PDA

View Full Version : Anybody besides me who thinks Scot Pollard should stay?



MSA2CF
06-08-2004, 10:52 PM
I know I'm in the minority, but by how much?
Besides me, does anyone around here want Scot Pollard to stick around another year?

YEAR..TEAM..G..FG%..RPG..PPG
97-98..DET..33..50..2.20..2.7
98-99..SAC..16..54..5.10..5.1
98-99..--..16..54..5.10..5.1
99-00..SAC..76..53..5.30..5.4
00-01..SAC..77..47..6.00..6.5
01-02..SAC..80..55..7.10..6.4
02-03..SAC..23..46..4.60..4.5
03-04..IND..61..41..2.70..1.7
Career.......366..50..5.10..4.9
Playoff........44..51..3.80..3.6

I think with another year in our system, he could really contribute. I also think he really wasn't in good playing shape this season, kind of like Austin Croshere a year or two ago. I think he will improve next year, whether it be with the Pacers or not. I have read a lot of things on here, mostly people talking about his "stone hands" and calling him "Scott Pollard (:whoknows:)." I think it was the first year jitters and he should be good to go next year. Most people love him for his antics, but I think, if given the chance here, he could be more than just a "Zan Tabak" type of player and more like a "Sam Perkins" in terms of the amount of time he sees on the court. I think most people around here have given up on him because of his play this season and because his "big" contract is displeasing, but I don't see it that way. Your thoughts?

TheSauceMaster
06-08-2004, 10:56 PM
If he is not gonna play , really no need to keep him and hopefully someone will require his services and we could trade him for something or include him in a trade.

ChicagoJ
06-08-2004, 10:57 PM
If we can't throw him into a trade, then I'd be fine with cutting him. Every time I think about Pollard and his complete lack of basketball skills, it makes me wish Brad was in Denver because we 'let him walk for nothing'. Pollard is actually worse than 'nothing'. :mad:

Hoop
06-08-2004, 11:05 PM
Pollard ain't going no where any time soon. Nobody is going to take him, he makes to much. We can't just cut him, we've got to pay him regardless, so we'll keep him around in case of injurys.

TheSauceMaster
06-08-2004, 11:10 PM
I thought you could cut a player if there contract is not garunteed ? then again probably not since that would make too much sense :laugh:

beast23
06-08-2004, 11:21 PM
I thought you could cut a player if there contract is not garunteed ? then again probably not since that would make too much sense :laugh:In the NBA, there is no such thing as a contract that is not guaranteed.

Edit:

Oh, and I didn't vote. There was no "Hell, no!!!!!" category.

clownskull
06-09-2004, 12:03 AM
i would love to see pollard go anywhere else. i don't see him fitting his way into our system. but. he makes way too much to stir any interest of trades.

ChicagoJ
06-09-2004, 12:21 AM
You can cut him, but you have to honor his contract or the difference between the original contract and when he signs with someone else for the vet's minimum.

So, as I said, since its my money, I vote to cut him anyway.

TheSauceMaster
06-09-2004, 12:25 AM
I thought you could cut a player if there contract is not garunteed ? then again probably not since that would make too much sense :laugh:In the NBA, there is no such thing as a contract that is not guaranteed.


Not True

It is expected that Ferry, whose contract for 2003-04 is not guaranteed, will be moved to another team looking to clear salary space.

http://www.nba.com/news/trade_030724.html

wintermute
06-09-2004, 01:25 AM
1) first preference, filler in trade

2) second preference, trade for cap space so we can use the mid level exception without fear of luxury tax

3) last, keep him rather than cut him, unless roster spots become an issue. we'd still be paying him anyway.

hmm... maybe this should be the first option:

0) let pollard retire so that he can become pacers' color commentator :D

:cool: :P

Ultimate Frisbee
06-09-2004, 01:28 AM
I voted yes!

I think that Pollard could and should contribute to the team on the court more, but I know that he contributes to the team morale and is probably helped to solve a lot of the problems we had last year.

Hoop
06-09-2004, 01:33 AM
I thought you could cut a player if there contract is not garunteed ? then again probably not since that would make too much sense :laugh:In the NBA, there is no such thing as a contract that is not guaranteed.


Not True

It is expected that Ferry, whose contract for 2003-04 is not guaranteed, will be moved to another team looking to clear salary space.

http://www.nba.com/news/trade_030724.html

In the NBA the only part of a contract that is ever Not guaranteed is in the last year. Then it can be a team or players option depending on how the contract is written, but ALL NBA contracts are guaranteed.

beast23
06-09-2004, 05:02 AM
I thought you could cut a player if there contract is not garunteed ? then again probably not since that would make too much sense :laugh:In the NBA, there is no such thing as a contract that is not guaranteed.


Not True

It is expected that Ferry, whose contract for 2003-04 is not guaranteed, will be moved to another team looking to clear salary space.

http://www.nba.com/news/trade_030724.htmlNo Sauce... EVERY contract is guaranteed.

There are a couple of twists. A contract with a player option enables the player to opt out of the contract early. However, if the player does not exercise his option for free agency, then he remains with the team and the team is still obligated to pay the player for the remainder of the contract.

Some contracts are written with team options, where the team can elect to release the player at a particular point in the contract.

But the bottom line is that outside of options, if a team signs a player for "x" years, then it is obligated to pay him for "x" years.

A team can release a player, and if the player is not picked up by another team, the team that released him is still obligated to pay him. If another team picks up the player at a reduced salary, the team that released him is still obligated to pay the difference between his original salary and his new salary until his contract is completed.

Teams can buy out player contracts, but ONLY with the consent of the player. So, for example, if the Pacers tried to negotiate with Pollard and wanted to pay him $7M for the last two years of his contract (which will pay out $12M) and essentially release him, Pollard can say no. Then, whether the Pacers choose to keep him on the roster on not, they are still obligated to pay him the $12M or two years, or some reduction of that in the event that they release him and someone else picks him up.

Players who retire prior to the end of their contracts are a different story. I'm not certain how it works, but I assume there would be a point in the contract, perhaps 1 year after the player's announced retirement, that the team is no longer obligated to pay.

However, as long as a player under contract makes himself available to play, SOMEBODY is going to play him.

Now, within some of the contracts, I'm certain that there are certain provisions for teams to have an out under extreme circumstances. For example, if Kobe finds himself behind bars, I'm sure the Lakers will not be obligated to pay him. If a player has a tendancy to to gain weight, like Oliver Miller, then the team may write into the contract some sort of clause dealing with weight gain to enable them to release the player.

But again, the bottom line is that if there is no contractual out-clause, then the team will pay the player come hell or high water.

As for Ferry, he had one year left on his contract. And that was for the 2003-2004 season. So there is no contract remaining to be traded. The Pacers took on that contract as cap relief, nothing else. They talked about packaging it along with a player to get back a player with a more expensive contract, but that would have defeated their intentions on acquiring the contract to begin with. It would have put them over the projected luxury tax threshhold, which by the way, did not take effect anyway.

TheSauceMaster
06-09-2004, 05:14 AM
Umm kinda pointless since Hoop explained it , but knock youself out ;)

Unclebuck
06-09-2004, 09:36 AM
He is a good locker room guy. he is funny on Pacers.com

sweabs
06-09-2004, 09:37 AM
Yeah - I might miss Pollard Ponders :laugh:

Suaveness
06-09-2004, 09:38 AM
hmm... maybe this should be the first option:

0) let pollard retire so that he can become pacers' color commentator :D

:cool: :P

YES. :dance:

sixthman
06-09-2004, 09:49 AM
If we can't throw him into a trade, then I'd be fine with cutting him. Every time I think about Pollard and his complete lack of basketball skills, it makes me wish Brad was in Denver because we 'let him walk for nothing'. Pollard is actually worse than 'nothing'. :mad:

If we were in the finals against the Lakers, you'd have to admit Scot's fouls could have some value. Plus, if we waived him we'd be paying his salary the next two seasons anyway.

I hope he can be traded.

sixthman
06-09-2004, 09:56 AM
It would have put them over the projected luxury tax threshhold, which by the way, did not take effect anyway.

We don't know yet if there is a luxury tax this season. That word comes next month.

But, I'm under the impression the experts are saying a luxury tax will kick in for the current season just ending.

It would be a real pisser if it turns out there was no luxury tax this season.

ChicagoJ
06-09-2004, 10:01 AM
If we can't throw him into a trade, then I'd be fine with cutting him. Every time I think about Pollard and his complete lack of basketball skills, it makes me wish Brad was in Denver because we 'let him walk for nothing'. Pollard is actually worse than 'nothing'. :mad:

If we were in the finals against the Lakers, you'd have to admit Scot's fouls could have some value. Plus, if we waived him we'd be paying his salary the next two seasons anyway.

I hope he can be traded.

I'm not sure *his* fouls are valuable enough to risk his propensity for turnovers, missed layups, etc. - even with a minimal amount of playing time. :twocents:

diego
06-09-2004, 10:24 AM
I know I'm in the minority, but by how much?
Besides me, does anyone around here want Scot Pollard to stick around another year?

YEAR..TEAM..G..FG%..RPG..PPG
97-98..DET..33..50..2.20..2.7
98-99..SAC..16..54..5.10..5.1
98-99..--..16..54..5.10..5.1
99-00..SAC..76..53..5.30..5.4
00-01..SAC..77..47..6.00..6.5
01-02..SAC..80..55..7.10..6.4
02-03..SAC..23..46..4.60..4.5
03-04..IND..61..41..2.70..1.7
Career.......366..50..5.10..4.9
Playoff........44..51..3.80..3.6

I think with another year in our system, he could really contribute. I also think he really wasn't in good playing shape this season, kind of like Austin Croshere a year or two ago. I think he will improve next year, whether it be with the Pacers or not. I have read a lot of things on here, mostly people talking about his "stone hands" and calling him "Scott Pollard (:whoknows:)." I think it was the first year jitters and he should be good to go next year. Most people love him for his antics, but I think, if given the chance here, he could be more than just a "Zan Tabak" type of player and more like a "Sam Perkins" in terms of the amount of time he sees on the court. I think most people around here have given up on him because of his play this season and because his "big" contract is displeasing, but I don't see it that way. Your thoughts?



Without trying to be too much of a jerk here....arent you the same guy that doesnt want Tmac here, but you would liek to see Pollard some more. :confused: :confused: :confused:

I bet i know the reasons why too but i wont go into them on this thread.

MSA2CF
06-09-2004, 12:14 PM
Without trying to be too much of a jerk here....arent you the same guy that doesnt want Tmac here, but you would liek to see Pollard some more.

Yes, you are correct. I do not want Tracy to play for the Pacers.

MarionDeputy
06-09-2004, 12:40 PM
I like his personality a lot. I also remember that in the preseason, he played quite well. Eventually he lost out to Foster, however, I wonder if he got the playing if he couldn't at least be Foster's equal. I think his defense is probably better then Jeff's now, and he has the advantage of having a bigger, heavier body. Time will tell on this one, if we trade him as filler for a better player, I'll have no problem with it, but if no one bites, I'd just assume keep him.

Fool
06-09-2004, 12:46 PM
I didn't read the thread but I'm pretty sure the rest of the league wants him to stay on your team. ;)

MSA2CF
06-09-2004, 01:05 PM
Maybe this might display the difference between last year's Scot Pollard and this past season's Pollard:

http://www.prestwood.com/felicia/images/act_scot_pollard.jpg

http://www.nba.com/media/pacers/game50_gallery9_0304.jpg