PDA

View Full Version : {ESPN}Stein: Harrington deal close



Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 09:40 AM
Monday, July 24, 2006
Pacers close to acquiring Harrington from Hawks
Updated: July 24, 2006, 9:04 AM ET
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By Marc Stein
ESPN.com


The biggest name still available on the NBA free-agent market is Al Harrington.
Except that you'd struggle to find a team out there that considers Harrington available.

Harrington's return to the Indiana Pacers via sign-and-trade with the Atlanta Hawks, according to various NBA front-office sources, is widely seen as a done deal.

Perhaps the strongest indication that a formal announcement is forthcoming from Indianapolis is the fact that the Pacers' main competition for Harrington is no longer courting the versatile forward.

The Golden State Warriors, sources said, have conceded defeat in the Harrington chase, fully expecting the 26-year-old to join the Pacers in a swap with Atlanta that would net Harrington a six-year contract worth just under $57 million.

It remains unclear who or what Atlanta would receive in the sign-and-trade arrangement, but the deal can be completed with the Hawks taking back recent or future draft picks -- or perhaps a moderately priced youngster like center David Harrison -- as opposed to significant salary.

That's because of a $7.5 million trade exception Indiana created earlier this month by striking a sign-and-trade deal with the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets involving Peja Stojakovic . . . after Stojakovic had already committed to sign a five-year, $60-plus million free-agent contract with the Hornets.

With a modest cash payment believed to be in the $250,000 range, Indiana convinced the Hornets to participate in a sign-and-trade swap for Stojakovic instead of signing him outright. The Pacers signed Stojakovic to the terms he and the Hornets negotiated and shipped the sharpshooter (plus cash) to New Orleans/Oklahoma City for the rights to 1998 second-round draft pick Andy Betts, who will likely never play for Indiana.

Without the $7.5 million trade exception resulting from that maneuver, Indiana wouldn't be able to complete a sign-and-trade for Harrington unless the Hawks were willing to take back contracts in the same monetary range as Harrington's new first-year salary.

Harrington's apparent willingness to start that new contract in the $7.5 million range, meanwhile, is expected to return him to the team that drafted the 6-9, 245-pounder in 1998 -- and has turned that trade exception into one of the most valuable assets of this NBA offseason.

Harrington, sources said, initially told interested suitors he was expecting a six-year deal worth at least $66 million. For the Pacers to pay that much, Atlanta almost certainly would have to be willing to accept a package built around Indiana center Jeff Foster. But Foster, by all indications, is not part of the forthcoming trade.

Indy's unforeseen trade exception gets Harrington fairly close to his financial target and the team he likes best. Better yet for the Pacers, their new Ron Artest replacement is regarded as a top-flight athlete who's capable of playing small forward and power forward.

When the free-agent period commenced July 1 and the Hornets secured a verbal commitment from Stojakovic within hours, it looked as though Indiana would lose its original Artest successor without compensation.

The Pacers have been busy on other fronts as well, according to sources, in hopes of reducing future salary obligations wherever possible as they prepare to absorb Harrington's big contract.



They first rescinded a qualifying offer to shooting guard Fred Jones, suddenly making Jones an unrestricted free agent, and he quickly reached an agreement to sign with Toronto Raptors.


Indiana also agreed over the weekend to trade point guard Anthony Johnson, who has two seasons left on his contract worth just over $5 million, for a package of three Dallas Mavericks that will likely be whittled to one. Veteran point guard Darrell Armstrong is the only Mav expected to stick with the Pacers after the deal goes through. Young forwards Josh Powell and Rawle Marshall are prime candidates to be waived.

The Pacers have also shopped Foster (who earns $5.5 million next season) and guard Sarunas Jasikevicius ($4 million) this summer and might proceed with plans to move one or both to gain additional distance from the luxury-tax threshold.

"Obviously, Indiana, I'm more comfortable there because I've been there, I've been in the East," Harrington told ESPN.com earlier this month at the Vegas Summer League, making it clear then that he expected to wind up with either the Pacers or the Warriors.

"Going into free agency, obviously you think, 'I'm going to be at the bottom of the screen [on ESPN's Bottom Line ticker] like Ben Wallace and the rest of the guys.' But everyone's telling me to be patient, so that's what I'm trying to do."

Marc Stein is the senior NBA writer for ESPN.com. To e-mail him, click here.

ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=2528093)

Looks like the number is 6 years 57 mil.

I think I guessed 6 years 58,, pretty darn close...

Stein is also doing a live chat today at 1pm ET

D-BONE
07-24-2006, 09:47 AM
Stein's explanation of salary cutting maneuvers to absorb Al's contract in our two most recent departures make me think we will be conservative in seeking any new acquisitions once Al is in the fold.

blanket
07-24-2006, 09:49 AM
a couple things stand out:


With a modest cash payment believed to be in the $250,000 range, Indiana convinced the Hornets to participate in a sign-and-trade swap for Stojakovic instead of signing him outright.

considering it could've been up to $3M, that's doing pretty good.


Harrington, sources said, initially told interested suitors he was expecting a six-year deal worth at least $66 million.

I think 6/$57M is more in range with Al's talent.


Atlanta almost certainly would have to be willing to accept a package built around Indiana center Jeff Foster. But Foster, by all indications, is not part of the forthcoming trade.

:pray:


The Pacers have been busy on other fronts as well, according to sources, in hopes of reducing future salary obligations wherever possible as they prepare to absorb Harrington's big contract.

This must be the impetus of the AJ trade and the loss of Freddie. I just wish we could've gotten at least a draft pick out of one of those two. :grumble:


he Pacers have also shopped Foster (who earns $5.5 million next season) and guard Sarunas Jasikevicius ($4 million) this summer and might proceed with plans to move one or both to gain additional distance from the luxury-tax threshold.

...expect more moves

justnhlsmok
07-24-2006, 09:50 AM
Great news. Thanks for the article.

:woot:

Can't wait until Al signs on the dotted line.

I actually thinking we're not done dealin' either.

:gopacers:

RSmits
07-24-2006, 09:51 AM
That is such a poorly written article. At certain points, it looks like he is under the mistaken impression that the 7.5M trade exception can be packaged with other players, at others he seems to understand it cannot.

It seems more and more like the Pacers are in salary shredding mode and not necessarily rebuilding mode.

btowncolt
07-24-2006, 09:54 AM
It seems more and more like the Pacers are in salary shredding mode and not necessarily rebuilding mode.

If executed correctly, those two can be one in the same.

The Simons have given no directive to dump salary. But Walsh and Bird understand that there's no reason to have the 4th highest payroll in the league when you have a crappy roster. If you're trying to rebuild, you might as well reduce your future salary obligations to players you don't consider vital as much as possible.

RWB
07-24-2006, 09:56 AM
[B]The Pacers have also shopped Foster (who earns $5.5 million next season) and guard Sarunas Jasikevicius ($4 million) this summer and might proceed with plans to move one or both to gain additional distance from the luxury-tax threshold.
ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?id=2528093)

As others have posted in threads "we better not be looking just to dump salary". :mad:

Kegboy
07-24-2006, 10:03 AM
If executed correctly, those two can be one in the same.

The Simons have given no directive to dump salary. But Walsh and Bird understand that there's no reason to have the 4th highest payroll in the league when you have a crappy roster. If you're trying to rebuild, you might as well reduce your future salary obligations to players you don't consider vital as much as possible.

We were #4, we're now #13 if you count Bender, #20 if you don't. If we do trade Al for nothing, his salary will be about the same as Bender's, so again, #13.

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

Maybe this is all Grace and I's fault for thumbing our noses at that 60% ticket increase. :sorry2:

Unclebuck
07-24-2006, 10:04 AM
I was so happy when I read that Foster won't be part of the deal for Al, but then my heart sank again when I read they still might shop him.

FSU-IU
07-24-2006, 10:04 AM
"Going into free agency, obviously you think, 'I'm going to be at the bottom of the screen [on ESPN's Bottom Line ticker] like Ben Wallace and the rest of the guys.' But everyone's telling me to be patient, so that's what I'm trying to do."

Does this quote - which has made its way into several articles, bother anyone? Does it fit into the "stat-stuffer" mentality group?

btowncolt
07-24-2006, 10:05 AM
We were #4, we're now #13 if you count Bender, #20 if you don't. If we do trade Al for nothing, his salary will be about the same as Bender's, so again, #13.

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

Maybe this is all Grace and I's fault for thumbing our noses at that 60% ticket increase. :sorry2:

We all finally get to see what rebuilding is like. Yippee.


I can accept this. 35 wins seasons don't bother me if the team seems to have some sort of direction and the players we have show up and play hard.

Chauncey
07-24-2006, 10:08 AM
6/57 is a long time to be on the hook for someone...

rexnom
07-24-2006, 10:10 AM
6/57 is a long time to be on the hook for someone...
Yeah, but it's ages 26-32...aka Al's prime, so I'm not too worried.

MSA2CF
07-24-2006, 10:11 AM
6 years for 66 million? :noooo:

bulletproof
07-24-2006, 10:16 AM
We all finally get to see what rebuilding is like. Yippee.

I can accept this. 35 wins seasons don't bother me if the team seems to have some sort of direction and the players we have show up and play hard.

If we win 35 games or less next season, I'll fly to DC and buy you dinner.

------------------------

This doesn't sound like a front office that's "confused" to me:


That's because of a $7.5 million trade exception Indiana created earlier this month by striking a sign-and-trade deal with the New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets involving Peja Stojakovic . . . after Stojakovic had already committed to sign a five-year, $60-plus million free-agent contract with the Hornets.

With a modest cash payment believed to be in the $250,000 range, Indiana convinced the Hornets to participate in a sign-and-trade swap for Stojakovic instead of signing him outright. The Pacers signed Stojakovic to the terms he and the Hornets negotiated and shipped the sharpshooter (plus cash) to New Orleans/Oklahoma City for the rights to 1998 second-round draft pick Andy Betts, who will likely never play for Indiana.

Without the $7.5 million trade exception resulting from that maneuver, Indiana wouldn't be able to complete a sign-and-trade for Harrington unless the Hawks were willing to take back contracts in the same monetary range as Harrington's new first-year salary.

rexnom
07-24-2006, 10:17 AM
Did Peja just get more money than Al Harrington? Wow.

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 10:18 AM
We all finally get to see what rebuilding is like. Yippee.


I can accept this. 35 wins seasons don't bother me if the team seems to have some sort of direction and the players we have show up and play hard.

Yes no doubt. I have heard a few local media types indicate that the Pacers were intent on not paying the Luxury Tax, and too look for a few cost cutting moves.

In that DW interview, he did indicate they are not going to mortgage their immediate future, as in unlike the last few years where is it was the going for broke , all in, this year mentality . To paraphrase he wants to assure that if a player via FA or Trade comes along this season or next , that they are financially mobile enough to aquire said player.

btowncolt
07-24-2006, 10:18 AM
If we win 35 games or less next season, I'll fly to DC and buy you dinner.

Pretty good odds. Only a 1-in-82 chance it happens.

I'll be in Boston, though. I'll find a good place to go.

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 10:21 AM
Did Peja just get more money than Al Harrington? Wow.

Why are you surprised? If they were not going to pay Peja that money, why would they turn around and pay Harrington instead. I think the Pacers , factoring what some FA's are getting, got a pretty reasonable deal.

So I guess it just hit me the 57 million dollar figure that Stein refers to is exactly the TE x 6 years.

Gyron
07-24-2006, 10:31 AM
Anthony's pier four btown.

Their lobster and pop-overs rule.

rexnom
07-24-2006, 10:37 AM
Why are you surprised? If they were not going to pay Peja that money, why would they turn around and pay Harrington instead. I think the Pacers , factoring what some FA's are getting, got a pretty reasonable deal.

So I guess it just hit me the 57 million dollar figure that Stein refers to is exactly the TE x 6 years.
57 mil is very reasonable for Al. AND he is younger and has more potential than Peja. Good deal. I'm just surprised we were able to get such a deal.

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 10:37 AM
As others have posted in threads "we better not be looking just to dump salary". :mad:

Not sure what people are basing this on. The goal of this trade seems to be getting a guy that's gonna make $8-11 million per over the next 6 years for nothing. Seems to me, we have no problem taking on salary if it's attached to the proper talent.

With the addition of Al (assuming $7.5 million in the first year), our payroll will be just about $59. Let's just assume $1 for Armstrong, so it's an even $60.

That leaves us $5 million shy of the luxury tax, a number I'm assuming the Simons really want to avoid going over. Plus we still have the MLE to use, and apparently we have other plans for that last $5 million than Fred Jones.

And remember, we also need to offer Danny an extension after this year, presumably. And even if we just pick up the option on his rookie deal rather than extending him first, I still believe Bird and Company realize that Danny's part of the long-term plans here and will soon be making a big chunk of change.

So, now is a good time to start shaving off the little $2-4 million expendable parts that aren't going to have an impact down the line (aka, AJ, Freddie, and possilby Sarunas).

Unclebuck
07-24-2006, 10:44 AM
OK, so who would rather have Peja instead of Al. The money is in the same range. Peja is old for his age, basketball wise.

Al has played a ton of very hard minutes the past two seasons (although no playoff games).

I'd rather have Al, then Peja

sweabs
07-24-2006, 10:48 AM
OK, so who would rather have Peja instead of Al. The money is in the same range. Peja is old for his age, basketball wise.

Al has played a ton of very hard minutes the past two seasons (although no playoff games).

I'd rather have Al, then Peja

Right; although neither of them fit particularly well with the team in my opinion. If Peja had stayed, I'd be upset that we locked up a guy at his age and limited skill-set to play at a position that should be Danny's for the future.

As for Al, at least he can kind of play the 4, while at the same time JO can kind of play the 5. None of that is ideal...but it's better than the Peja alternative in my opinion.

If all we had to choose from was those 2 options, then I'm glad we went with Al. But it still doesn't thrill me. I'm going to have to wait and see if JO can all of a sudden play the 5-spot without taking a physical beating and also look to see if we will ever get a rebound first before I make any final judgement.

purdue101
07-24-2006, 10:50 AM
probably harrington, he's younger, less injury prone, and can play both forward positions, which will allow DG to get his 30 mins a night.

if we don't get another shooter this offseason i may have to side with peja though. i am really concerned with our outside range as we stand now.

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 10:55 AM
Right; although neither of them fit particularly well with the team in my opinion. If Peja had stayed, I'd be upset that we locked up a guy at his age and limited skill-set to play at a position that should be Danny's for the future.

As for Al, at least he can kind of play the 4, while at the same time JO can kind of play the 5. None of that is ideal...but it's better than the Peja alternative in my opinion.

If all we had to choose from was those 2 options, then I'm glad we went with Al. But it still doesn't thrill me. I'm going to have to wait and see if JO can all of a sudden play the 5-spot without taking a physical beating and also look to see if we will ever get a rebound first before I make any final judgement.

I understand people's concerns with how Al will fit in from an on-court perspective. But there is rarely a situation where you can get such talent at such a low price tag (both from a talent standpoint and in giving next to nothng).

I keep hearing people bring up the fact that if it doesn't work out we can always move JO. But it's important to note that we can also shop Al if Bird doesn't like what he sees on the court. If Al's taking a "discount" to play and will only make $7.5 in his first year and his contract only runs until he's 32 years old, he will be a very tradable commodity as well, assuming his production stays the same. It's not out of the question that some other GM would take an Al/Foster/draft pick package for a legit "B-level" star player.

Getting a 26-year-old, versatile, athletic scorer who wants to be on this team for under market value is an offer you can't refuse, IMO.

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 10:56 AM
Considering Al is younger and more athletic , fits somewhat better into this offense I choose Al.

Not to mention we basically signed him for 7 million less overall and saved around 3.3 mil on average per season, and yet still managed to lock him up for one more year than Peja, no question it's Harrington for me.

Sure we need a shooter but now with the savings we may be able to snag both.

Doug in CO
07-24-2006, 10:57 AM
OK, so who would rather have Peja instead of Al. The money is in the same range. Peja is old for his age, basketball wise.

Al has played a ton of very hard minutes the past two seasons (although no playoff games).

I'd rather have Al, then Peja

Al

But no Peja leaves a void in 3 point shooting

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 11:01 AM
Al

But no Peja leaves a void in 3 point shooting

Wouldn't worry about 3-pt shooting all that much. It's not like we're gonna lose a title next year because of that deficiency or anything. Shooters really aren't all that expensive compared to players with Al's ability. Of course, we're not gonna be able to get someone that can shoot like Peja (best in the NBA, IMO) but it wouldn't be that difficult to trade for a Kyle Korver or Charlie Bell type.

kshay
07-24-2006, 11:13 AM
Right on the money at 6/57 million =). (To be honest, it was just a guess, nothing special).

http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=432296&postcount=5

But anyways, I am excited that we apparently managed to snag Al, and am looking forward to see what Carlisle can do with the players DW and LB get him.

blanket
07-24-2006, 11:14 AM
from hawksquawk board:
http://www.hawksquawk.net/forums/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=158193&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1


Only getting the exception per 680

Pacers Beat Writer was on 680 this morning and believed that the trade was for the mid level exception. The guy stated that his sources are telling him that Hawks want to keep down payroll and were not looking acquire any players back in the SNT. The beat writer did not mention any first round picks. He stated that there is a deal but Billy is dragging his feet on signing the paper.

I hope Billy kills this SNT and hold out for a first round pick and Harrison. We can not give Al up for cash unless we are going to acquire AI.


I think he means the Traded Player Exception instead of the Midlevel Exception. This falls in line with what we've been hearing elsewhere. In order to use the TPE, we have to give back something else with it (player, current/future draft pick, $), so I hope it's more in line with $, or rights to Lorbek or Betts, or at most a future 1st.

Trader Joe
07-24-2006, 11:16 AM
If it is only the TE for Al I will strip naked and dance in the streets.

rexnom
07-24-2006, 11:20 AM
Well, we have to trade them something. If we are lucky it's a future second. About fair would be future protected 1st. Unlucky would be unprotected 1st for next year. Although I still like this deal for us, even if we are unlucky.

p.s. still can't believe both Stein and Hawks fan think we'll give up Harrison.

Alabama-Redneck
07-24-2006, 11:31 AM
Pretty good odds. Only a 1-in-82 chance it happens.

I'll be in Boston, though. I'll find a good place to go.

Try Backstreet, it is really good and not too expensive.

Pier 4 is excellent but pricey.

:cool:

rexnom
07-24-2006, 11:49 AM
Try Backstreet, it is really good and not too expensive.

Pier 4 is excellent but pricey.

:cool:
I know Anthony's Pier 4 but where is Backstreet and what kind of food do they have?

ARTESTINMYHEART
07-24-2006, 11:53 AM
I hope we get AL! IT will be like the old days when we were competing for a championship...nothing to knock off Jack...just lotta of ish has been going on last couple of seasons.

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 12:06 PM
Well, we have to trade them something. If we are lucky it's a future second. About fair would be future protected 1st. Unlucky would be unprotected 1st for next year. Although I still like this deal for us, even if we are unlucky.

p.s. still can't believe both Stein and Hawks fan think we'll give up Harrison.

Of course I would rather us not give up a 1st but if we have to , I would rather it be a protected 2008 pick for numerous reasons.

grace
07-24-2006, 12:46 PM
Maybe this is all Grace and I's fault for thumbing our noses at that 60% ticket increase. :sorry2:

I'm not taking the blame for this.

CableKC
07-24-2006, 01:45 PM
The Pacers have also shopped Foster (who earns $5.5 million next season) and guard Sarunas Jasikevicius ($4 million) this summer and might proceed with plans to move one or both to gain additional distance from the luxury-tax threshold.

Why am I not surprised by this comment?

I could see why we would possibly shop Sarunas......since we have enough PGs on our roster to fill the starting lineup in the NBDL.....but Foster?

Regardless of how much he may be breaking down and how offensively decifient he is.....he's the arguably the 2nd best Center that we have that does the one thing that we are lacking in.....rebounding and at least some competant defense against other Big Men.

I know that Harrington is going to cost us....but I would much rather keep Foster.......trade SJax for the nearest Expiring Contract and pay however much Luxury Tax it costs to keep Foster. I know its easier for me to say that since its not my money....or even that this is speculation from Stein about moving Foster to stay underneath the luxury tax.....but if we have to move a player to get under the Luxury Tax....then we should move one at a position that we have some depth at...the PG, SG or SF positions....not the one position that we lack the most depth at.....PF or C.

Hicks
07-24-2006, 01:55 PM
I'm getting slightly tired of reading that Billy K is dragging his feet. I've read multiple times that he makes Walsh look like the roadrunner when it comes to completing deals, and it's wearing thin with me. The deal is obviously more or less agreed to, I've heard it from way too many places to think otherwise, yet here sits Billy, making everyone wait needlessly.

Bah.

Doug in CO
07-24-2006, 02:05 PM
I'm getting slightly tired of reading that Billy K is dragging his feet. I've read multiple times that he makes Walsh look like the roadrunner when it comes to completing deals, and it's wearing thin with me. The deal is obviously more or less agreed to, I've heard it from way too many places to think otherwise, yet here sits Billy, making everyone wait needlessly.

Bah.

Maybe he is holding out for NBA Authentic versions of his old jersey - and we will only give him 5

Naptown_Seth
07-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Let's keep in mind that the Hawks board source (via a radio interview) is just Wells (or maybe Montieth). Zero new information I think.


Also Stien clarified in his chat that he was only using Harrison as an example of just how little in SALARY the Pacers would give up. And for the record they don't have to trade anything. It wouldn't be Harrison for Al legally. You can't do that.

It would be 2 different deals. Al slides into the TE slot for nothing if the Hawks want. If it was Harrison for Al only, then this is exactly what they would be doing, trading Harrington for nothing, and then the Pacers would trade Harrison for nothing.

If there must be something involved it could sincerely be $10k

This is the point Stien was trying to make. Harrison stays, Granger stays. Maybe a pick goes, maybe just cash. Everyone keeps ignoring Atlanta's ownership issues. Anything they get for Al is better than the nothing they are going to get, even if its just $200k or something.

Their fans are in denial about the situation.


BTW, regarding foot dragging. Have you noticed no news about the official introduction of Armstrong with the Pacers? Has me thinking that it is waiting on the Al deal because some portion of it affects what goes to Atlanta.

Bball
07-24-2006, 02:36 PM
BTW, regarding foot dragging. Have you noticed no news about the official introduction of Armstrong with the Pacers? Has me thinking that it is waiting on the Al deal because some portion of it affects what goes to Atlanta.

From today's Pacer Insider Breaking News:

Pacers Acquire Three From Dallas For Johnson

xxxx,

The Pacers announced they have acquired guard Darrell Armstrong, swingman Rawle Marshall and forward Josh Powell from the Dallas Mavericks in exchange for point guard Anthony Johnson.

-Bball

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 02:43 PM
Also there was write up today on Pacers. Com I just realized though Bird did make some comments on the trade


“Darrell Armstrong is a good fit, a solid professional, a great guy in the locker room and someone who brings a lot of energy to a team,” said Pacers President of Basketball Operations Larry Bird.

“Both Powell and Marshall are young and talented players who possibly can help us and we’re excited to take a look at them. Their experience with a championship-caliber team like Dallas last season gives them the mentality of what it takes to win at the highest level."

Looks like they may keep them for now and see how they do in camp, perhaps

JayRedd
07-24-2006, 02:44 PM
I know that Harrington is going to cost us....but I would much rather keep Foster.......trade SJax for the nearest Expiring Contract and pay however much Luxury Tax it costs to keep Foster. I know its easier for me to say that since its not my money....or even that this is speculation from Stein about moving Foster to stay underneath the luxury tax.....but if we have to move a player to get under the Luxury Tax....then we should move one at a position that we have some depth at...the PG, SG or SF positions....not the one position that we lack the most depth at.....PF or C.

From everything I've read, the Simons will not pay luxury tax this season.

Seeing us make a move like the AJ trade only solidifies this belief to me. Essentially, we made a slight downgrade in our PG depth to save $1.5 million. If we're making moves like that in which there seems to be little to no "on-court" ramifications, I think it's obviously we're trying to shave every unneccesary penny off our payroll in order to maximize what little flexibility left.

And unfortunately for many of you that really like Foster on this team, his contract may be the next to go. Especially if it gives Bird/Walsh the ability to make one last acquistion for a player they have their eyes on.

Simply put, Foster is somewhat of a valuable commodity to other GMs in this League. Jackson and Tinsley are not.

Hicks
07-24-2006, 02:48 PM
Dumping anyone else for salary, especially a player as good as Jeff, would be a mistake IMO. I'd hate that.

rel
07-24-2006, 03:07 PM
Good God...Make it OFFICIAL already

Shade
07-24-2006, 03:07 PM
So, we're possibly gonna run a PG rotation of Tins, Armstrong, Greene, & Snap? :wtf:

Anthem
07-24-2006, 03:21 PM
57 mil is very reasonable for Al. AND he is younger and has more potential than Peja. Good deal. I'm just surprised we were able to get such a deal.
I agree. That appears to work out to:

7,600,000
8,398,000
9,196,000
9,994,000
10,792,000
11,590,000
= $ 57,570,000 total

So he's getting a 6-year contract starting at 7.6mil per year. I'm fine with that.
----------------------------------------------------------

From everything I've read, the Simons will not pay luxury tax this season.
You're right, they won't.

Even with the aquisition of Al, they are in ZERO danger of paying the tax, even if we hold on to Foster.

vapacersfan
07-24-2006, 04:45 PM
If we win 35 games or less next season, I'll fly to DC and buy you dinner.

------------------------

This doesn't sound like a front office that's "confused" to me:

He wont be staying in DC after next month, but if you want to make a slight detour (about 25 minutes from his house) and come buy me a dinner, I wont complain at all.
----------------------------------------------------------
I really do wonder what is holding this deal up.

Is it something on our end, is it something on Atlanta's end?.....

Hicks
07-24-2006, 04:48 PM
It's more than likely Billy Knight being a turtle's grandmother.

rexnom
07-24-2006, 04:57 PM
It's more than likely Billy Knight being a turtle's grandmother.
:laugh:
Nice. Good that we've all stayed classy here.

But seriously, slow and steady wins the race!

Rockets
07-24-2006, 04:59 PM
Word around Houston is that the Rockets are open to a deal of thier trade exception for Sarunas. However, Houston's comments were that they are probably not going to deal their 4.2 mil trade exception till the deadline, which I find more believable.

But TE for Sarunas could be something to talk about.

The Hustler
07-24-2006, 05:03 PM
If thats september talk the we could find ourselves with one 3,4,5,6 team trade including execeptions players etc ... certainly interesting .... but if its happening last minute for us to go ofr it we ahve to be certain we can use the Trade Exception!

Will Galen
07-24-2006, 05:08 PM
So, we're possibly gonna run a PG rotation of Tins, Armstrong, Greene, & Snap? :wtf:

Al will be our 15th player if we don't trade any players for him. Thus there are not enough roster spots for Snap.

CableKC
07-24-2006, 05:18 PM
From everything I've read, the Simons will not pay luxury tax this season.

Seeing us make a move like the AJ trade only solidifies this belief to me. Essentially, we made a slight downgrade in our PG depth to save $1.5 million. If we're making moves like that in which there seems to be little to no "on-court" ramifications, I think it's obviously we're trying to shave every unneccesary penny off our payroll in order to maximize what little flexibility left.

And unfortunately for many of you that really like Foster on this team, his contract may be the next to go. Especially if it gives Bird/Walsh the ability to make one last acquistion for a player they have their eyes on.

What player would that be considering that we now have the greatest need for depth at the PG and Center positions? The answer is that there is no one that we can get that would make any difference ( unless DreMiller somehow becomes more expendable with some Nuggets-Iverson trade ).


Simply put, Foster is somewhat of a valuable commodity to other GMs in this League. Jackson and Tinsley are not.

I can see that there is a need to be below the Luxury Tax. I understand that Foster has more value and therefore can be more easily moved...but I think the same can be said...to a lesser degree for SJax...its just a matter of what we are willing to take back. Frankly...if Foster is moved to get below that threshold...I wouldn't be surprised for the very reason that you suggest....because I still am of the belief that the Simon's will allow Walsh/Bird to go as far as the Luxury Tax and no further when it comes to making offseason moves.

If the Simon's want to get under the Luxury tax and still stay somewhat competitive......move SJax for as many expiring the most expiring contracts and filler to do it. I don't even care if its a downgrade in talent...cuz the second that we move Foster for whatever we can get....we will be inching towards an older...but slightly better....version of the Hawks. We'll have an injury prone starting PG...and okay backup PG.....with a platoon of interchangeable SG/SF with the only decent Big Men that we have is JONeal and Harrington.

I would think that if the Pacers had to pay the Luxury tax....it would be because we are keeping players that are keeping us competitive.

BTW.....this is not because I want to get rid of SJax cuz I would prefer to move him ( that's just a side benefit ), it is because if we have to move a player for Luxury Tax purposes.....we should move a player that plays a position that we have some depth at.....the SG/SF positions.....not a player that plays the only position that we really need help at.

Lord Helmet
07-24-2006, 05:18 PM
Hurry your *** up, Knight.

Trader Joe
07-24-2006, 05:26 PM
Guy we are now under the cap here is a link to realgm where it is fully explained frankly I only understand the basic gist but essentially current we are under the cap by about 1 million and if we cut Marshall and Powell we will be two million under. I guess the theory behind this was we were getting prepard to take evasive maneuvers to get Al. Possibly shipping Foster, Jack or Tins to charlotte for a second round pick then we would be 7 to 8 million under the cap and could sign Al outright.

Like I say heres the link where it is explained better:
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=549493&sid=79a1f9300eff19a30ed51b39e0987544
----------------------------------------------------------
well apparently this stuff isnt accurate as thought, but who knows I guess you can take for what you will.

Anthem
07-24-2006, 05:27 PM
Al will be our 15th player if we don't trade any players for him. Thus there are not enough roster spots for Snap.
Assuming no more moves:

JO - Hulk -
Al - Foster - Powell
Granger - Williams - Marshall
Daniels - Jack - White
Tinsley - Sarunas - Greene - Snap

So Snap can have the 15th spot.

Who am I missing?

Frank Slade
07-24-2006, 05:27 PM
Guy we are now under the cap here is a link to realgm where it is fully explained frankly I only understand the basic gist but essentially current we are under the cap by about 1 million and if we cut Marshall and Powell we will be two million under. I guess the theory behind this was we were getting prepard to take evasive maneuvers to get Al. Possibly shipping Foster, Jack or Tins to charlotte for a second round pick then we would be 7 to 8 million under the cap and could sign Al outright.

Like I say heres the link where it is explained better:
http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=549493&sid=79a1f9300eff19a30ed51b39e0987544


Sorry .I don't think this is correct. You first have to start out factoring in you exceptions against the cap. If you still under then you can spend that amount, but lose your exceptions.

sweabs
07-24-2006, 05:29 PM
Assuming no more moves:

JO - Hulk -
Al - Foster - Powell
Granger - Williams - Marshall
Daniels - Jack - White
Tinsley - Sarunas - Greene - Snap

So Snap can have the 15th spot.

Who am I missing?

Instead of Snap, that should be Darrell Armstrong.

Anthem
07-24-2006, 08:54 PM
Instead of Snap, that should be Darrell Armstrong.
Ah, that's right.

Still, Powell, Marshall, and Greene all have non-guaranteed contracts, so all Snap has to do is outplay one of them.

Naptown_Seth
07-25-2006, 01:44 AM
I agree Anthem. Not only that, but let's look at that Bird quote again.

Both Powell and Marshall are young and talented players who possibly can help us and we’re excited to take a look at them

who POSSIBLY can help
take a look at them

ie, they ain't making the roster unless they earn it. The MLE is still here and that can bring in a better player than either of them. As Anthem says, Snap could outplay them, or even Coppenrath, in training camp.


I strongly feel that neither are part of the team's plan.

JO - Hulk - Pollard
Al - Foster
Granger - Williams
Daniels - Jack - White
Tinsley - Sarunas - Armstrong - Greene

and add a player by need with the MLE. No lux tax, 15 guys. Greene will have to beat out Snap, which I suspect he will.

haloguy
07-25-2006, 01:24 PM
was it worth it?
Now he have 4 forwards. we shouldnt have drafted that sf, we shouldve drafted a pg or a sg. this sucks

Since86
07-25-2006, 01:32 PM
was it worth it?
Now he have 4 forwards. we shouldnt have drafted that sf, we shouldve drafted a pg or a sg. this sucks

Umm.....if we drafted a pg, there would be 4pgs too.

Tins, Saras, Greene, (insert drafted players name here)

The offseason isn't close to being over. Other changes will be made.

PacerFan31
07-25-2006, 01:33 PM
^not including Armstrong

Since86
07-25-2006, 01:39 PM
AJ was a salary dump. I'm not buying this bad lockerroom presence.

Armstrong won't play but limited minutes as the 2nd, maybe even 3rd, PG backup.

I say it's just a salary dump, because DA not only makes the vet min., the other two packaged in the deal have non-guarunteed contracts. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to trade non-guarunteed contract players, unless the other team is wanting them, because they can just be dumped free of charge.

EDIT: Oops, forgot the reason I was replying......

I didn't include Armstrong, because he's going to be on the inactive list for most of the season, IMHO.

Shade
07-25-2006, 01:47 PM
The AJ trade just looks worse and worse. I find it hard to believe we couldn't have gotten more for him than we did. Just awful.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 01:52 PM
The AJ trade just looks worse and worse. I find it hard to believe we couldn't have gotten more for him than we did. Just awful.


If you're trading -just- AJ, it's going to be hard to get much more than scrubs back for him, since he makes so little. And no team is going to give up a first for him. Now, maybe we could have gotten a second from somebody.... but a loss of one potential second round pick isn't huge.

Since86
07-25-2006, 02:01 PM
The AJ trade just looks worse and worse. I find it hard to believe we couldn't have gotten more for him than we did. Just awful.

What player are you going to get back that would make an impact on the roster?

We need a good SG, but AJ's salary isn't high enough to get a "good" SG in return.

Complaining is the easy part. Finding a solution is harder.

Shade
07-25-2006, 02:05 PM
If you're trading -just- AJ, it's going to be hard to get much more than scrubs back for him, since he makes so little. And no team is going to give up a first for him. Now, maybe we could have gotten a second from somebody.... but a loss of one potential second round pick isn't huge.

Which is why we should have packaged him with another player for a new PG.
----------------------------------------------------------

What player are you going to get back that would make an impact on the roster?

We need a good SG, but AJ's salary isn't high enough to get a "good" SG in return.

Complaining is the easy part. Finding a solution is harder.

Jack + AJ for Dre.

Since86
07-25-2006, 02:10 PM
No one is going to touch Jackson.

SoupIsGood
07-25-2006, 02:14 PM
Which is why we should have packaged him with another player for a new PG.


Yeah but we obviously didn't want to do that, for whatever reason.

For just trading AJ and only AJ, this was about all you'd pull in.

IUColtPacerFan
07-25-2006, 02:20 PM
Is there still nothing? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

COME ON ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frank Slade
07-25-2006, 02:24 PM
No real update at all . I did find this from AJC (http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/hawks/entries/2006/07/24/bet_on_jj_makin.html).com , this was updated yesterday afternoon.

By Sekou Smith | Monday, July 24, 2006, 03:55 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution


It’s mind boggling to me that we’re entering the final week of July and there’s still no deal done on this Al Harrington sign-and-trade. But here we are, watching and waiting for the agreement to be completed.

As I discussed here last week, Indiana is the destination. But the details are still being worked out.

I saw Hawks GM Billy Knight several times over the course of the weekend here in Las Vegas and asked what the hold up was and when he felt like something would be done. He told me that talks were ongoing and that when something was finalized, and only then, would he be ready to discuss it.

So, as of Monday afternoon, the deal has not been completed. When it is, the details will be available for you as soon as I can get them typed and posted on ajc.com.

FrenchConnection
07-25-2006, 02:27 PM
If the AJ trade was simply a salary dump, we could have traded him for three players we could have cut. ARMSTRONG WAS A SIGN AND TRADE. You are all talking about this as if we traded for him. DA was a free agent and could have gone to most teams in the league for that money, but he chose to come to Indiana for some reason. TPTB feel that he fills a need, and I believe that he was brought in to work with Tins. Kind of like an unofficial PG coach. FWIW, I think that Al will keep Jack in line. Al seems to be the kind of guy that other players listen to. Leadership has been lacking here and those two moves go a long way towards solving this problem.