? If not, are we meant to never win a title unless we get extremely lucky?

Kstat
01-17-2006, 05:31 PM
Hicks, a lot of teams have been very successful with lesser team salaries than Indiana.

It's not about much much you spend, it's what you do with your money.

If Bender didn't exsit, Brad Miller is probably a Pacer right now.

Hicks
01-17-2006, 05:33 PM
If Bender didn't exsit, Brad Miller is probably a Pacer right now.

I think that, you think that, the Walsh Warriors will deny it until they die.

Moving on, I hope that's the case, but then the question becomes who are those teams, what do their team salaries look like, and how long will it be until one of their best players wants a payday?

beast23
01-17-2006, 05:40 PM
Hicks, a lot of teams have been very successful with lesser team salaries than Indiana.

It's not about much much you spend, it's what you do with your money.

If Bender didn't exsit, Brad Miller is probably a Pacer right now.
Very good points.

By the way, I think the 1998 - 2000 Pacer teams were better than you give them credit for, Hicks. No all-around superstars, but a team full of specialists and shooters.

I don't think trying to avoid paying luxury taxes is a bad thing. There is only one thing for certain guaranteed by higher salaries.. higher ticket prices.

Even with that in mind, I believe the Pacers would pay the luxury tax if they could be certain that the player they are acquiring would improve them significantly and give them a reasonable shot at making at least the ECFs.

I would have said making the Finals, but with Detroit's team the way it is, I don't think there is any one player we could add that would do that for us.

Kstat
01-17-2006, 05:42 PM
I think that, you think that, the Walsh Warriors will deny it until they die.

Moving on, I hope that's the case, but then the question becomes who are those teams, what do their team salaries look like, and how long will it be until one of their best players wants a payday?

The Pistons have managed to re-sign Hamilton and Rasheed since they aquired them, and they're still shelling out $19 million less than the Pacers, not to mention the possible luxury tax hit.

Say Ben gets re-signed next year for around $10 million per year next season, and Prince's new deal kicks in. They'll still be paying a little less than the Pacers, probably quite a bit less if the pacers re-sign croshere or fred jones, or sign another MLE player.

In 2007, we can re-sign Billups to $10 million a season, and that increase will be offset by the money we'll be losing off the cap when Dale Davis's deal expires.

We'll also have McDyess's MLE salary off the books, which we'll be able to use to go out and get someone else.

Kegboy
01-17-2006, 06:03 PM
Detroit and SA have proven you don't need bloated payrolls to be successful. I think part of Donnie's reasoning is he got burned so bad with the likes of Jalen and Cro (and, yes, JB), that he wants to be more conservative with payroll. Plus, it doesn't help that the Simons were the driving force behind the LT.

Hicks
01-17-2006, 06:07 PM
The Pistons have managed to re-sign Hamilton and Rasheed since they aquired them, and they're still shelling out $19 million less than the Pacers, not to mention the possible luxury tax hit.

Say Ben gets re-signed next year for around $10 million per year next season, and Prince's new deal kicks in. They'll still be paying a little less than the Pacers, probably quite a bit less if the pacers re-sign croshere or fred jones, or sign another MLE player.

In 2007, we can re-sign Billups to $10 million a season, and that increase will be offset by the money we'll be losing off the cap when Dale Davis's deal expires.

We'll also have McDyess's MLE salary off the books, which we'll be able to use to go out and get someone else.

But by then your payroll will still be pretty high.

Meanwhile, what's the Spurs' situation?

Kstat
01-17-2006, 06:08 PM
But by then your payroll will still be pretty high.

Meanwhile, what's the Spurs' situation?

Ny point was that we could give all 5 starters "paydays," and still wouldnt be paying less than the Pacers are right now.

San Antonio has every player except Van Exel and Mohammed locked up for the next 3 seasons, and theyre paying $15 million less than Indiana is right now.

Now when the dead weight comes off the books for Indiana next season, the Spurs will probably be only paying $10 million less.

Hicks
01-17-2006, 06:09 PM
Ny point was that we would have given all 5 starters "paydays," and still wouldnt be paying less than the Pacers are right now.

OK, but we have a HIGH payroll right now, so that's not really a good thing.

CableKC
01-17-2006, 06:10 PM
Are the Simons willing to pay to win it all?

I don't think so....its a business in the end for them. IMHO ( that isn't really educated but more speculation ), I think that the Simon's/Walsh has done a good job in creating a competitive team year in and year out for fans to follow. The problem is that although we are competitive....we haven't really gotten to the next level of "Championship-team". Being competitive enough to make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs brings in the fans and season ticket owners. But unless we are really lucky and all the pieces fall together ( like the way the Pistons have )....we don't have that "special" something ( likely in the form of a 2nd top player ) to get us over that last hurdle to a championship.

Kstat
01-17-2006, 06:14 PM
OK, but we have a HIGH payroll right now, so that's not really a good thing.

.....wasnt the crux of your argument that the Simons ARENT willing to pay for a championship? Are they not outspending %95 of the NBA right now?

It's not that you arent willing to spend money, it's that you're spending it stupidly.

overpaying Bender and Croshere was stupid. Overpaying Reggie was one thing, but it cost you dearly so you have to accept the consequences.

Hicks
01-17-2006, 06:16 PM
.....wasnt the crux of your argument that the Simons ARENT willing to pay for a championship? Are they not outspending %90 of the NBA right now?

They're paying for the wrong reasons. Still, it does suggest they're willing to pay for the team's sake, even if it doesn't pan out. Of course, that may change soon, seeing as how we apparently won't take back equal talent (or close) if the player has a big contract.

Kstat
01-17-2006, 06:20 PM
They're paying for the wrong reasons. Still, it does suggest they're willing to pay for the team's sake, even if it doesn't pan out. Of course, that may change soon, seeing as how we apparently won't take back equal talent (or close) if the player has a big contract.

Well, yeah.

The Pistons and the Spurs would be doing the same thing if they were in the cap hell Indiana's in right now.

Joe Dumars tanked an entire SEASON in 2001 because he inherited so many albatross contracts that he traded them all away for peanuts.

Just because youre willing to spend money doesnt mean the owner's pockets have to be bottomless pits.

They aren't a victim of stingy owners, they're victims of their own reckless spending.

Tom White
01-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Are the Simons willing to pay to win it all?

I don't think so....its a business in the end for them. IMHO ( that isn't really educated but more speculation ), I think that the Simon's/Walsh has done a good job in creating a competitive team year in and year out for fans to follow. The problem is that although we are competitive....we haven't really gotten to the next level of "Championship-team". Being competitive enough to make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs brings in the fans and season ticket owners. But unless we are really lucky and all the pieces fall together ( like the way the Pistons have )....we don't have that "special" something ( likely in the form of a 2nd top player ) to get us over that last hurdle to a championship.

Part of the problem with this teams salary structure over time has been giving "higher tier" contracts to what are basically "second tier" players (as far as league-wide talent, that is). I know how much that statement likely sounds like an insult to guys like Reggie and JO, and I don't intend to be insulting, but I still think my statement rings true.

In other words, DW has generally been willing to overpay his own players instead of making what may be a better investment in a better player, whether through a trade or free agency.

Bball
01-17-2006, 07:40 PM
Interesting to read this thread...
On my way home a little while ago I had a thought about a similar topic and question. It dovetails with this but I think I will still ask it in another post because it does shift the focus a little.

-Bball

able
01-17-2006, 10:43 PM
Interesting thread, be it that the premise is perhaps a little of course, and thus obfuscating the answer.

Before I get to the LT matter, I want to go back to the off-season, when DW and LB announced that they wanted to try to get at least on or below the LT treshold.

TPTB received shortly after that a 3-man player delegation, requesting them to keep the team together, they felt that they could make a run for the title.
TPTB considered, learned a few things that made the decision easier and "caved in".

It was at that moment that your question "are they willing to pay the price" was answered with a resounding yes, in reality they had just comitted to paying more then 10 mio LT.

However things went "business style" after that, calculations were made and additional decisions made:

1: LT/P(ay)R(oll) situation was we had 14 players and a retiree, combining up to 80.5 mio of salary
2: Not counting against the LT were Reggie for 6 mio and Polly for 6.3 mio, add to that the fact that if we did not "extend" Fred, we would save a potential 2.5 mio on the LT (imo the foremost decision not to extend him, a businesslike risk) by also not signing a 2nd rounder we had the potential to stay "only" 4.8 mio in LT territory, but since 10 mio was approved by the Simons' anyway, we had "wiggleroom" to get Saras.

So at the beginning of the season, we had a PR of 84.5 mio with a potential LT impact of 8 mio

(In that scenario btw I am sure that had the trifacta (JO, Ron & Jax) not asked to stay togetherm TPTB would have "sacrificed" Cro in the "amnesty" since Reggie's salary was coming of the books anyway, perhaps the fact that he in that case perhaps (no data on that) did not count for the previous season played a factor, but I am sure that the plan was to sacrifuce Cro to go under the LT.
Please do take into consideration that the news/reporting on Bender was positive, hence the Cro decision.

Now that they had agreed with the players to keep the lot together, we started the season that way.

Then it became clear that Bender was nowhere near ready, and a clear chance to get rid of him was missed.
Here the safety net of the shortened period for "medical relief" was a sigh of relief for TPTB.
(it went from a 2 year waiting period to 1 year)
This should also show that there is no way that Bender gets traded, unless he threatens to play again, if not the somewhere in the season a medical exemption will be applied for and his salary will come off the LT.
With his salary off the cap and Gill we are ON the LT border.

Now it has become apparent that it is unlikely we will make a championship run this year, so damage control is in order.
We are therefore back to conservative dealings with LT

Now since we have above proven that TPTB are prepared to get over the LT hit if a finals appearance seems possible, the current attitude only strengthens that notion.

I am sure that the premise of "going over (the LT) if needed can be done, but it is a businss like decision, can we make up for it and preferably without long term commitments.

Though most is now explained we are missing the "would they trade for a Pierce"
Imo we will, but not for an expiring contract, because that would mean we would land heavily in LT territory again (incoming players salars - Artest (6.7mio).

And that explains also why you hear the names of Cro and Jeff surfacing.

Arcadian
01-17-2006, 11:06 PM
Yes, any team can win a championship without being over spending. In fact not over spending improves teams ablities to win a championship because they have more flexablity to makes minor moves.

Jon Theodore
01-17-2006, 11:23 PM
Hicks, a lot of teams have been very successful with lesser team salaries than Indiana.

It's not about much much you spend, it's what you do with your money.

If Bender didn't exsit, Brad Miller is probably a Pacer right now.
!

Anthem
01-17-2006, 11:53 PM
Financial responsibility is our best chance at a championship.

That being said, I think Bender could have been worth his salary if he'd stayed healthy. And his health problems didn't really show up until after we'd signed him.

Kstat
01-17-2006, 11:56 PM
Financial responsibility is our best chance at a championship.

That being said, I think Bender could have been worth his salary if he'd stayed healthy. And his health problems didn't really show up until after we'd signed him.

True.

However, anytime you give a starter-calibur contract to someone on the off-chance that the MIGHT be a starter someday, you naturally take the risk that it might not happen, and you'll be stuck overpaying for a reserve.

Bender is an extreme example, but one nontheless.

Bball
01-18-2006, 12:00 AM
Financial responsibility is our best chance at a championship.

That being said, I think Bender could have been worth his salary if he'd stayed healthy. And his health problems didn't really show up until after we'd signed him.

If Bender could've stayed healthy, and been a good basketball player, he could've been worth his salary. Unfortunately, he came up lame on both counts IMHO.

By the time he got his extension it should've been clear what we had: not much.

-Bball

Eindar
01-18-2006, 07:16 AM
I think the Simons are willing to pay big dollars for someone who is worth big dollars. They're not going to OK us going into salary cap hell over Troy Murphy, Brian Cardinal, or Adonaly Foyle, but if a good deal came along and we ended up with Pierce, I think the Pacers would have no fear in pulling the trigger on that deal. It's more about "is this player worth what we'd be paying for him?" vs. "Is this guy too much money for us?".

rexnom
01-18-2006, 07:26 AM
Detroit and SA have proven you don't need bloated payrolls to be successful. I think part of Donnie's reasoning is he got burned so bad with the likes of Jalen and Cro (and, yes, JB), that he wants to be more conservative with payroll. Plus, it doesn't help that the Simons were the driving force behind the LT.

Detroit is a marvel. I don't think there has been a team better built in the salary-cap era under the cap. My problem with SA is that they basically "cheat" their way to get some low contracts. Finley? Van Exel? Both guys that took pay cuts to win a ring...come on...The same applies to LA a few years ago with Malone and Payton...so happy the Pistons whupped them...tho I am still not happy about that ridiculous Rasheed trade. Although, I guess you can't blame the Pistons...

RWB
01-18-2006, 08:47 AM
It's not that you arent willing to spend money, it's that you're spending it stupidly.

overpaying Bender and Croshere was stupid. Overpaying Reggie was one thing, but it cost you dearly so you have to accept the consequences.

In a crazy circle kind of way Kstat's statement also explains maybe the only reason some free agents look or pretend too be interested in going to Indiana because of over paying guys.

Fool
01-18-2006, 10:47 AM
If the original question is "Will the Pacer brass pay for another high priced guy in order to make a run this season?" I think the answer has been answered with Walsh's original comments on who he was going after with the Artest trade. (In short, no)

If the question is "Are the Pacers willing to pay enough salary to win a championship?" I think the answer is an obvious yes based on the fact that only the Knicks, Mavericks, and 6ers pay more for their team.