PDA

View Full Version : I want to know what the big deal about shedding salary is.



Hicks
04-21-2008, 11:28 AM
I want to make it clear up front, I understand you don't want to have players making a lot more than they're worth.

I understand avoiding the luxury tax.

I understand wanting to be able to sign free agents.

However what I don't see is the Pacers getting over the luxury tax, or getting under the cap to make a big FA signing.

As I see it the only thing we should hope for is to be far enough under the LT that we could use our MLE and not go into the LT.

Beyond that, I don't see the major important of losing a lot of salary.

I suppose another point could be, for example "The money Troy is making could/should go to a better player". Well, sure. But how is he keeping you from getting that player. You'd never be able to trade Troy for that guy, and if Troy was dropped off the roster (salary and all) you still wouldn't be able to SIGN that guy.

Speed
04-21-2008, 11:45 AM
I may be wrong, but I think the reason to shed salary, may be to get a player in a sign and trade, which is todays version of signing a free agent. It becomes money under the luxury tax that you have available.

A good way get something for nothing is to be under the real cap and be the 3rd team on a trade. Then you can broker the deal and get something for nothing, if that makes sense. Its impossible for the Pacers to get under the real cap right now. Portland on the other hand went .500 in the West with Oden out and an awesome core of young guys and I think are under the cap, for now.

The other thing is to have room to sign your own guys without going over. I think the main focus Bird has to think about it to make room for Danny's contract this summer.

I'm like you though, it doesn't matter to me if they drop money unless it somehow computes into a real upgrade to a player on the floor.

NapTonius Monk
04-21-2008, 12:08 PM
You have far more flexibility and more options open to you when you're not right up against the line. Which situation would you rather be in: Portland, or Indiana? Now, given, Portland is just biding time, because all of their young guys are going to come due. But they're in a much better position to do things than we are.

SoupIsGood
04-21-2008, 12:26 PM
It's not "shed salary" so much as "get rid of retarded contracts." When you've got contracts like Tinsley's, Murphy's, and JO's, you're pretty much stuck in terms of progressing as a team because you've got to wait those contracts out before you've got any kind of flexibility.

Also, shedding salary is important because we want to be able to afford Granger when he's due his cash.

We've got to either get luckier or get smarter about who we give long-term contracts to. What happened with JO is probably just bad luck--he was a real stud there for awhile. Tinsley's contract though probably could have been avoided. We keep too many of our players for too much dough, generally. Also, trading for Murph should have just been a no-no from the get-go, no matter how disruptive SJax may have been. Telling SJax to sit at home would have been better than picking up that bloated contract.

d_c
04-21-2008, 12:28 PM
You have far more flexibility and more options open to you when you're not right up against the line. Which situation would you rather be in: Portland, or Indiana? Now, given, Portland is just biding time, because all of their young guys are going to come due. But they're in a much better position to do things than we are.

Right. In general, they just have a roster that has more flexibility. They are more maneuverable. If they absolutely had to make a move, they could do it more easily.

Part of that of course is they have an owner willing to pay the luxury tax, but in general they just have a roster that's more easy to remake if you wanted to. Jack, Outlaw, Webster, Pryzbilla, Rodriguez, etc... are more easily movable than the likes of Troy, Mike, Jammal, Marquis, etc...

If you're ok with Troy being on the team and aren't worried about trading him, then the salary isn't that huge a concern. But if you want to make a trade involving him, that's when his contract becomes more problematic.

For the Pacers, being close to the luxury tax situation also eliminates the use of the MLE, as using it in full would put you over the tax.

Kegboy
04-21-2008, 12:44 PM
If we dropped Troy today, no, we wouldn't be able to sign someone to a $10M contract. However, it clears up space to sign two MLE deals over the next couple years that we wouldn't have done because of hitting up against the LT.

RWB
04-21-2008, 12:45 PM
Here's one from left field. Maybe shedding some salary will keep the Simons from wanting to sell the team?

Kegboy
04-21-2008, 12:53 PM
Here's one from left field. Maybe shedding some salary will keep the Simons from wanting to sell the team?

Of course, the flip side is Memphis. Shedding salary to make the team more attractive to a potential buyer. :shudder:

mrknowname
04-21-2008, 01:00 PM
because we won't have enough room to resign guys like Williams, Granger, and Diogu to extensions if we choose to

JayRedd
04-21-2008, 01:02 PM
As others have said, it's about flexibility and manuevability.

The more room you have between your total payroll and the luxury tax threshold, the more "liquidity" you have. Without liquidity and flexibility, you have few options to make moves and you're always relying on a third party to "play ball" if you want to get anything done.

The more salary you shed, the more proactive and in control of your own destiny you can be.

Going into this season we had five contracts no team wanted a part of (JO, Murphy, Tinsley, Dunleavy, Marquis).

Now, Quis is entering his last year so that's not so bad, and Dunleavy, while still not a true beneficial asset that people are gonna covet, has pretty much played his way into at least turning his deal into a "push."

So we'll be in slightly better shape this Summer than last just because of those two factors.

But, not really because our true problems are the other three deals (JO, Tins, Murphy, who will combine for upwards of 45% of our payroll next year). If we weren't in such cap hell because of those three, we wouldn't even have to consider trading MDJ. But now, he's really our only asset aside from draft picks, Danny and Shawne. And like I said before, MDJ still isn't that great of a chip because he's established his place in this League (i.e., no more real upside for growth) and he's therefore never gonna be a great value based on his deal. Other GMs may see him as a "fair" value, but nobody's gonna be jumping out of their seat to pay Mike Dunleavy $8-$10 either at this point in his career.

If we had other means of flexibility, our fans wouldn't really see the need to actively shop the guy who was our the first or second best player on our team all year.

But we don't have any other flexibility, so many do see that need.

Speed
04-21-2008, 01:33 PM
So is Dunleavy still worth more to the Pacers than in a trade to someone else, even though he had an awesome year? I think I agree with this.

Man I wish he'd win MIP, that would probably help a little, at least.

d_c
04-21-2008, 02:07 PM
So is Dunleavy still worth more to the Pacers than in a trade to someone else, even though he had an awesome year? I think I agree with this.

Man I wish he'd win MIP, that would probably help a little, at least.

Dunleavy had a very good year. He probably won't win MIP, but I don't think an award would make teams any more interested. Same with Hedo Turkoglu (who will probably win it). Teams know what players are about and I really don't think an award changes the opinions of the people who make basketball decisions and evaluate talent.

I think his rep around the league is that a lot of coaches would love to have him, but at the same time he's a luxury item to most owners. They'd love to have him but they can usually get by with something cheaper (Portland getting by with Travis Outlaw for $3M a year for example).

Rajah Brown
04-21-2008, 02:08 PM
Speed-

Rick Bucher made a pretty decent point the other day when asked
about the MIP situation with respect to Dunleavy. His opinion is
that Duns didn't really change as a player. He's always pretty
much been the player he is now. He was just poorly used in GS
(along with being the primary scapegoat due to being drafted
at #3) and is now in a system that allows him to flourish/utilize
his skill-set.

For the record, Bucher voted for Rudy Gay.

McKeyFan
04-21-2008, 03:26 PM
(along with being the primary scapegoat due to being drafted
at #3)

I've got an unrelated question that I'll ask here in order not to start a separate thread:

What teams are at the top and bottom of owning top draft picks? I'm thinking the Ps may be in the top middle with guys like Dunleavey and Ike.

Teams that have players like Olowakandi and Kwame Brown and Darko would also be high, even thought the players themselves are no good.

Just wondering what that ranking would look like.

Anthem
04-21-2008, 04:29 PM
What teams are at the top and bottom of owning top draft picks?
http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php

Hicks
04-21-2008, 04:31 PM
Kegboy's given the most concrete answer so far, and I think the rest of you are trying to say that the other reason is to keep our young players.

OK, so the two reasons a team like us wants to shed salary is to be able to sign people to he MLE and to re-sign our young free agents.

Now, what I don't understand is why this drives so many people to make a big deal about it. I think if the young guy is someone of Danny's talent you take the LT hit if you must (and your owner is willing, which I think Herb is). So that doesn't concern me, honestly. If the talent is worth keeping, we'll keep it unless there's a health or character concern (well, usually.....).

The ability to sign people to the MLE is important. However, like with the young guys, I think if we're in a position where that signing gives us a significant boost in contending, we take the hit. It's just when we're not a contender that we would not do this, and at that point is a MLE sign-ee really the guy we "must have" ?

So I'm not overly concerned about that one either.

So unless there's something else that hasn't been said yet, that's how I break it down: You worry about keeping your young guys, and signing MLE's. However, I think if the young guy is a "no brainer", that Herb will pay the LT to keep him. I also think he'd take the hit on a MLE if that player is coming in at a time when he will put us "over the top" or really make us good enough to play with anyone in the league. If we're not that good, we won't bother.

rexnom
04-21-2008, 04:31 PM
http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php
Oh, that's not bad at all. For all the fuss over James White, at the end of the day, it looks like we'll only go one draft without a second round pick and even then, I'm sure we could buy our way in if we really liked someone.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 04:35 PM
I want to make it clear up front, I understand you don't want to have players making a lot more than they're worth.

I understand avoiding the luxury tax.

I understand wanting to be able to sign free agents.

However what I don't see is the Pacers getting over the luxury tax, or getting under the cap to make a big FA signing.

As I see it the only thing we should hope for is to be far enough under the LT that we could use our MLE and not go into the LT.

Beyond that, I don't see the major important of losing a lot of salary.

I suppose another point could be, for example "The money Troy is making could/should go to a better player". Well, sure. But how is he keeping you from getting that player. You'd never be able to trade Troy for that guy, and if Troy was dropped off the roster (salary and all) you still wouldn't be able to SIGN that guy.
I actually agree with you, but I do want to see them readjust their financials. I didn't have a big problem with the Croshere deal and if JO was simply playing but below AS level I wouldn't have a problem with that either. You always have some overpaid vets and underpaid rookie deals. That's the NBA.

However when they took on Dun/Troy they put the resigning of Danny and possibly Shawne (and at the time Ike) at risk because you might get priced out of what you can afford due to the tax threshold. Not only that but they committed a lot of money longterm to a team that was already spinning it's wheels. That was just dumb unless you really saw Troy/Mike/Ike as taking the Pacers to the ECF or 2nd round at least. Otherwise why bother?

So now what they must do is start chipping these deals down into pieces that can be moved. Not to get a FA but simply to be flexible enough to chase more deals and adjust the roster more easily. ADJUST, not necessarily increase total talent.

Right now they just can't adjust well because few people want JO, Tins or Troy's deal, and Mike's has only just become workable. So your top 4 guys and you are going to be hard pressed to get equal but different value from them. That's bad, that's the only thing I want them to "shed".

But otherwise as I said I agree with you, a pure salary dump only makes sense in preparation to build it back up, either in resigns or in trades/FA moves that bring it back.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Speed-

Rick Bucher made a pretty decent point the other day when asked
about the MIP situation with respect to Dunleavy. His opinion is
that Duns didn't really change as a player. He's always pretty
much been the player he is now. He was just poorly used in GS
(along with being the primary scapegoat due to being drafted
at #3) and is now in a system that allows him to flourish/utilize
his skill-set.

For the record, Bucher voted for Rudy Gay.
This has been my comment to some degree as well. Dun shot the 3 better in a system based on shooting the 3 a lot. Okay, now what's the rest of the list of things he greatly improved?

End of story. Now he's likeable and I certainly don't want to understate that shot improvement, that was a massive improvement. But to me MIP is more about seeing the game better, that point when it starts to click for a guy or sometimes when a guy works extra hard to improve many of his raw skills.

If Dun had jumped to 6 asssists or become this kind of fiesty defensive guy who started bothering players (but not a full-on stopper because I'm being realistic) then he'd have my vote. I like what Dun was to a degree, but ultimately he was still Jackson where you trade defense and fire for better shooting. Not exactly a glowing endorsement.

rexnom
04-21-2008, 04:45 PM
This has been my comment to some degree as well. Dun shot the 3 better in a system based on shooting the 3 a lot. Okay, now what's the rest of the list of things he greatly improved?

End of story. Now he's likeable and I certainly don't want to understate that shot improvement, that was a massive improvement. But to me MIP is more about seeing the game better, that point when it starts to click for a guy or sometimes when a guy works extra hard to improve many of his raw skills.

If Dun had jumped to 6 asssists or become this kind of fiesty defensive guy who started bothering players (but not a full-on stopper because I'm being realistic) then he'd have my vote. I like what Dun was to a degree, but ultimately he was still Jackson where you trade defense and fire for better shooting. Not exactly a glowing endorsement.
Is there any question that we need to sell high on Dunleavy?

McKeyFan
04-21-2008, 04:48 PM
http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php

Good site, but that's not what I'm talking about. I mean current players, where were they drafted? In other words, the team that has Darko would have a good score, even though their record may be terrible.

Rajah Brown
04-21-2008, 05:25 PM
It'd be interesting to know what Duns value is out there. Given that
on a contending/elite team, he's probably a 6th or 7th man (since
he's basically Brent Barry with a better all around game), at $10mil
per year, it's probably not all that high. Guys making that kind of
coin coming off the bench are a luxury very few teams can justify.

Will Galen
04-21-2008, 09:12 PM
The other thing is to have room to sign your own guys without going over. I think the main focus Bird has to think about it to make room for Danny's contract this summer.

He has two summers to do that.

Will Galen
04-21-2008, 09:18 PM
http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php

Hey Graham, he wasn't asking about future picks. :devil:

Naptown_Seth
04-23-2008, 12:23 AM
Is there any question that we need to sell high on Dunleavy?
Apparently around here there is and the irony is killing me. The queue of people devoted to keeping Dun are talking out the other side of their mouth when it comes to 20/20 hindsight on JO.

I thought we'd learned our lesson. I mean even if Dun keeps up this current output is he really less tradable than Detlef was, an all star traded for McKey? I mean McKey was a fine player but hardly a superstar, and Det went on to the AS game with Seattle too.

So why not move Dun for a player similar to McKey, but perhaps at SG or PG instead of SF? Or a pick that will go toward such a player.

rexnom
04-23-2008, 12:37 AM
Apparently around here there is and the irony is killing me. The queue of people devoted to keeping Dun are talking out the other side of their mouth when it comes to 20/20 hindsight on JO.

I thought we'd learned our lesson. I mean even if Dun keeps up this current output is he really less tradable than Detlef was, an all star traded for McKey? I mean McKey was a fine player but hardly a superstar, and Det went on to the AS game with Seattle too.

So why not move Dun for a player similar to McKey, but perhaps at SG or PG instead of SF? Or a pick that will go toward such a player.Well, apparently Dunleavy is a luxury that no team can afford. I don't know what's going on.

d_c
04-23-2008, 02:14 AM
Well, apparently Dunleavy is a luxury that no team can afford. I don't know what's going on.

A team like the Spurs (for example) would view Dunleavy as a luxury item. Would they like to have him? Poppovich sure would, but he would put the Spurs in the luxury tax. That all depends on the owner.

Teams that would view him as a luxury include:

Boston (already have 3 MAX deals),
Utah/Denver (already paying a SF the MAX),
Phx (owner won't pay the tax)
Dallas
Houston
Memphis (in cost cutting mode)
Atlanta/Philly (too many SFs)
Orlando (Dwight/Rashard/Hedo's upcoming new deal)
Chicago
Washington
Seattle
LA Clips
LA Lakers (too much payroll)
NJ
Charlotte
Sac
GS (will be near the tax after Ellis/Biedrins extensions)

Teams that could use him and might be willing to pay include:
Toronto (they might do TJ Ford for Dunleavy IMO)
NY Knicks
Minnesota
Cleveland (depends on Dan Snyder)
Portland (depends on Paul Allen, who is still paying Darius Miles to sit around and already has Outlaw at $3M a year)

And the teams that could use him are ones that don't have much to offer, unless you'd consider TJ Ford from Toronto. You're probably just better off keeping the guy.

Dunleavy is most likely going to remain a Pacer. I don't see him getting moved in the offseason.

Robertmto
04-23-2008, 02:40 AM
Washington

wait why would we view him as a luxury? we have Nick Young in the wings, we have Tough Juice,we have Stevenson, and we have plenty of people who don't play D.

JayRedd
04-24-2008, 08:04 AM
I thought we'd learned our lesson. I mean even if Dun keeps up this current output is he really less tradable than Detlef was, an all star traded for McKey? I mean McKey was a fine player but hardly a superstar, and Det went on to the AS game with Seattle too.

So why not move Dun for a player similar to McKey, but perhaps at SG or PG instead of SF? Or a pick that will go toward such a player.

Or why not just keep him since he is better than 13 of the other people on our roster?

madison
04-25-2008, 07:36 PM
We'll keep MD despite his relatively high salary. He plays two positions, runs the floor and FINISHES, can hit the 3 especially uncontested, and has height -- something you can't 'teach'. Mike also has great on-court savvy and is no problem off-court. He's a keeper and will not be traded. He's part of the solution, not the problem.

Pacersfan46
04-26-2008, 12:32 PM
He's a keeper and will not be traded. He's part of the solution, not the problem.

Unfortunately, you can't just trade problems, and get anything worth having ;)

-- Steve --