PDA

View Full Version : Overpaid Pacers.



Roferr
05-15-2007, 02:38 PM
There has been a lot of banter about how Dun and Murph are overpaid. True, Murph knocks down some pretty good cash for his output. However, if you put it into perspective, JO is more overpaid then these two.

This past season JO made $18.084 million, Murhpy-8.285 and Dun- 7.438. That figures out that JO made roughly 2.2 times more than Murph and 2.4 times as much as Dun. However his numbers weren't 2.2 or 2.4 times better.

The only number that exceeds the ratio is blocks. JO's numbers:

PPG....19.4---1.39 times more than Dun (14.0), Murphy (11.1)--1.75 times more.

Rebounds......9.6---1.68 times more than Dun (5.7), Murphy (6.1)--1.57 times more.

Assists....JO-2.0.....0.77 times as much as Dun (2.6), Murphy (1.6) 1.25 times more.

Dun had 1.1 steals versus JO's .7 and Murphy's --0.6.

JO had 2.9 turnovers, Dun 1.8 and Murphy 1.2.

Blocks is the only stat that JO exceeds Murph and Dun in output compared to salary.

So, if you want to use raw output, JO is vastly more overpaid than Murphy or Dun.

Everything is relative and compared to JO's salary Murph and Dun are steals. There are overpaid players on almost every roster so the Pacers aren't unique in that department.

I could go the other route and show what JO's numbers should have been if you took them and multiplied by 2.2 (Murph) and 2.4 (Dun). They would be consistently higher than what his numbers actually were.

I've just heard too much junk about how overpaid those two guys are, when in reality they are not.

Alpolloloco
05-15-2007, 02:45 PM
All NBA players are overpaid but yes, JO is grossly overpaid. But what is the normal salary of a GOD?

Roferr
05-15-2007, 02:47 PM
All NBA players are overpaid but yes, JO is grossly overpaid. But what is the normal salary of a GOD?

I don't know but there's only one God that I believe in that should start with a capital "G". That's as deep as I intend to get with religion.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 02:52 PM
It's not a linear progression... there's no formula that says points are worth $3, rebounds $2.50, and you lost $.50 per turnover.

There are a lot of guys who can give you what Murphy gives you, and most make less than him. That's what makes him underpaid. There are only a few guys that give you what JO gives you, and all of them are max players. So JO's salary is par for the course for an elite big man, while Murphy's is high for a third-tier big man that can't defend. And don't even get me started on Dunleavy.

Ragnar
05-15-2007, 02:52 PM
This biggest flaw in your argument is that Jermaine is much more consistent and tends not to disappear in the 4th quarter or in important games like Murphyleavy.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 02:53 PM
This biggest flaw in your argument is that Jermaine is much more consistent and tends not to disappear in the 4th quarter or in important games like Murphyleavy.

JO is a big choke artist in the waning minutes of a tight game.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 02:55 PM
It's not a linear progression... there's no formula that says points are worth $3, rebounds $2.50, and you lost $.50 per turnover.

There are a lot of guys who can give you what Murphy gives you, and most make less than him. That's what makes him underpaid. There are only a few guys that give you what JO gives you, and all of them are max players. So JO's salary is par for the course for an elite big man, while Murphy's is high for a third-tier big man that can't defend. And don't even get me started on Dunleavy.

I'd have to do a little research to see what the average player makes with similar numbers as Dun and Murph. I don't know, but I'm betting you'd be very surprised.

Young
05-15-2007, 02:55 PM
Yes Jermaine is overpaid. But just because he makes 2.2 times Dunleavy or Murphy doesn't mean he is going to average 2.2 times the points. It's not all in stats.

Other big man around Jermaine's level, Elton Brand for instance, is making just 14 million. The difference is that when Jermaine and Elton signed their deals (in the same summer I believe) Brand had never led the Clippers to the playoffs. Jermaine had been to the playoffs and was still developing as a star.

Big man are always overpaid though. Nene got a 60 million dollar contract. Sammuel Dalembart got 50 million. Eric Dampier got 60 and Adonal Foyle got 40-50 I believe. So big man are always going to be overpaid if they are a star like Jermaine or a roleplayer like I just mentioned above.

You can come up with all the figures in the world, that isn't going to make Dunleavy or Murphy less overpaid than Jermaine. Part of the reason Dunleavy and Murphy put up the numbers that they do is because of Jermaine. Jermaine is somewhat overpaid but not to bad.

Lets put this simple. Jermaine would be by far easier to trade because not only is he better, but he is less overpaid.

avoidingtheclowns
05-15-2007, 02:57 PM
I don't know but there's only one God that I believe in that should start with a capital "G". That's as deep as I intend to get with religion.

Ginobili?

JayRedd
05-15-2007, 02:58 PM
I could go the other route and show what JO's numbers should have been if you took them and multiplied by 2.2 (Murph) and 2.4 (Dun). They would be consistently higher than what his numbers actually were.

That's just a ridiculous method of determining a players worth that has no analytic value aside from the fact that you just thought it up right now.

You overpay for high-level talent because there's a premium on it and that's the way the economics of the NBA work. When the Pacers had to re-sign Jermaine O'Neal, they had to offer more than his exact production would suggest he's worth because there were at least a dozen other teams ready to make him a max offer. The Pacers had to exceed that number if they wanted to keep their best player. So they did.

That's how it works...Supply and Demand...We needed our best player to stay on our team and the supply was 1 guy. So we paid a premium for that.

Was it the right decision? I don't know...that's a whole different debate. But the fact that his salary has increased each year, and he's gotten injured a lot, and he probably isn't quite as good as we hoped has nothing to do with trading for two overpaid role players who have a combined $88 million dollars left on their deals.

Dr. Goldfoot
05-15-2007, 03:19 PM
The best way to look at JO and his value is look at who else is making that kind of money. He sure gives the Pacers more than Houston is giving the Knicks, but at the same time his salary puts him in a class with KG, AI, Kobe, Duncan and Shaq. He doesn't belong in that class because he doesn't garner the same interest outside of the basketball circle as those guys do. People will put money down to go see AI and KG. The mere mention of the name Shaq or Kobe anywhere in the world automatically brings those two faces to mind. The same cannot be said of Jermaine O'Neal. His production and celebrity puts him more in line with Pierce, Carter and Brand or around 5-6 million dollars less per season.

The NBA is littered with studs and duds. Some make too much, some are just right and some are actually outperforming their salaries.

The Pacers problem is they have $30 million tied up in 4 bench/rotational players next season. Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, Marquis Daniels and Jeff Foster are bench players. They wouldn't unseat an incumbent if sent to another team. Although I won't agree, some of you will even include Jamaal Tinsley in that group. That just helps prove my point. The Pacers have more than half the salary cap # tied up in a few players who are each overpaid by a few million per season. That few million turns into a #2 option pretty quickly.

The Pacers enter the summer with eleven guaranteed contracts and a salary over 62 million. They don't have much room to even fill out the roster because they are overpaying role players.

RWB
05-15-2007, 03:23 PM
And don't even get me started on Dunleavy.


I must be blind because I wasn't disappointed in Dunleavy at all. Yes, Murphy gives me nightmares on what we're going to do with him, but Dunleavy showed me enough I expect he's going to be a good contributor to this team and will improve.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 03:29 PM
I must be blind because I wasn't disappointed in Dunleavy at all. Yes, Murphy gives me nightmares on what we're going to do with him, but Dunleavy showed me enough I expect he's going to be a good contributor to this team and will improve.
I expect the same. The difference, though, is that he is what he is: a backup SF playing SG. That's fine, and I appreciate his effort at playing a role outside his skillset. But there are a lot of guys making far less that would be much better for us as starting SGs, or for that matter as backup SFs.

Basically, Dunleavy is the most overpaid because there are so many quality wings in the NBA.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 03:37 PM
Other big man around Jermaine's level, Elton Brand for instance, is making just 14 million. The difference is that when Jermaine and Elton signed their deals (in the same summer I believe) Brand had never led the Clippers to the playoffs. Jermaine had been to the playoffs and was still developing as a star.
Nope. The difference is that Jermaine had 4 more years in the league. Elton got a max contract after his rookie contract, while Jermaine got one after his second contract. Both got as much as they could.

Dr. Goldfoot
05-15-2007, 03:37 PM
Basically, Dunleavy is the most overpaid because there are so many quality wings in the NBA.

Good Point. He's getting paid like Rip or Prince. There are a few other 2/3 guys making roughly the same as MDJ......Caron Butler, Mike Miller,Manu, Cuttino Mobley...who I'd rather have too.

Elgin56
05-15-2007, 03:44 PM
I expect the same. The difference, though, is that he is what he is: a backup SF playing SG. That's fine, and I appreciate his effort at playing a role outside his skillset. But there are a lot of guys making far less that would be much better for us as starting SGs, or for that matter as backup SFs.

Basically, Dunleavy is the most overpaid because there are so many quality wings in the NBA.



But there are a lot of guys making far less that would be much better for us as starting SGs, or for that matter as backup SFs.

OH really, who are they and what teams were lineing up to take Jack off our hands for these much better lesser paid players than Dun? Come on now, name me these "quality wings", that we could have acquired in

a trade that involved gettting rid of Jackson?

It is easy to make these statements on how we could have done so much better than Dun, but actually backing them up with names and teams who were willing to deal with us is a entirely different matter.

I am not trying to be bitter, but after seeing post after post about how we could have made a much better trade, my tolerance for these type of posts is very low.:)

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:03 PM
I'd have to do a little research to see what the average player makes with similar numbers as Dun and Murph. I don't know, but I'm betting you'd be very surprised.
Surprise me. Find me 3 wings in the NBA who produce more than Dunleavy but make less.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:06 PM
It is easy to make these statements on how we could have done so much better than Dun, but actually backing them up with names and teams who were willing to deal with us is a entirely different matter.

I am not trying to be bitter, but after seeing post after post about how we could have made a much better trade, my tolerance for these type of posts is very low.:)
This isn't about the trade. If TPTB says that's the best trade out there, so be it. I said at the time I was fine with the trade, providing that we make other moves to balance out our imbalanced roster. We didn't, and we see where we ended up.

This thread is about the correlation of pay and production... it has nothing to do with any past or future trade.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 04:06 PM
That's just a ridiculous method of determining a players worth that has no analytic value aside from the fact that you just thought it up right now.

You overpay for high-level talent because there's a premium on it and that's the way the economics of the NBA work. When the Pacers had to re-sign Jermaine O'Neal, they had to offer more than his exact production would suggest he's worth because there were at least a dozen other teams ready to make him a max offer. The Pacers had to exceed that number if they wanted to keep their best player. So they did.

That's how it works...Supply and Demand...We needed our best player to stay on our team and the supply was 1 guy. So we paid a premium for that.

Was it the right decision? I don't know...that's a whole different debate. But the fact that his salary has increased each year, and he's gotten injured a lot, and he probably isn't quite as good as we hoped has nothing to do with trading for two overpaid role players who have a combined $88 million dollars left on their deals.

What do you mean, that I just now thought it up? Who are you to tell me what I'm thinking?

I've thought for a long while now that JO is overpaid. Whenever a low-post player ranks 50th in the league in shooting pct. among forwards (and this doesn't even include centers), he is not worth over $18 million.

http://aol.nba.com/statistics/player/FieldGS.jsp?league=00&season=22006&conf=OVERALL&position=2&splitType=9&splitScope=GAME&qualified=Y&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=

I've never said much about him being overpaid until I've read uncountable posts on how terrible and overpaid Murph and Dun are.

He's tied for seventh as the most highly paid player in the NBA and his numbers don't nearly place him that high.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:08 PM
He's tied for seventh as the most highly paid player in the NBA and his numbers don't nearly place him that high.
Max is max, regardless of who's 100k over him or under him.

If we're looking at overpaid players on the Indy roster, JO's not at the top of that list. At worst, he's 5th (behind Daniels, Murphy, Tinsley, and Dunleavy, in that order).

Roferr
05-15-2007, 04:11 PM
Max is max, regardless of who's 100k over him or under him.

If we're looking at overpaid players on the Indy roster, JO's not at the top of that list. At worst, he's 5th (behind Daniels, Murphy, Tinsley, and Dunleavy, in that order).

Oh no, a 43.6% low post shooting pct is worth over 18 million. Man, you're talking about just barely a mediocre guard's pct.

Bball
05-15-2007, 04:11 PM
For the most part, I don't care what a player is paid. I'm not so sure why that becomes such a bone of contention around here. Especially when it is directed at the player(s). I'm more concerned with what a player brings to the court.

It's not like management is going to go out and acquire a big name FA even if we had some financial headroom. That's not Donnie Walsh's system. Any money we'd save would just go into PS&E as a whole (or 'hole' if you want to be sarcastic).

Mostly, overpayment should be a strike against management, not the player(s).

Yes, JO is overpaid but his production on the court for the role he's been given and/or demanded leaves a lot to be desired no matter his contract.

-Bball

d_c
05-15-2007, 04:13 PM
I'd have to do a little research to see what the average player makes with similar numbers as Dun and Murph. I don't know, but I'm betting you'd be very surprised.

Let me just interject into this argument and say that Warrior fans were very upset with Murphy, but not because he wasn't putting up numbers.

He did that very well for us. That wasn't his problem. Nobody was ever upset at his boxscore.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 04:29 PM
Another way of looking at JO's stats is that if he shot .520 from the field (15 forwards and centers shot that high), he would have scored 190 more pts or 2.75 for the 69 games he played. How many more wins would those almost 3 points a game provided? Maybe, enough to make the playoffs?

OakMoses
05-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Surprise me. Find me 3 wings in the NBA who produce more than Dunleavy but make less.

To be fair, I'm not including guys still on their rookie contracts. That leaves out a fair number of good wings. Here are a few who make less and out produce Dunleavy ($7.4 million).

Raja Bell ($4.5 million)
Jamal Crawford ($7.2 million)
Ricky Davis ($6.3 million)
Corey Magette ($7 million)
Shane Battier ($5.4 million)
Gerald Wallace ($5.5 million)
Stephen Jackson ($6.1 million)

All these guys put up similar numbers to Dunleavy and make less. I like Dunleavy and think that he can be a productive player on a good team, but of those seven guys, which ones wouldn't you trade Dun for straight up?

Elgin56
05-15-2007, 04:39 PM
This isn't about the trade. If TPTB says that's the best trade out there, so be it. I said at the time I was fine with the trade, providing that we make other moves to balance out our imbalanced roster. We didn't, and we see where we ended up.

This thread is about the correlation of pay and production... it has nothing to do with any past or future trade.

Yes the thread is, but the post that I replied to was all about how we could have done better than DUN. I think that the Pacers can be a decent team with the current roster and with a few a little fine tuneing could be very competitive.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:41 PM
Another way of looking at JO's stats is that if he shot .520 from the field (15 forwards and centers shot that high), he would have scored 190 more pts or 2.75 for the 69 games he played. How many more wins would those almost 3 points a game provided? Maybe, enough to make the playoffs?
Great gravy, man, give it up. Last year he shot .472, which isn't bad for a scoring big man. Jermaine's poor percentage this year is at least partially due to the way in which he was used, as well as the complete lack of support that he had from the rest of the team.

Shot percentage is something, but it's not everything. He also averaged just under 20-10, passed the ball well, blocked a ton of shots, and took more charges than anyone else on the team. I'm not saying he's perfect. I'm not even saying he's not a bit overpaid. But to find the one area where he's statistically poor and harp on that is straight up post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If I was to make a list of the top 10 things wrong with the current squad, Jermaine's shooting percentage wouldn't make the list (except as a symptom of dismal backcourt or our incredibly predictable style of play).

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:45 PM
Yes the thread is, but the post that I replied to was all about how we could have done better than DUN.
You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear. Either way, the post was not referring to the trade... I was talking about "better" in terms of "more bang for the buck." I mean, if it's about "better" that we actually have a chance of getting, then this entire conversation is even more stupid. Because yes, Jermaine isn't as good as Kevin Garnett, but then we've never had a shot at Garnett. He's about as good as Tim Duncan, but we never had a shot at Duncan either.

He is what he is: the best big man available to the Pacers. And he wants to be here and isn't a head case. That puts him pretty low on the list of Pacers we should be trying to move.

ChicagoJ
05-15-2007, 04:45 PM
To be fair, I'm not including guys still on their rookie contracts. That leaves out a fair number of good wings. Here are a few who make less and out produce Dunleavy ($7.4 million).

Raja Bell ($4.5 million)
Jamal Crawford ($7.2 million)
Ricky Davis ($6.3 million)
Corey Magette ($7 million)
Shane Battier ($5.4 million)
Gerald Wallace ($5.5 million)
Stephen Jackson ($6.1 million)

All these guys put up similar numbers to Dunleavy and make less. I like Dunleavy and think that he can be a productive player on a good team, but of those seven guys, which ones wouldn't you trade Dun for straight up?

Battier is the only one I'd take.

Bell is thriving in his system, but I don't think he'll produce like that anywhere else. Crawford, R. Davis and SJax have baggage that is reflected in those "low" numbers. Magette has injury "baggage" as well.

That's a very flawed list. Look, Dunleavy should never have been the #3 pick or whatever he was, he's just not going to take over the league. But if you throw out the salary, you can see that he's a fine player - just not as good as the inflated press clippings said he'd be.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Right now there are 16 users reading this thread, but almost nobody's talking.

I'm betting that half are googling "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

Anthem
05-15-2007, 04:49 PM
Look, Dunleavy should never have been the #3 pick or whatever he was, he's just not going to take over the league. But if you throw out the salary, you can see that he's a fine player - just not as good as the inflated press clippings said he'd be.
I agree with that, absolutely.

I'm just saying that if you're making a list of overpaid Pacers, Jermaine's not at the top. Neither is Dunleavy, for that matter.

avoidingtheclowns
05-15-2007, 04:51 PM
battier, wallace and bell i'd trade for in a heartbeat. the jamaal and magette i'd consider. davis and jackson no way.


i disagree about bell not being worth it jay. he had a nice season in utah before he got to the suns (EDIT) . i think his scoring numbers may go down away from the suns but his energy and defense aren't a result of the system.

avoidingtheclowns
05-15-2007, 04:52 PM
Right now there are 16 users reading this thread, but almost nobody's talking.

I'm betting that half are googling "post hoc ergo propter hoc."

semper ubi sub ubi.

Elgin56
05-15-2007, 04:55 PM
To be fair, I'm not including guys still on their rookie contracts. That leaves out a fair number of good wings. Here are a few who make less and out produce Dunleavy ($7.4 million).

Raja Bell ($4.5 million)
Jamal Crawford ($7.2 million)
Ricky Davis ($6.3 million)
Corey Magette ($7 million)
Shane Battier ($5.4 million)
Gerald Wallace ($5.5 million)
Stephen Jackson ($6.1 million)

All these guys put up similar numbers to Dunleavy and make less. I like Dunleavy and think that he can be a productive player on a good team, but of those seven guys, which ones wouldn't you trade Dun for straight up?


It is amazing how an original post gets contorted, the original post that you are answering was not who you would trade Dun for, but what player and what team was willing to take Jackson in the process. BTW, the original poster never came up with a list of so called players and teams who were willing to take Jack and give us a better lesser paid player than Dun.

Roaming Gnome
05-15-2007, 04:59 PM
To me, this thread feels like another "J.O. is a bum" type thread. We all know that you can make statistics tell whatever story you want them to tell.

What I would like to see as far as FG% statistics go is where O'neal stacks up in FG% of players that score over 15/PPG. I'm sure he is a good ways away from being 50th. Hell, if I was going by just FG% alone to determine superior low post players...Hell, David Lee should be makin' the $$$ reserved for players like Dwight Howard.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 05:01 PM
Great gravy, man, give it up. Last year he shot .472, which isn't bad for a scoring big man. Jermaine's poor percentage this year is at least partially due to the way in which he was used, as well as the complete lack of support that he had from the rest of the team.

Shot percentage is something, but it's not everything. He also averaged just under 20-10, passed the ball well, blocked a ton of shots, and took more charges than anyone else on the team. I'm not saying he's perfect. I'm not even saying he's not a bit overpaid. But to find the one area where he's statistically poor and harp on that is straight up post hoc ergo propter hoc.

If I was to make a list of the top 10 things wrong with the current squad, Jermaine's shooting percentage wouldn't make the list (except as a symptom of dismal backcourt or our incredibly predictable style of play).

Let's face it....JO is a **** poor low post player when it comes to hitting the basket. Plain and simple. Figures don't lie and liars don't figure.

Indeed, JO's shooting pct. should be way up on anyone's list as to what's wrong with the Pacers.

Quit trying to put lipstick on a pig and making it look anything but.

CableKC
05-15-2007, 05:02 PM
Murphleavy and JONeal happen to hit the FA / re-negotiating period at the best time.....when GMs were willing to overpay players and had very little care about what the long-term consequences were to the salary cap. The Warriors were horrible at negotiating contracts...as evidenced by their signings of Murphleavy, Foyle and Fisher. Some scenarios were somewhat justified.....like JONeal getting his contract....but other clearly were not worth it.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 05:10 PM
To me, this thread feels like another "J.O. is a bum" type thread. We all know that you can make statistics tell whatever story you want them to tell.

What I would like to see as far as FG% statistics go is where O'neal stacks up in FG% of players that score over 15/PPG. I'm sure he is a good ways away from being 50th. Hell, if I was going by just FG% alone to determine superior low post players...Hell, David Lee should be makin' the $$$ reserved for players like Dwight Howard.

Actually, he ranks 27th in pct. of the forwards and centers who averaged 15 points or more a game.

Now if you want to use players like Howard and Lee, JO would rank 137th strictly among forwards without a set limit of games or minutes played.
http://aol.nba.com/statistics/player/FieldGS.jsp?season=22006&league=00&conf=OVERALL&qualified=N&position=2&splitType=9&yearsExp=-1&splitDD=&pager.offset=100

Roferr
05-15-2007, 05:18 PM
Surprise me. Find me 3 wings in the NBA who produce more than Dunleavy but make less.

How about if I do it the other way around and find you 3 SF/SG/PF that produce less than Dun and make more? In other words would be overpaid compared to Dun.

First, you'd just have to go to the Knicks roster (now and previous year or so), players such as: Jalen Rose, Malik Rose, Q. Richardson, Mo Taylor. Then how about Theo Ratliff making almost 12 million for 2.5 and 3.5. How J. Collins of NJ at 5.8 million for 2.1 and 4.0 (he's within a mil or so of Dun).

These were the first three teams that I looked at in the Atlantic Division. I probably could come up with 30 players who are making more that Dun/Murph and producing lower numbers.

OakMoses
05-15-2007, 05:19 PM
It is amazing how an original post gets contorted, the original post that you are answering was not who you would trade Dun for, but what player and what team was willing to take Jackson in the process. BTW, the original poster never came up with a list of so called players and teams who were willing to take Jack and give us a better lesser paid player than Dun.

The post I responded to asked directly, "Name me three wings who produce more and are paid less than Dunleavy." I think I did that.

As I said before, I like Dunleavy, though I'd trade him for Battier or Gerald Wallace in a heartbeat. I'd consider trading him for Bell. Crawford is intriguing because he fills a position of great need for the Pacers, but I'm not sold on his game. I'd prefer a two guard who was a better shooter and defender like Bell.

As for JO, I do think his shooting percentage is a problem. What's more of a problem, however, is his points per shot. Compared to other talented big men, it's incredibly low. I don't have time to look up the stats, but when a guy averages 17 shots a game and only 20 points, that's not good. It means he's not being aggressive enough. That's my main problem with JO. His skill set is phenomenal, but he lacks aggression on the offensive end. I don't think this is just the offense he's been put in. He's gotten his way on every offensive decision the Pacers have made recently. If he would make his moves towards the basket instead of settling for fade aways 75% of the time, he'd shoot a higher percentage, get to the line more, and average at least 25 pts a game.

While JO is a very good player and a solid citizen who is not a headcase, I do believe that he gets in his own way sometimes and would be a better player if he put more stock in what his coaches have to offer him.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 05:28 PM
The post I responded to asked directly, "Name me three wings who produce more and are paid less than Dunleavy." I think I did that.

As I said before, I like Dunleavy, though I'd trade him for Battier or Gerald Wallace in a heartbeat. I'd consider trading him for Bell. Crawford is intriguing because he fills a position of great need for the Pacers, but I'm not sold on his game. I'd prefer a two guard who was a better shooter and defender like Bell.

As for JO, I do think his shooting percentage is a problem. What's more of a problem, however, is his points per shot. Compared to other talented big men, it's incredibly low. I don't have time to look up the stats, but when a guy averages 17 shots a game and only 20 points, that's not good. It means he's not being aggressive enough. That's my main problem with JO. His skill set is phenomenal, but he lacks aggression on the offensive end. I don't think this is just the offense he's been put in. He's gotten his way on every offensive decision the Pacers have made recently. If he would make his moves towards the basket instead of settling for fade aways 75% of the time, he'd shoot a higher percentage, get to the line more, and average at least 25 pts a game.

While JO is a very good player and a solid citizen who is not a headcase, I do believe that he gets in his own way sometimes and would be a better player if he put more stock in what his coaches have to offer him.

Exactly.

I don't think JO was overpaid until the last couple of season when he developed his fade-away jumper that he connects on about 25%. I've repeatedly pointed out this fact. If he would take the ball to the hoop instead of shooting from the outside, he would be much more effective.

When you take that many outside jumpers (and fade-aways at that, where he is invariably short) your shooting pct. is going to plummet.

This is not a "jump on JO" post. It's to point out that he deserves just as much heat as do Dun and Murph as far as putting up consistent numbers and being overpaid.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 05:40 PM
To me, this thread feels like another "J.O. is a bum" type thread. We all know that you can make statistics tell whatever story you want them to tell.

What I would like to see as far as FG% statistics go is where O'neal stacks up in FG% of players that score over 15/PPG. I'm sure he is a good ways away from being 50th. Hell, if I was going by just FG% alone to determine superior low post players...Hell, David Lee should be makin' the $$$ reserved for players like Dwight Howard.

If you can make stats say anything, hit me with some that shows JO should be the 7th highest paid player in the league.

Usually the ones who say you can make stats say anything you want are the ones who don't have any stats to show, any answers or is simply too unmotivated to back his contention with a little research.

Elgin56
05-15-2007, 05:42 PM
The post I responded to asked directly, "Name me three wings who produce more and are paid less than Dunleavy." I think I did that.

As I said before, I like Dunleavy, though I'd trade him for Battier or Gerald Wallace in a heartbeat. I'd consider trading him for Bell. Crawford is intriguing because he fills a position of great need for the Pacers, but I'm not sold on his game. I'd prefer a two guard who was a better shooter and defender like Bell.

As for JO, I do think his shooting percentage is a problem. What's more of a problem, however, is his points per shot. Compared to other talented big men, it's incredibly low. I don't have time to look up the stats, but when a guy averages 17 shots a game and only 20 points, that's not good. It means he's not being aggressive enough. That's my main problem with JO. His skill set is phenomenal, but he lacks aggression on the offensive end. I don't think this is just the offense he's been put in. He's gotten his way on every offensive decision the Pacers have made recently. If he would make his moves towards the basket instead of settling for fade aways 75% of the time, he'd shoot a higher percentage, get to the line more, and average at least 25 pts a game.

While JO is a very good player and a solid citizen who is not a headcase, I do believe that he gets in his own way sometimes and would be a better player if he put more stock in what his coaches have to offer him.


The post I responded to asked directly, "Name me three wings who produce more and are paid less than Dunleavy." I think I did that.

My mistake, I was referring to an earlier post by the same poster, Anthem, where he was saying that the Pacers could have done better than Dun. My contention was, name me the players and teams who were willing to take Jackson and give us a player better than Dun who makes less money than Dun, as the original poster stated we could have done.

Oneal07
05-15-2007, 05:43 PM
There's no such thing as an over paid player. . .If you want a certain player you gotta pay the price for him or he'll just go somewhere else. . .And look how much the NBA makes a year. . of course players can make THAT much!! If we didn't give Jermaine that contract he wouldn't be a PAcer. . We paid him that much so we can keep him. Some GMs are stupid enough to pay certain players a large amount of money because of 1 good season instead of overall quality. . .for example Mike James lol

Bball
05-15-2007, 05:44 PM
Interestingly.... Foster shot a higher FG% this past season than JO.

-Bball

Roferr
05-15-2007, 06:02 PM
For what it's worth. Most of them, I agree with. Incidently, I saw this article after I started the thread.



http://www.emptythebench.com/2007/03/26/you-bums-the-nbas-most-overpaid-players/

JayRedd
05-15-2007, 06:53 PM
What do you mean, that I just now thought it up? Who are you to tell me what I'm thinking?

I've thought for a long while now that JO is overpaid. Whenever a low-post player ranks 50th in the league in shooting pct. among forwards (and this doesn't even include centers), he is not worth over $18 million.


Sure JO is overpaid....I'm just tryna let you know that the idea that someone who makes twice as much as someone else should produce twice is much is patently ridiculous and is not a real method of comparison that has any value.

Shawn Marion makes $15 million, Amare makes $12 - Should Marion be scoring, rebounding and blocking 1.25 more than Amare?

Dirk makes twice what Jason Terry does, is supposed to put up 33.4 ppg because of that?

Iverson is gonna make 2.5x what Carmelo does next year...Does he now have to go out and drop 58 per now?

The multiplier idea is just flawed. All I'm saying.

Roferr
05-15-2007, 07:59 PM
Sure JO is overpaid....I'm just tryna let you know that the idea that someone who makes twice as much as someone else should produce twice is much is patently ridiculous and is not a real method of comparison that has any value.

Shawn Marion makes $15 million, Amare makes $12 - Should Marion be scoring, rebounding and blocking 1.25 more than Amare?

Dirk makes twice what Jason Terry does, is supposed to put up 33.4 ppg because of that?

Iverson is gonna make 2.5x what Carmelo does next year...Does he now have to go out and drop 58 per now?

The multiplier idea is just flawed. All I'm saying.


I can see where you're coming from but I think you've missed the entire intent of my thread. I was tired of repeatedly hearing how much overpaid Murph and Dun were that I thought I would point out that they weren't the only ones.

Up until the start of the 2005 season, JO was worth the money. He truly was one of the elite big men (top 8-9) in the league. When he tried to develop his 12-15 foot fade-away and then announce it before the start of the season that it was going to be his bread and butter and fail miserably at it is when I started to have my doubts that he was worth his money.

My gosh, all his dinks and dunks just raised his shooting to 43-44% so he had to be missing a ton of jumpers. Well, in fact, I know he was because I watched him game in and game out miss the vast majority of them.

Whether because of his body, racked with injuries or lack of will power he ceased to be the monster he was down low. You're not going very far when your best player is shooting such a low pct. Most good low-post players are shooting around 52-55% and even higher.

This is not as much as a knock on JO as it is on passing the blame around as far as not earning one's wages.

JayRedd
05-15-2007, 08:14 PM
I can see where you're coming from but I think you've missed the entire intent of my thread. I was tired of repeatedly hearing how much overpaid Murph and Dun were that I thought I would point out that they weren't the only ones.

Up until the start of the 2005 season, JO was worth the money. He truly was one of the elite big men (top 8-9) in the league. When he tried to develop his 12-15 foot fade-away and then announce it before the start of the season that it was going to be his bread and butter and fail miserably at it is when I started to have my doubts that he was worth his money.

My gosh, all his dinks and dunks just raised his shooting to 43-44% so he had to be missing a ton of jumpers. Well, in fact, I know he was because I watched him game in and game out miss the vast majority of them.

Whether because of his body, racked with injuries or lack of will power he ceased to be the monster he was down low. You're not going very far when your best player is shooting such a low pct. Most good low-post players are shooting around 52-55% and even higher.

This is not as much as a knock on JO as it is on passing the blame around as far as not earning one's wages.

Gotcha...And I agree that JO "should" be making about 3 million less per year. But as others have pointed out, the economics of the NBA and the rules of the CBA were different back when JOs contract was issued. And yes, JO has regressed a little bit due to injury, lack of agressiveness and (IMO) frustration.

But even with 20/20 hindsight, TPTB would probably give JO the exact same deal again if they could go back in time. Because if they didn't, he would not have been on this team now or for the last few years. Overpaying to keep premier (or close to premier depending on how you feel about JO) talent is not gonna hurt you that bad as a franchise. But overpaying millions for marginal talent can, though.

However, overpaying one maringal talent like Murphy by $2-3 million per year won't kill us. But that plus Dunleavy, plus Tinsley and especially the length of the contract is the real issue. And TPTB knowingly took on these guys fully aware that they have terrible contracts.

Essentially, my point is that JO's contract became somewhat of a mistake years down the road, which is unfortunate. By contrast, Murphy and Dunleavy's contracts were a known problem before they ever even put on a Pacer uniform. To me, that's the real difference and that's the issue that everyone has with them being overpaid.

able
05-15-2007, 08:27 PM
We all get the picture, you dislike JO.

the math you use however is so flawed it aint even funny any more.

By those same maths Tinsley is "underpaid" in comparison


JO is 31st in EFF rating, 3rd in blocks, 14th in double doubles (in only 69 games)


If you fail to see why JO is getting what he gets, then why start the discussion about what he gets in the first place, next you gonna compare him to a bricklayer?

Oh and btw, why do you compare him only to Murphleavy? is that because of the fact that your math would go limping out the window if you involved for instance Tinsley, Diogu, Quis, Granger?

Jermaniac
05-15-2007, 09:00 PM
No one in the NBA is as overpaid as Murphy and Dunleavy are, no one. I rather have Jerome James' contract then Dunleavys or Murphys.

LMAO @ Comparing those two to Jermaine O'Neal. Ohh and the FG%, what is he supposed to shoot when he is the only player on this team that demands that someone guards him. Our 1,2,and 3 stand around the 3 point line and brick shot after shot. Wilt would suck with all these dudes on his team. Jermaine's FG% was not that low until the trade was made and he was put on a team with Dunleavy and Murphy who NO ONE wants to guard and who cant do nothing by themselves.

Put KG or Duncan on this team and we will see how amazing they would be doing.

Elgin56
05-15-2007, 09:24 PM
No one in the NBA is as overpaid as Murphy and Dunleavy are, no one. I rather have Jerome James' contract then Dunleavys or Murphys.

LMAO @ Comparing those two to Jermaine O'Neal. Ohh and the FG%, what is he supposed to shoot when he is the only player on this team that demands that someone guards him. Our 1,2,and 3 stand around the 3 point line and brick shot after shot. Wilt would suck with all these dudes on his team. Jermaine's FG% was not that low until the trade was made and he was put on a team with Dunleavy and Murphy who NO ONE wants to guard and who cant do nothing by themselves.

Put KG or Duncan on this team and we will see how amazing they would be doing.


And I hope we get the chance to see what KG would do with this team, because JO has not led them anywhere but to mediocracy.;)

Jermaniac
05-15-2007, 09:32 PM
Ohh and KG has lead the TWolves to a whole bunch of ****. They got all kinds of rafters up in their arena for Randy Foye and Rashad McCants lottery draftings.

Evan_The_Dude
05-15-2007, 09:37 PM
Every pro athlete is overpaid when you compare their profession to that of the people in the world that actually make a difference every day. Why do we care if someone is overpaid? Leave that to the GM (or GM's in the Pacers case) to deal with.

speakout4
05-15-2007, 09:39 PM
Good Point. He's getting paid like Rip or Prince. There are a few other 2/3 guys making roughly the same as MDJ......Caron Butler, Mike Miller,Manu, Cuttino Mobley...who I'd rather have too.

Dunleavy can do a lot of good things so i don't have a problem with his salary. We wouldn't be having this conversation about Dunleavy's contract except that he is packaged with Murphy who is a bust and who unlike Dunleavy can't play any position on the floor. Yes he doesn't have the best bang for the buck but he is a very decent backup at 2 positions.

Anthem
05-15-2007, 11:18 PM
I don't think JO was overpaid until the last couple of season when he developed his fade-away jumper that he connects on about 25%. I've repeatedly pointed out this fact. If he would take the ball to the hoop instead of shooting from the outside, he would be much more effective.

When you take that many outside jumpers (and fade-aways at that, where he is invariably short) your shooting pct. is going to plummet.
Ok, now this I can definitely agree with. I hate that Jermaine's percentage has gone down this season, and I'd love to see it back up closer to 50%. The problem, to me, is that we've put him in a system where he has to shoot fadeaway jumpers to get shots.

Jermaine's simply not as good in a static system as he is in a dynamic one. That's just all there is to it. At the same time, giving him the ball at 18' and telling him to make something happen is just as bad. Jermaine's a post player, but today's NBA doesn't allow post players much room if the rest of the team doesn't need guarding.

Bball
05-15-2007, 11:29 PM
Ok, now this I can definitely agree with. I hate that Jermaine's percentage has gone down this season, and I'd love to see it back up closer to 50%. The problem, to me, is that we've put him in a system where he has to shoot fadeaway jumpers to get shots.

Jermaine's simply not as good in a static system as he is in a dynamic one. That's just all there is to it. At the same time, giving him the ball at 18' and telling him to make something happen is just as bad. Jermaine's a post player, but today's NBA doesn't allow post players much room if the rest of the team doesn't need guarding.

And conversely, if your post player demands the ball and a large chunk of the offense to run thru him (or your coach installs that type of system)... then offensive flow goes out the window... and you become an easy team to defend if your centerpiece is not on a whole other level. You also castrate your guards and wing players to a large degree.

Our perimeter game is never going to look good as long as we play that way.

And chemistry will always falter with JO being used the way we do because he is just not good enough.

-Bball

Dr. Goldfoot
05-16-2007, 12:06 AM
Yes he doesn't have the best bang for the buck but he is a very decent backup at 2 positions.

For a decent backup, he's overpaid. There are a number of guys in the NBA who bring similar games to the table for less money. I'm not trying to single MDJ out. I think the Pacers possess a number of bad contracts, including his, that put them in a poor position. They are paying at least four backup quality players starter money. This has become a major concern of mine in the last 6 months. The six highest paid Pacers are JO, Murphy, Dunleavy, Daniels, Tinsley and Foster in that order. How many truely see those six guys as a major force? I see (to varying degrees) five borderline starters and an all-star type player. JO likely has 3 years left, Murphy has 4, Dunleavy has 4, Daniels has at least 2, Tinsley has 4 and Foster likely has 2. With Ike, Granger and Williams the only other significant players on the roster and all with team options after next season, at a certain point somebody is going to walk away a free agent. That doesn't even account for the other 6 roster spots that will need to be filled every season or future draft picks. Will it matter in 2009 when the Pacers have $50 million tied up in JO, Murphy, Dunleavy and Tinsley while Diogu and Granger are free agents? $50 million dollars in those four players is a bad situation.

With all the question marks surrounding the aforementioned players, there's no room for error. Tinsley has to get his drive and health back, JO can't miss 20 games a season, Daniels knee has to be okay, Murphy can't play soft, Dunleavy has to show more than just "High IQ", Foster must remain Foster and management can't fumble a draft pick away (Bender, Haskins, Brezec, Harrison) or make poor decisions (GS trade, resigning of Al at the expense of a 1st rounder, gambling on future "headcases", James White). More importantly, a decision on the coach has to be very well thought out, Danny Granger better pan out, Shawne Williams must at least improve as much as Granger did and Ike must be infinitely better than David Harrison.

Roferr
05-16-2007, 09:10 AM
Ok, now this I can definitely agree with. I hate that Jermaine's percentage has gone down this season, and I'd love to see it back up closer to 50%. The problem, to me, is that we've put him in a system where he has to shoot fadeaway jumpers to get shots.

Jermaine's simply not as good in a static system as he is in a dynamic one. That's just all there is to it. At the same time, giving him the ball at 18' and telling him to make something happen is just as bad. Jermaine's a post player, but today's NBA doesn't allow post players much room if the rest of the team doesn't need guarding.

Agreed, somewhat. I think it was JO's decision to develop the fade-away jumper as he announced it at the beginning of the '05 season. This was about the same time that Jeff mentioned that he had been working on his jumper over the summer and was going to attempt a few if they fit into the team's style of play. Well, needless to say, when JO started shooting his jumper, Jeff's shooting was out of the question (actually he had honed a pretty decent jumper from 8 ft or so).

I thought, cool, JO has added a jumper to his repertoire, only to make him a double edge sword....good post game plus decent outside shot. However, he leaned heavily on his jumper and forgot to play his post game. When a guy his size can shoot in close or dunk with either hand, he would be almost unstoppable. However, repeatedly he leaned more and more towards his jumper and the Pacers lived and died almost in direct proportion to his shooting pct. from the outside.

I'm not blaming the Pacer's miserable showing on JO but he certainly contributed to it in a big way by not going to his strength....low post play.

Roferr
05-16-2007, 09:22 AM
We all get the picture, you dislike JO.

the math you use however is so flawed it aint even funny any more.

By those same maths Tinsley is "underpaid" in comparison


JO is 31st in EFF rating, 3rd in blocks, 14th in double doubles (in only 69 games)


If you fail to see why JO is getting what he gets, then why start the discussion about what he gets in the first place, next you gonna compare him to a bricklayer?

Oh and btw, why do you compare him only to Murphleavy? is that because of the fact that your math would go limping out the window if you involved for instance Tinsley, Diogu, Quis, Granger?

Man, talk about mixing apples and oranges!

If you would have read all my posts you would certainly find that I don't dislike JO and have said so numerous times. I don't know whether I should be replying to such an irrational post for fear of wasting my time.

I only started this thread because Dun and Murph were the only players being jumped on for being overpaid...not Tinsley, Ike, Quis or Granger. If they had been repeatedly hammered with the same crap non-stop, I would have posted in their favor. I was so sick and tired of hearing this crapola being repeated over and over that I made a point to show that those two were not the only players overpaid on a mediocre team.

As I've said in numerous posts (if you would have read them, maybe you have and are conveniently omitting them), I think JO is a great player and it has only been in the last two seasons since he's relied on his jumper that he has failed as the leader of the team.

If I had used my math on the four players you mentioned, the differences would have been that much more pronounced. If you would have bothered to done any math at all, you would have known this fact. Using the same method as I used with Dun and Murph, JO would be much more overpaid than with the other four. Nothing has gone flying out the window but your willingness to do a little research and come up with your own explanation instead of throwing a few haphazard, faulty statements out.

Roferr
05-16-2007, 09:36 AM
No one in the NBA is as overpaid as Murphy and Dunleavy are, no one. I rather have Jerome James' contract then Dunleavys or Murphys.

LMAO @ Comparing those two to Jermaine O'Neal. Ohh and the FG%, what is he supposed to shoot when he is the only player on this team that demands that someone guards him. Our 1,2,and 3 stand around the 3 point line and brick shot after shot. Wilt would suck with all these dudes on his team. Jermaine's FG% was not that low until the trade was made and he was put on a team with Dunleavy and Murphy who NO ONE wants to guard and who cant do nothing by themselves.

Put KG or Duncan on this team and we will see how amazing they would be doing.

I could probably list at least 25 players who are being paid more than Dun with less production. However, I won't wast my time on someone who never looks at stats or salaries and only post in generalizations.

Now, if you want to make it interesting, I am willing to wager one grand (payable at the next forum party) that I can list at least 25 players who were paid more than Dun in the last two seasons and have produced less. The salaries won't be identical, but say within .75 million either way.

First of all, I have a question for the mods....is this legal and acceptable under your guidelines? If so, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or will you continue to throw up unsubstantiated comments.

The gauntlet has been thrown.

OakMoses
05-16-2007, 09:54 AM
No one in the NBA is as overpaid as Murphy and Dunleavy are, no one. I rather have Jerome James' contract then Dunleavys or Murphys.



Peja Stojakovic has played 150 games over the last 3 years and will make 59 million over the next five years. When he does play he only plays at one end of the floor.

Adonal Foyle will make $27 million over the next three years and did not play one minute for the Warriors in the playoffs.

RWB
05-16-2007, 09:55 AM
Roferr, you are making good points which I pretty much agree with, but it seems this thread is getting semi-heated. Don't let it get too personal my friend. ;)

Roferr
05-16-2007, 09:57 AM
Roferr, you are making good points which I pretty much agree with, but it seems this thread is getting semi-heated. Don't let it get too personal my friend. ;)

Good advice. Thanks. :)

Roferr
05-16-2007, 10:05 AM
Peja Stojakovic has played 150 games over the last 3 years and will make 59 million over the next five years. When he does play he only plays at one end of the floor.

Adonal Foyle will make $27 million over the next three years and did not play one minute for the Warriors in the playoffs.

These are a couple great examples but the list goes on and on: Alan Houston, Mo Taylor, Milik Rose, Jalen Rose. This doesn't even comlete the Knicks roster, alone. How about Ratliff, P. Hardaway, KVH? I'm just getting started.

Jermaniac
05-16-2007, 11:20 AM
I could probably list at least 25 players who are being paid more than Dun with less production. However, I won't wast my time on someone who never looks at stats or salaries and only post in generalizations.

Now, if you want to make it interesting, I am willing to wager one grand (payable at the next forum party) that I can list at least 25 players who were paid more than Dun in the last two seasons and have produced less. The salaries won't be identical, but say within .75 million either way.

First of all, I have a question for the mods....is this legal and acceptable under your guidelines? If so, are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or will you continue to throw up unsubstantiated comments.

The gauntlet has been thrown.I could care less about a player putting up empty stats. I watch every Pacers game I dont need to see stats to prove to me who is a good player and who isnt.

Troy Murphy actually had 15 and 10 for a few years I believe, now that actually seems that Troy Murphy is a beast, when in truth its just a whole bunch of empty stats he got to fill out his stat sheet.

Jermaniac
05-16-2007, 11:40 AM
deleted post
Aww shoot.

avoidingtheclowns
05-16-2007, 11:59 AM
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand SCENE!

Elgin56
05-16-2007, 04:22 PM
I could care less about a player putting up empty stats. I watch every Pacers game I dont need to see stats to prove to me who is a good player and who isnt.

Troy Murphy actually had 15 and 10 for a few years I believe, now that actually seems that Troy Murphy is a beast, when in truth its just a whole bunch of empty stats he got to fill out his stat sheet.

I think it depends on your definition of empty stat, oh like say, Kobe going for 50 and the Lakers losing the game. If we were to go by your theory on empty stats, then all players have empty stats, includiing Jackson.

speakout4
05-16-2007, 06:20 PM
For a decent backup, he's overpaid. There are a number of guys in the NBA who bring similar games to the table for less money. I'm not trying to single MDJ out. I think the Pacers possess a number of bad contracts, including his, that put them in a poor position. They are paying at least four backup quality players starter money. This has become a major concern of mine in the last 6 months. The six highest paid Pacers are JO, Murphy, Dunleavy, Daniels, Tinsley and Foster in that order. How many truely see those six guys as a major force? I see (to varying degrees) five borderline starters and an all-star type player. JO likely has 3 years left, Murphy has 4, Dunleavy has 4, Daniels has at least 2, Tinsley has 4 and Foster likely has 2. With Ike, Granger and Williams the only other significant players on the roster and all with team options after next season, at a certain point somebody is going to walk away a free agent. That doesn't even account for the other 6 roster spots that will need to be filled every season or future draft picks. Will it matter in 2009 when the Pacers have $50 million tied up in JO, Murphy, Dunleavy and Tinsley while Diogu and Granger are free agents? $50 million dollars in those four players is a bad situation.
.
I don't disagree but could live with Jo's and Dun's salary..Most teams have this kind of baggage because of the way contracts are structured. Too bad they don't do it the way the NFL does it. Where it gets over the top is with Murphy who you correctly state plays soft. We will never get much from him. I expect that JO will be gone soon leaving only two really overpaid players. I see lots of these guys going year by year and one by one. Hopefully we won't give Harrison another contract.

Anthem
05-16-2007, 06:32 PM
And conversely, if your post player demands the ball and a large chunk of the offense to run thru him (or your coach installs that type of system)... then offensive flow goes out the window... and you become an easy team to defend if your centerpiece is not on a whole other level. You also castrate your guards and wing players to a large degree.

Our perimeter game is never going to look good as long as we play that way.

And chemistry will always falter with JO being used the way we do because he is just not good enough.
Ok, I can agree with all of that. But it's not a statement about JO. No post player in the league (KG, Duncan, Shaq, Webber, Stoudamire, Bosh) is good enough to play that brand of basketball. The NBA game simply doesn't allow it. And like Peck pointed out, it really never did.

colonialspacers
05-16-2007, 06:40 PM
I don't disagree but could live with Jo's and Dun's salary..Most teams have this kind of baggage because of the way contracts are structured. Too bad they don't do it the way the NFL does it. Where it gets over the top is with Murphy who you correctly state plays soft. We will never get much from him. I expect that JO will be gone soon leaving only two really overpaid players. I see lots of these guys going year by year and one by one. Hopefully we won't give Harrison another contract.

If they resign Harrison at all, I'll have serious concerns.

ChicagoJ
05-16-2007, 06:44 PM
Harrison's on a rookie contract as the last pick of the first round.

He ain't even making much money.

speakout4
05-16-2007, 06:47 PM
Harrison's on a rookie contract as the last pick of the first round.

He ain't even making much money.
As long as the Pacers remember that if they decide they want to keep him.