PDA

View Full Version : The official "Predict Peja's contract!" thread



Shade
05-16-2006, 05:33 PM
I say 6 years, $58 million.

btowncolt
05-16-2006, 05:35 PM
5 years, 52 million with someone else

sweabs
05-16-2006, 05:39 PM
10 years, $8239048963 million and an invitation to live with Larry to keep him company.

btowncolt
05-16-2006, 05:43 PM
10 years, $8239048963 million and an invitation to live with Larry to keep him company.

Is that in Canadian dollars? If so, I think we're required to pay him more than 30 bucks a year.

Doug in CO
05-16-2006, 05:45 PM
6 years, 48 million

Lord Helmet
05-16-2006, 05:47 PM
6 years, 46.5 million.

Suaveness
05-16-2006, 05:48 PM
7 years, 68 million....

Anthem
05-16-2006, 05:50 PM
Six years, 72 million.

At least.

EDIT: For clarification, that's 6 years with an average salary of 12 mil.

Please put down average salary with your guess so we don't have to do the math in our head every time.

Hicks
05-16-2006, 05:54 PM
7 years, 68 million....

Doesn't work anymore. It used to be 7 years for the team he's with, 6 with anyone else. They cut those down to 6 and 5 respectively in the new CBA.

Hicks
05-16-2006, 05:54 PM
I'll say 6 years 72mm.

Anthem
05-16-2006, 05:57 PM
6 years, 48 million
I wish I had your faith.

Assuming 10% raises, that means his salary in year one will be 6.2 million. Do you really think that's going to happen?

If he makes $10mil next year, and gets 10% raises after that, it's a $78mil contract. I could see Bird doing that.

Doug in CO
05-16-2006, 06:00 PM
I'll say 6 years 72mm.

12 million a year - Larry Hughes money

I think part of Peja opting out is he wants long term security - that is why this darksider has faith

Jermaniac
05-16-2006, 06:12 PM
I'll say 6 years 72mm.I swear to God Bird needs to quit life if he gives him that much money. That is freaking pathetic. Man Hicks I really hope you are wrong cause that much money is insane.

Unclebuck
05-16-2006, 06:13 PM
I'll say 6 years 72mm.



Too much. Too long and too much

Jay Ohh
05-16-2006, 06:22 PM
I think it will be somewhere around 10 million a year for 5 years. I just hope it's with another team.

purdue101
05-16-2006, 06:22 PM
6 years 65 million.

SoupIsGood
05-16-2006, 06:33 PM
Way too much for way too little.

purdue101
05-16-2006, 06:35 PM
my number is a little on the high end. i think he'll average 8-10 million a year.

GO!!!!!
05-16-2006, 07:13 PM
5 Years @ 52

Moses
05-16-2006, 07:29 PM
5 Years for 54 Million

LjuboDaMan
05-16-2006, 07:29 PM
5 yrs ... 60 mil

able
05-16-2006, 08:09 PM
8500000
9350000
10285000
11313500
12444850
13689335

65582685

Pig Nash
05-16-2006, 08:17 PM
5 yrs ... 60 mil

I think this sounds about right. Not that that's what i want to happen, but that's what i think will happen.

Frank Slade
05-16-2006, 08:33 PM
Well you figure

Caron Butler signed 5 years 46 million
Rashard lewis 7 years 60 million
Richard Jefferson 6 years 78 million
Mike Dunleavy 5 years 45 million
Jason Richardson 6 years 68 Million


I think it will be 5 years 56

Tim
05-16-2006, 08:40 PM
I just hope someone else throws that much money at him and we have to pass. He is just in Danger's way.

rexnom
05-16-2006, 09:24 PM
6 years, 65 million

From 10-13million

ChicagoJ
05-16-2006, 10:18 PM
5 years, starting at 9 million.

Ballpark that at 9 + 9.9 + 11 + 12.1 + 13.2

5 years, $55 million. Good riddance.

Suaveness
05-16-2006, 10:19 PM
Doesn't work anymore. It used to be 7 years for the team he's with, 6 with anyone else. They cut those down to 6 and 5 respectively in the new CBA.


Oh I know, but that contract doesn't remind you of a certain person?

Hicks
05-16-2006, 11:12 PM
Way too much for way too little.

What is this nonsense? I'm seeing it from an alarming number of you guys. 3 time all-star. Best shooter in the game (or right there with whomever is), and is at least "OK" at everything else. Knows not to keep jacking up bad shots when he's not shooting well. Not a locker room cancer. Decent rebounder. Better than expected D (read: Didn't suck, was actually not bad). 6/72mm sounds like a lot but this is the NBA. You pay big bucks for good players like Peja, you pay mega bucks for guys at JO's level or up.

beast23
05-16-2006, 11:48 PM
What is this nonsense? I'm seeing it from an alarming number of you guys. 3 time all-star. Best shooter in the game (or right there with whomever is), and is at least "OK" at everything else. Knows not to keep jacking up bad shots when he's not shooting well. Not a locker room cancer. Decent rebounder. Better than expected D (read: Didn't suck, was actually not bad). 6/72mm sounds like a lot but this is the NBA. You pay big bucks for good players like Peja, you pay mega bucks for guys at JO's level or up.Good opinion.

They got a problem paying Peja 6/$72M, but probably don't b!tch a bit about Jermaine's remaining 4/$82M. If we have problems signing players beginning in summer 2007, it won't be because of Peja and his replacement; it will be because of the enormous dollars we are paying JO.

I'd guess closer to Able's guess, though. I think the contract will only be for 5 years, starting just a little higher than what he was already due for next year. Donnie and Larry had complained about the maximum length of contracts before the latest agreement was completed, and seemed to be pleased that a move was made to being to shorten the duration of contracts. So, I don't think they even want to go 6 unless they are forced to.

Able starts at $8.5M. I think that's about right.

So, I'll guess 5 years for $52M.

Arcadian
05-16-2006, 11:48 PM
I think we're looking at 6 yrs. for 72 million. That's what I think he is looking at and what I think Larry's willing to pay.

SoupIsGood
05-16-2006, 11:58 PM
What is this nonsense? I'm seeing it from an alarming number of you guys. 3 time all-star. Best shooter in the game (or right there with whomever is), and is at least "OK" at everything else. Knows not to keep jacking up bad shots when he's not shooting well. Not a locker room cancer. Decent rebounder. Better than expected D (read: Didn't suck, was actually not bad). 6/72mm sounds like a lot but this is the NBA. You pay big bucks for good players like Peja, you pay mega bucks for guys at JO's level or up.

We shouldn't pay 72 million dollars just to create another positional logjam and add to the discontinuity of the team.

Let him walk, or sign and trade him...

Edit - Let's say we give him the big bucks. He better become part of our long-term plans, then. Which means very few minutes for Danny at his natural position. (A bad thing.)

Also, I don't feel comfortable at all making Peja a big part of our future. I feel like we're doomed from the start if we do that.

sixthman
05-16-2006, 11:58 PM
If he makes $10mil next year, and gets 10% raises after that, it's a $78mil contract. I could see Bird doing that.

I can't. Bird and Walsh won't be allowed to spend that much on Peja, even if irresponsible enough to want to do it.

I think the best Peja can hope for is a 48 million dollar deal. 8 million a year for six years with an option for Peja in year 5. I'm hoping he'll even settle for a little less as I don't see anyone out there under the cap willing to pay him more. As far as sign and trades, an expiring contract and a decent draft pick or player on a rookie contract would be good enough for me. But I don't see other teams wanting to do that either.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 12:05 AM
Good opinion.

They got a problem paying Peja 6/$72M, but probably don't b!tch a bit about Jermaine's remaining 4/$82M. If we have problems signing players beginning in summer 2007, it won't be because of Peja and his replacement; it will be because of the enormous dollars we are paying JO.


If JO can get healthy (IOW, if he can play alongside another big player) and return to the form he showed in 2003-04, he'll be earning every cent of that contract.

Its big, but its not crippling/ absurd like KG's contract.

NorCal_Pacerfan
05-17-2006, 12:08 AM
6 years 68 mil

sixthman
05-17-2006, 12:11 AM
If JO can get healthy (IOW, if he can play alongside another big player) and return to the form he showed in 2003-04, he'll be earning every cent of that contract.

Its big, but its not crippling/ absurd like KG's contract.

Jay, what am I missing? There is only a couple of million dollars difference a year between the two's contracts and KG's contract is a year less. I'd take KG and his contract, whether JO plays like 2003, or not.

beast23
05-17-2006, 12:16 AM
If JO can get healthy (IOW, if he can play alongside another big player) and return to the form he showed in 2003-04, he'll be earning every cent of that contract.

Its big, but its not crippling/ absurd like KG's contract.Jay, in its last two years, it's about 1/2 of the cap. So just what would you call crippling?

With enormous contracts like that, you have very little flexibility for roster movement.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 12:18 AM
Maybe I'm understating JO's contract. I don't remember it hitting $20 million per year, let alone averaging that over the last four years.

I'm assuming the salary cap will grow a lot over the next four years, too.

sixthman
05-17-2006, 12:28 AM
Maybe I'm understating JO's contract. I don't remember it hitting $20 million per year, let alone averaging that over the last four years.

I'm assuming the salary cap will grow a lot over the next four years, too.

Rounded off:

JO in 06-07 18 mil

2007-08 19.7 mil
2008-09 21.4 mil
2009-10 23.0 mil

Those are hoopshype figures and I think they are correct.

beast23
05-17-2006, 12:28 AM
Starting next year:
18,067,500
19,710,000
21,352,500
22,995,000

Astounding, isn't it?

sixthman
05-17-2006, 12:39 AM
I'm assuming the salary cap will grow a lot over the next four years, too.

The salary cap is expected to be about 51 million this coming season. It was 49.5 mil last season. The new figure is announced in July. JO's raises will eat most of the annual cap growth probably.

But the salary cap is not the most pressing problem. It's the luxury tax that willl hit the Simon bro in the pocket big time. Unless JO plays like Tim Duncan, I doubt he is here in two years.

ChicagoJ
05-17-2006, 12:50 AM
So this team has a two year window with JO?

And then they'll be locked into an albotross contract with Peja.

Its going to take our management team two years to actually build a team around JO, since they've never even tried.

Maybe they should package Granger and Harrison for immediate help in the backcourt and a role playing C and build around Peja and JO as the starting forwards.

You know what? It really doesn't matter what this team does with Peja. They're in big trouble for the next couple of seasons either way and if JO's gone after that they're in big trouble for the next decade or so.

Anthem
05-17-2006, 01:13 AM
What is this nonsense? I'm seeing it from an alarming number of you guys. 3 time all-star. Best shooter in the game (or right there with whomever is), and is at least "OK" at everything else. Knows not to keep jacking up bad shots when he's not shooting well. Not a locker room cancer. Decent rebounder. Better than expected D (read: Didn't suck, was actually not bad). 6/72mm sounds like a lot but this is the NBA. You pay big bucks for good players like Peja, you pay mega bucks for guys at JO's level or up.
Just so I understand... you're advocating giving 12mil per year to a guy that regularly got benched in favor of a rookie?

Do I have that right?

AleksandarN
05-17-2006, 03:42 AM
So this team has a two year window with JO?

And then they'll be locked into an albotross contract with Peja.

Its going to take our management team two years to actually build a team around JO, since they've never even tried.

Maybe they should package Granger and Harrison for immediate help in the backcourt and a role playing C and build around Peja and JO as the starting forwards.

You know what? It really doesn't matter what this team does with Peja. They're in big trouble for the next couple of seasons either way and if JO's gone after that they're in big trouble for the next decade or so.

exactly what I think might happen. As unbelieveble as it seems it would not surprise me to see Granger traded for a center and pg that this team lacks. If you guys can get an upper tier center or pg would it be worth it to trade Granger? Because Granger is your guys most tradable assest excluding Oneil.

Hicks
05-17-2006, 06:28 AM
We shouldn't pay 72 million dollars just to create another positional logjam and add to the discontinuity of the team.

Let him walk, or sign and trade him...

Edit - Let's say we give him the big bucks. He better become part of our long-term plans, then. Which means very few minutes for Danny at his natural position. (A bad thing.)

Also, I don't feel comfortable at all making Peja a big part of our future. I feel like we're doomed from the start if we do that.

That's not the point, and it's not even totally correct. Granger is versitile and young. I want him starting 3 in the near future, but for at least next year he could get his 35 minutes at 2, 3, and 4 during the game. They may even start he or Peja at the 2 for all we know and make it work.

The MAIN point is: We can't sign someone nearly as good as Peja in Free Agency from another team. Peja's the only guy this good that we can add to this roster this summer. That's either an asset to the team, or a bargaining chip in a trade next year or beyond. You don't let that go.

Hicks
05-17-2006, 06:31 AM
Just so I understand... you're advocating giving 12mil per year to a guy that regularly got benched in favor of a rookie?

Do I have that right?

If you want to pretend that's not lying with the (half) truth, then sure. :rolleyes:

able
05-17-2006, 07:01 AM
Incredible, just incredible, the only ones here making any sense, from a sports and business point of view are Hicks and Jay.

Jay is not even a little bit of when he says that we never build around JO, doyou realy realize what he's saying? We have one of the best big men in the league and we have used him as we saw fit to be a "role" player for something that fell apart long time ago.

JO back to his "old" weight, a deady shooter in his prime (for God's sake, the guy is 28 years old!) a talented rook (yes ROOK) in Danny servicable big man, that need some bulk help and all we need is a real PG, not that no-defense guy we pulled from the EU, but a real one, like Tins but then healthy and we are a very definite contender.

Now people are moaning about what JO makes and what we "might" give to Peja?

Putting your hopes and contender status in the hand of Granger who has yet to pan out is silly, from any point of view.
To think that the remainder of this team outside of JO can come close to a contender is even more silly and to think that we can sign an impact player for the mid-level is just plain funny. (which is all we have available for FA's)
To think that Jax and /or Tinsley and/or AJ would bring us anything half-decent let alone with the capacity of a Peja is outrigh stupid.

Let's forget the albatros that is Cro's contract, and the fact that Bender does not count towards anything next year and think that that same albatros contract of Cro is actually worth something in todays market then you would see that he is our most real trade asset.
The look at other teams and salary structure, everybody is always talking about SanAn, well TD makes the same as JO, Parker averages 11.5 mio over the next 4 years, Gino 10.5 over the next 3 and Nesto 8.5 over the next 2, that is 100% of their cap in 4 players. (IF we are able to sign Peja then he and JO are our only long time liabilities)
Mavs you say ? Finley 18 mio over the next 2, Dirk 16 over the next 2, Damp 8.5 over the next 2 and Daniels 6.5 over the next 4 4 players = 100% cap.
Of course you say, but there is also the Pistons, ok:
Rasheed 13.5 over the next 3, Rip 10 over the next 4, Billups 6.5 ove rthe next 2 (and then?) and add to that the 10 that Ben will at least command for X years and once again, in 4 players the cap is used.

Every player outside of JO is averagin less then 6.5 after next year, does that tell you anything ?
Consider next year, Cro 9.5 (tradebait) Bender no count, Jax (gone but ok) 6.2 mio, no other player tops 6 mio.

Showing other teams salary situation prves that 2 - 3 10 mio+ a year contracts is nothing strange, in fact it is common ground.

I suspect (make that hope) that Peja commands a starting salary of 8.5 mio perhaps 9, which in both cases is a rise over what he would have gotten, but IMO Peja is looking for a max term deal, knowing that when 34 he can perhaps still squeeze a nice 4 year out of someone and be done.

And from what I've seen he's worth any penny and considering his attitude and quality I am sure that the first couple of years we would have no problem in trading him if it doesn't work.

To even suggest that anyone in a S&T where Peja and not the Pacers make the decision as to where he goes, would give us anything but scraps is not thinking about what position the receiving team is in.

Stop thinking with fantasy ideas or emotion, it's a business.

SoupIsGood
05-17-2006, 07:09 AM
That's not the point

No, it is the point. I'm tired of this team being jerked around with like it's some sort of fantasy club. I'm tired of depth, of trading pieces, and whatnot.

For once, I'd like us to start building a team with clearly defined roles. A team in which the best players play at their best positions.

Danny needs to be starting next season. Peja should not be kept past this offseason.

I don't want all of this "Well we can play Danny at the 1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5..." or "maybe Peja can be a two..." If we need a two, let's trade for a two. If we need a backup four, let's trade for one. Let's for once build a TEAM and not just a collection of talented players...

able
05-17-2006, 07:20 AM
SIG, if you think that Danny is anywhere near Peja's class then sorry, I hate to dissapoint you but he is nowhere near yet.

I feel that if it were up to you we would have started Hulk and Danny this year, give you though, we would have had a lot better pick, reducing the need to trade up :)

SoupIsGood
05-17-2006, 07:25 AM
SIG, if you think that Danny is anywhere near Peja's class then sorry, I hate to dissapoint you but he is nowhere near yet.


I don't really care who is more talented.

Peja is a whimp. Always has been, always will be. You don't win with whimps. Danny isn't a whimp at all, and is plenty talented himself.

Besides, whomever is better RIGHT NOW really isn't a concern. Because this team isn't doing anything RIGHT NOW. At all.

Downtown Threat
05-17-2006, 08:17 AM
What is this nonsense? I'm seeing it from an alarming number of you guys. 3 time all-star. Best shooter in the game (or right there with whomever is), and is at least "OK" at everything else. Knows not to keep jacking up bad shots when he's not shooting well. Not a locker room cancer. Decent rebounder. Better than expected D (read: Didn't suck, was actually not bad). 6/72mm sounds like a lot but this is the NBA. You pay big bucks for good players like Peja, you pay mega bucks for guys at JO's level or up.
Well said.

6 years 72 million.

Hicks
05-17-2006, 08:26 AM
You totally ignored the main point, SIG, that if nothing else Peja is a future bargaining chip.

Hicks
05-17-2006, 08:28 AM
I also get pissed at the "whimp/*****/softie/etc" talk. Maybe he is, but you can't base that off of this season. You have no idea how bad his knee did or didn't feel.

Anthem
05-17-2006, 09:11 AM
You totally ignored the main point, SIG, that if nothing else Peja is a future bargaining chip.
But MY point is that he's not much of a bargaining chip if he's not a bargain.

I also don't understand your response to my previous post. Peja did regularly get benched in crunch time in favor of Danny. Danny's only going to get better, and Peja's at his peak right now.

Unclebuck
05-17-2006, 09:27 AM
I think the key question is how radical of a change are the Pacers going to make this summer, next season and next offseason.

If they don't intend to make too much change, and want to make the playoffs and be a threat to some degree next season, they need Peja, and a Peja and JO combo will be dangerous.

But if they want to revamp their team to look more like the Mavs, then Peja won't fit in with that.

The 12 million per year doesn't scare me but the 6 years scares me to death.

beast23
05-17-2006, 10:14 AM
I don't really care who is more talented.

Peja is a whimp. Always has been, always will be. You don't win with whimps. Danny isn't a whimp at all, and is plenty talented himself.

Besides, whomever is better RIGHT NOW really isn't a concern. Because this team isn't doing anything RIGHT NOW. At all.I'll aplogize for what I'm about to say in advance.

But, I read your post and started laughing. But not just at you. I suddenly was reminded of how each of us stereotypes players, and just started laughing... at you, at myself... at virtually every poster on the forum.

I read the word "wimp" and just started laughing.

I have similar stereotypes with Jackson and Tinsley. I absolutely hate them as players. If I actually met them though, I honestly believe I would like Jackson as a person, but would probably also dislike Tinsley.

I stereotype Jackson as a "thug-wannabe", who wants it so much for himself that he acts/plays in ways that are contrary to the needs of the team. In other words, on the court, I find him often to be self-centered, and not a true team player. It's all about who's showing him love and who's not and who's respecting him and who's not.

I stereotype Tinsley as primarily "distrustful". I don't trust him to play in the teams best interest because he just can't control himself. I think he has a character flaw... the little devil on his shoulder that makes him act out against opposing players after they embarass him, or to pout and whine when he gets a call against him.

More than 1/2 the time, I just can't stand these players. A little of what I've read and some major intuition tells me that these two players are chemistry problems, and I try to tell myself that my dislike of them as players is justified.

But, what the hell? I could be wrong. Just as I believe you are wrong about Peja being a wimp. He's one of the players that I happen to like because I believe he has a good head on his shoulders. And example: If he's not shooting well form the outside, he's smart enough to adjust his game and find a way to get his points within the workings of the offense.

But anyway, that's the end of Confession 101.

I just wanted to share with you that I was able to laugh at myself and everyone else while seeing humor in your post.

sixthman
05-17-2006, 10:43 AM
able's quote
Mavs you say ? Finley 18 mio over the next 2 Dirk 16 over the next 2

Have you forgotten that the Mavs dumped Mike Finley, this still very good player, in the amnesty program? Even though they knew he'd wind up playing for the enemy and bite them in the butt. They dumped him because they didn't want to pay the luxury tax on his contract, saving 36 million bucks in luxury tax, even though they still are paying his salary.


Stop thinking with fantasy ideas or emotion, it's a business.

Yes, it is a business. And for that reason I would make the observation that your post is more full of emotion and fantasy ideas than most.

What has changed in the NBA is that for the first time the luxury tax is now certain each year. I believe it's obvious teams, including Indiana, are going to try to cap their payrolls somewhere around the luxury tax threshold.

This means Peja, a good player, but not a great one, will not see anything close to a 70 million dollar contract.

Nobody in this certain luxury tax world will pay Peja anywhere near the money you are talking about. While a good player, he is simply not worth it. He'll sign much more reasonably that you currently believe.

The above example of Michael Finley and the Mavs is just one example of how things have changed. Teams are not going to pay 15-30 million dollars in luxury tax annually, not even Dallas. Not Indiana.

Read behind the lines in the Larry Brown firing story. Part of the problem is that Brown is demanding the Knicks trade their expiring contracts for huge, risky contracts like Kenyon Martin. Knicks ownership, the last of the big spenders, is now balking at Brown's demands, saying its cheaper to buy off Brown to the tune of 25-40 million than pay the luxury tax on the addition of a contract like Kenyon Martin's.

I would also note that the new cba is helping owners control their team salaries. Maximum contract lengths for free agents have been reduced by a year. Jermaine's 7th year, for example, at 23 million is no longer possible. Instead of seven years at 126 million, the best he could do now is 6 years at 103 million.

There is a reason both the players and owners could agree on this significant change: The old system was financial suicide.

And, financial suicide is what we are looking at for the Pacers, if the team keeps piling on huge contracts, one after the other. This is the reality. Thinking the Pacers are going to re-sign Peja for 12 million a year and trade Cro's contract for long term salary, and keep JO at the same time, is probably the fantasy in this discussion.

Shade
05-17-2006, 02:48 PM
I can't. Bird and Walsh won't be allowed to spend that much on Peja, even if irresponsible enough to want to do it.

I think the best Peja can hope for is a 48 million dollar deal. 8 million a year for six years with an option for Peja in year 5. I'm hoping he'll even settle for a little less as I don't see anyone out there under the cap willing to pay him more. As far as sign and trades, an expiring contract and a decent draft pick or player on a rookie contract would be good enough for me. But I don't see other teams wanting to do that either.

Peja isn't going to opt out of his contract to sign for less money.

SoupIsGood
05-17-2006, 07:12 PM
You totally ignored the main point, SIG, that if nothing else Peja is a future bargaining chip.

No, I know. I'm just saying that I'm tired of being a team of bargaining chips.

Tinsley.

Ron.

Bender.

Virtually everyone else that crashed and burned for us...

We hold on to them way too long in hopes of getting eventual "equal value" and whatnot.

It's time to just started admitting we got screwed in a few deals and move on! Keep what fits and remove what doesn't.

Keep one SF and make him a part of the long-term plans. Obviously, I want Danny over Peja.