PDA

View Full Version : IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal



duke dynamite
07-01-2008, 11:27 PM
Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal


By Jeff Rabjohns (jeff.rabjohns@indystar.com)
Posted: July 1, 2008




Danny Granger’s long-range future with the Indiana Pacers could be settled later this summer.

The 6-9 swingman, who was the Pacers’ leading scorer last year in his third year in the NBA, is eligible for a long-term extension. His agent, Mark Bartelstein, said he’ll likely begin talks with the Pacers in a few weeks.

“These things are never easy, but they want to keep Danny and Danny wants to stay,” Bartelstein said today.

Granger averaged 19.6 points and 6.1 rebounds last season. He had seven 30-point games, four in the final 14 games. The 17th pick in the 2005 draft has become an above average shooter, hitting 40.4 percent from 3-point range last season.

“He’s a great kid. His family has done a great job raising him,” Bartelstein said. “He’s excited about being a part of the community, and he’s excited about being a part of the rebuilding of the Pacers.”

Granger is scheduled to make $2.3 million next season, after which he becomes a restricted free agent. The Pacers must at least make a qualifying offer of $3.3 million for 2009-10 to retain the right to match any free agent offer he receives.

Also, Pacers center and David Harrison and guard Andre Owens are free agents.
Harrison, a 7-foot center from Colorado who completed his fourth year in NBA, became expendable after the Pacers acquired veteran Rasho Nesterovic and Georgetown’s Roy Hibbert to complement Jeff Foster.

Pacers president Larry Bird declined through a spokesman to comment on personnel moves or Granger’s contract status.

Five players with state ties are among the 15 expected to play in the Pacers’ rookie and free agent camp that runs Thursday through Sunday.

Ben Davis High School graduate Stanley Burrell of Xavier, Pike and Purdue product David Teague, Butler’s Pete Campbell, Indiana University’s Earl Calloway and Valparaiso’s Ali Berdiel are among those who have been invited.

Pacers veterans Shawne Williams, heading into his third NBA season, and Stephen Graham, heading into his fourth year, also are expected to play.

The players the Pacers acquired in the Jermaine O’Neal deal with Toronto and in the draft-day deal with Portland can’t participate because those trades aren’t official until July.9.

The complete list of players expected to play can be found at indystar.com/pacers.
Call Star reporter Jeff Rabjohns at (317) 444-6183.

rexnom
07-01-2008, 11:30 PM
Contract negotiations always worry me. Let's hope we can keep Danny for around 10 mil/year.

ABADays
07-01-2008, 11:31 PM
You have no idea how I hate the words "long term".

duke dynamite
07-01-2008, 11:32 PM
Yeah, I am a bit surprised that they are starting the negotiations with his agent already.

Let's get this done. We can and have to keep him.

D-BONE
07-01-2008, 11:38 PM
You have no idea how I hate the words "long term".

So what exactly does "long term" mean for someone at approximately DG's juncture in his career and coming on strongly?

croz24
07-01-2008, 11:46 PM
granger's worth is about $8mil/yr. $10mil/yr is a little much but i'd probably give in. anything more than $10mil and we need to let him walk.

rock747
07-01-2008, 11:56 PM
It will be interesting to see how much they actually give him. Nice that he's intersted in staying though.

JayRedd
07-01-2008, 11:58 PM
Bout time.

4 years/$40 million. Get it done.

Kuq_e_Zi91
07-02-2008, 12:01 AM
Bird can't let Danny walk after saying he's the only "untouchable" to trades. I think he'll do whatever it takes to keep him. Let's just not break the bank. I like getting it out of the way early though, this way we have a better idea of how much cap space we'll have next summer.

PR07
07-02-2008, 12:04 AM
It'll probably be somewhere between 10-12 annually.

JayRedd
07-02-2008, 12:09 AM
I just hope they don't go overboard at like 5 years for $60 million. If his agent is smart, though, he should be able to bleed TPTB pretty good. Herb and Bird are not in a good spot here to be low-balling the only good Pacer memory from the past three years.

BlueNGold
07-02-2008, 12:12 AM
It'll probably be somewhere between 10-12 annually.

Yes, and that will be an equitable deal. I hope they lock him up for 5 years. Generally, I would avoid that but unless health becomes an issue, he is close to a guarantee.

Jose Slaughter
07-02-2008, 12:18 AM
With the moves that were made already, we've put ourselves in a great position to keep the core together for at least 5 or 6 seasons. That should give us enough time to make a tweek or two along the way.

Hoop
07-02-2008, 12:21 AM
Maybe we'll sign him a little cheaper than if we wait for him to be a restricted free agent. Some team could go nuts and offer crazy money like they did with B. Miller if we wait.

Slick Pinkham
07-02-2008, 12:21 AM
maybe we are due.

Let's review the most recent Pacer long-term deals reached, in no particular order:

JO
Tinsley
Bender
Foster

Yes, we must be due to get one right.

avoidingtheclowns
07-02-2008, 12:36 AM
You have no idea how I hate the words "long term".

would you prefer "Pacers' Granger wants 'last throes' deal" ?


Yeah, I am a bit surprised that they are starting the negotiations with his agent already.

i think it is a good thing. clearly in the last couple months the pacers have made it clear that they're marketing the team around danny and danny recognizes the effort and he wants a long-term deal, he seems to want to get it done with the pacers.


Bout time.

4 years/$40 million. Get it done.

yup. i'd be open to a 5th year like deng and iggy were offered too.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 12:46 AM
5 years and 50 mil seems about right. If his agent has any kind of skill though, we'll probably be looking at 5/60 or more.

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Just some numbers on some recent deals for players putting up similar numbers to DG at 23 or 24 years old:

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 144pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=192 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" span=3 width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64 height=17>Prince</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; WIDTH: 96pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" width=128 colSpan=2>5 yrs 47.5 million</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Butler</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2>5 yrs 45 million</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Szczerbiak</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2>6 yrs $64.5 million</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Richardson</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2>6 yrs $70 million</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Jefferson</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2>6 yrs $76 million</TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Hamilton</TD><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #ece9d8; BORDER-TOP: #ece9d8; BORDER-LEFT: #ece9d8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #ece9d8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; mso-ignore: colspan" colSpan=2>7 yrs $64.0 million</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


Everyone's deal other than Hamilton and Szczerbiak's signed him through 29, so if that holds true here, it would be a 5-year deal for Danny. With the cap not going up that much, these deals seem to be in the range of what everyone here is thinking, a 5-year deal at about 10 to 12. The guys on the worse teams tended to get the better deal relative to the time they signed (Richardson, Wally). I'll guess 5 years, $57 million.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 12:53 AM
Just some numbers on some recent deals for players putting up similar numbers to DG at 23 or 24 years old:

<table style="width: 144pt; border-collapse: collapse;" x:str="" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="192"><colgroup><col style="width: 48pt;" span="3" width="64"></colgroup><tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); width: 48pt; height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17" width="64">Prince</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); width: 96pt; background-color: transparent;" colspan="2" width="128">5 yrs 47.5 million</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17">Butler</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); background-color: transparent;" colspan="2">5 yrs 45 million</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17">Szczerbiak</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); background-color: transparent;" colspan="2">6 yrs $64.5 million</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17">Richardson</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); background-color: transparent;" colspan="2">6 yrs $70 million</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17">Jefferson</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); background-color: transparent;" colspan="2">6 yrs $76 million</td></tr><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); height: 12.75pt; background-color: transparent;" height="17">Hamilton</td><td style="border: medium none rgb(236, 233, 216); background-color: transparent;" colspan="2">7 yrs $64.0 million</td></tr></tbody></table>


Everyone's deal other than Hamilton and Szczerbiak's signed him through 29, so if that holds true here, it would be a 5-year deal for Danny. With the cap not going up that much, these deals seem to be in the range of what everyone here is thinking, a 5-year deal at about 10 to 12. The guys on the worse teams tended to get the better deal relative to the time they signed (Richardson, Wally). I'll guess 5 years, $57 million.
Wow, Caron is the best bargain in the league.

jeffg-body
07-02-2008, 01:00 AM
He deserves that 10 mil a year level, especially if he keep improving.

MillerTime
07-02-2008, 01:14 AM
Granger should get about $8 - $12 mill per year...

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 01:28 AM
Wow, Caron is the best bargain in the league.

Yeah, but remember the deal is 4 years old. That and people thought his numbers of 16/6/2 might have been inflated considering the crap team he got them with (LAL). No one ever dreamed he would blossom into a 20/7/5 guy on a slightly better than crap team.

CableKC
07-02-2008, 02:15 AM
It was pointed out in one of the other threads.....but Granger should be getting something similiar to what SFs like Deng is getting.

I would be okay with something starting at $10.5 mil and whatever standard percentage raise is given for the next 5 years.

The Unknown
07-02-2008, 07:43 AM
$9-12M per year is right. Nothing more, nothing less.

count55
07-02-2008, 08:18 AM
It was pointed out in one of the other threads.....but Granger should be getting something similiar to what SFs like Deng is getting.

I would be okay with something starting at $10.5 mil and whatever standard percentage raise is given for the next 5 years.


Keep in mind that both Deng and Gordon turned down extensions of 5/$50.

The contract you're proposing would (could) be a 5yr/$65mm deal with a final year of about $15.7mm. While that strikes me as a little salty, it might not be far off what Danny and his agent might be hoping.

While I'd hope for a 5/$50 deal, I would expect it to creep above that. I think it will probably take 5/$55-$60 to get it done.

If we do that, I'd prefer that the contract be relatively flat rather than one that inflates to such large proportions at the end of the deal.

The real question is do we want to run the risk of testing the market value on a personable 26 yr old next summer who could be coming off a 20+ pt, 7 reb year? For the cautionary tale, I point you to Rashard Lewis, who parlayed numbers very similar to what Danny put up last year into a 6-yr, $112mm contract.

Plus, Portland will be far enough under the cap to offer someone a max deal next year. Whether they do it or not is another story, but I think he only gets more expensive (and possibly more unattainable) next summer.

DGPR
07-02-2008, 09:01 AM
Portland is going to need all the cap space they can get in order to lock up the likes of Roy, Oden, and Aldridge.

clicky2
07-02-2008, 09:07 AM
I can agree with 5 for somewhere in the 55-60 range. As long as it's relatively cap friendly the first few years (not going above 10mil) it shouldn't be too costly for the franchise. Not like we have a number of other rookie contracts on the books that will need to be dealt with prior to 2011-2012 or so. By then Dunleavy, Murphy and Tinsley's contracts will be off the books as well so they should have plenty of room under the cap to resign guys like Rush and Hibbert if they both pan out.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 09:08 AM
Yeah, let's just not test Danny's market value.

esabyrn333
07-02-2008, 09:11 AM
I would like to see them to try and do a front end loaded contract kinda like Kirk Hinrich's. Where it gets more cap friendly each year. If I understand the situation It would start next year and at that time we would have plenty of cap space to make that the largest year of the contract.

2minutes twowa
07-02-2008, 09:12 AM
I'm sure Danny's agent will be pulling out the stat sheets:

05-06 78 games, 17 starts, 7.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg, .777 ft%, .323 3pt%
06-07 82 games, 57 starts, 13.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, .803 ft%, .382 3pt%
07-08 80 games, 80 starts, 19.6 ppg, 6.1 rpg, .852 ft%, .404 3pt%

Danny improves his game every year. With him being the man this year, he could approach allstar type numbers (24, 8). I would have no problem with a 5 year, $50-$60 million deal.

count55
07-02-2008, 09:15 AM
I would like to see them to try and do a front end loaded contract kinda like Kirk Hinrich's. Where it gets more cap friendly each year. If I understand the situation It would start next year and at that time we would have plenty of cap space to make that the largest year of the contract.


If we were so inclined, I believe we could offer a 5yr/55 mm deal starting at the estimated max of $13.5, declining at 10.5% per year, with the final year being $8.7mm. I'm not sure that either the Pacers or Danny would be interested in that, but that's the type of numbers you could look at, on the extreme.

2minutes twowa
07-02-2008, 09:23 AM
If we were so inclined, I believe we could offer a 5yr/55 mm deal starting at the estimated max of $13.5, declining at 10.5% per year, with the final year being $8.7mm. I'm not sure that either the Pacers or Danny would be interested in that, but that's the type of numbers you could look at, on the extreme.

I like this idea of a front-loaded deal.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 09:34 AM
I like this idea of a front-loaded deal.
I don't. We have two very bad contracts (Murphy, Tinsley) and one slightly bad (Dunleavy) right now. I'd rather be paying Danny the 13.5 (or more) when those are off the books and not right now. That would allow us more, not less cap flexibility.

Mourning
07-02-2008, 09:40 AM
Yes, and that will be an equitable deal. I hope they lock him up for 5 years. Generally, I would avoid that but unless health becomes an issue, he is close to a guarantee.

That's what I'm hoping for aswell. Something like 5 years $48-52 mln seems reasonable to both sides.

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2008, 10:00 AM
You have no idea how I hate the words "long term".
Yeah, ask Cleveland about how horrible it is to have a guy like Lebron signed long term...oh wait. ;)

Long deals on good players are wonderful, long deals on bad players are horrible.

Short deals on good players suck, short deals on bad players are great.


In other words, it's all about the quality of the player. At some point you have to make that call. But who would look back and consider a 20 year deal for Reggie Miller circa 87 a bad thing? Does anyone have a problem with Manning being signed long term? Will a player start phoning it in with a long deal? If so then why even keep a guy like that on the team at all?

If a guy needs the carrot of the next contract to make him play hard then maybe he isn't the guy for you.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 10:04 AM
Yeah, ask Cleveland about how horrible it is to have a guy like Lebron signed long term...oh wait. ;)

Long deals on good players are wonderful, long deals on bad players are horrible.

Short deals on good players suck, short deals on bad players are great.


In other words, it's all about the quality of the player. At some point you have to make that call. But who would look back and consider a 20 year deal for Reggie Miller circa 87 a bad thing? Does anyone have a problem with Manning being signed long term? Will a player start phoning it in with a long deal? If so then why even keep a guy like that on the team at all?

If a guy needs the carrot of the next contract to make him play hard then maybe he isn't the guy for you.
Yeah, I feel good about committing to Danny for another 5 years. It's the contract after that which is a bit more dicey, when he's going into his 30s.

count55
07-02-2008, 10:10 AM
Yeah, ask Cleveland about how horrible it is to have a guy like Lebron signed long term...oh wait. ;)

Long deals on good players are wonderful, long deals on bad players are horrible.

Short deals on good players suck, short deals on bad players are great.


In other words, it's all about the quality of the player. At some point you have to make that call. But who would look back and consider a 20 year deal for Reggie Miller circa 87 a bad thing? Does anyone have a problem with Manning being signed long term? Will a player start phoning it in with a long deal? If so then why even keep a guy like that on the team at all?

If a guy needs the carrot of the next contract to make him play hard then maybe he isn't the guy for you.

While I agree with the sentiment, I cringe when you use LeBron. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, when someone reads this, ignores the point you're trying to make, and focuses on the LeBron comment.

Harrumph! Harrumph! Danny's as good as LeBron, now? Harrumph! Harrumph! blah..blah...blah...righteous indignation...careening off on a tangent. :p;):-p

317Kim
07-02-2008, 10:14 AM
I'm very happy to see this day come.

I still remember when SiG and I were making up funny nicknames for him like Granny Danger when he got drafted.

Go Danny :woot:

rexnom
07-02-2008, 10:31 AM
I'm very happy to see this day come.

I still remember when SiG and I were making up funny nicknames for him like Granny Danger when he got drafted.

Go Danny :woot:
Hells yeah...like the new name too! :)

317Kim
07-02-2008, 11:04 AM
Hells yeah...like the new name too! :)

You already know, bud. Thanks :2tup:

JayRedd
07-02-2008, 11:24 AM
Portland is going to need all the cap space they can get in order to lock up the likes of Roy, Oden, and Aldridge.

Not really. I have a feeling Paul Allen is perfectly fine paying $80-$90 million in salary and eating the luxury tax hit if it means putting a contender together.

Pacers
07-02-2008, 11:28 AM
I don't. We have two very bad contracts (Murphy, Tinsley) and one slightly bad (Dunleavy) right now. I'd rather be paying Danny the 13.5 (or more) when those are off the books and not right now. That would allow us more, not less cap flexibility.

Sure would be nice to take our lumps now and have room later...

rexnom
07-02-2008, 11:32 AM
Not really. I have a feeling Paul Allen is perfectly fine paying $80-$90 million in salary and eating the luxury tax hit if it means putting a contender together.
Unfortunately, yes.

Ramitt
07-02-2008, 11:51 AM
And that is why I wish the NBA had a hard cap like the NFL.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 11:58 AM
And that is why I wish the NBA had a hard cap like the NFL.
I wouldn't necessarily be against that. The cap/luxury tax is pretty much a hard cap for a team like the Pacers anyways, seeing as we do everything we can not to exceed the threshold (see Miller, Brad). The only thing is that a team could get trapped this way for years unless you got rid of fully guaranteed contracts as well.

count55
07-02-2008, 12:19 PM
I wouldn't necessarily be against that. The cap/luxury tax is pretty much a hard cap for a team like the Pacers anyways, seeing as we do everything we can not to exceed the threshold (see Miller, Brad). The only thing is that a team could get trapped this way for years unless you got rid of fully guaranteed contracts as well.

That's the key...the NFL is able to maintain a hard cap because the vast majority of their contracts are not guaranteed. If the NBA could move to that type of model, using signing bonuses and more flexible renegotiation tools, there would be fewer teams getting burned by bad contracts. Also, it would force trades to be based more on value on the court rather than financial considerations, which I would support heavily.

However, it could potentially reduce trading activity since player movement otherwise could be more fluid.

Pig Nash
07-02-2008, 12:22 PM
yeah but then you see guys like eddie george and emmitt smith getting cut due to financial considerations and it just annoys me.

count55
07-02-2008, 12:30 PM
yeah but then you see guys like eddie george and emmitt smith getting cut due to financial considerations and it just annoys me.

Honestly, I'd take that over the Pau Gasol deal, which would probably become a thing of the past. Every system has limitations and flaws. I just believe that the NFL's is a much more sound financial model.

SoupIsGood
07-02-2008, 12:33 PM
Yeah, let's just not test Danny's market value.

Yep. Not even worth it. Get him locked up!

count55
07-02-2008, 01:30 PM
I don't. We have two very bad contracts (Murphy, Tinsley) and one slightly bad (Dunleavy) right now. I'd rather be paying Danny the 13.5 (or more) when those are off the books and not right now. That would allow us more, not less cap flexibility.

It depends on how much flexibility you believe you can get with Murphleavy and Droopy on the books. One argument to support twowa's position for frontloading could be this: We're strapped in the early years anyway, and any savings we get on Danny's contract would not be sufficient enough to get us meaningful cap room and greatly enhance our position. However if we frontload, it could actually give us more flexibility by moving the financial freedom to years where you could actually do something significant with it.

Also, front loading the contract would put the dollars in the period where he's most likely to be still on the upswing and most likely to earn it out. If, god forbid, Danny were to suffer an injury or start to decline in the middle of his contract, it would be eaiser to deal with if his salary was declining below $10mm rather than approaching $14 or $15 million.

I don't think this is a particularly likely scenario, and, all things being equal, I think I'd prefer a flat contract, evenly distributing the risk throughout the years.

ChicagoJ
07-02-2008, 05:20 PM
I'm sure Danny's agent will be pulling out the stat sheets:

05-06 78 games, 17 starts, 7.5 ppg, 4.9 rpg, .777 ft%, .323 3pt%
06-07 82 games, 57 starts, 13.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, .803 ft%, .382 3pt%
07-08 80 games, 80 starts, 19.6 ppg, 6.1 rpg, .852 ft%, .404 3pt%

Danny improves his game every year. With him being the man this year, he could approach allstar type numbers (24, 8). I would have no problem with a 5 year, $50-$60 million deal.

<TABLE style="WIDTH: 214pt; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=286 border=0 x:str><COLGROUP><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><COL style="WIDTH: 59pt; mso-width-source: userset; mso-width-alt: 2889" span=2 width=79><COL style="WIDTH: 48pt" width=64><TBODY><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64 height=17>Year 1</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 59pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=79 x:num="8620.6896551724076">8,621 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 59pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=79 x:num="10344.827586206897">10,345 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; WIDTH: 48pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" width=64 x:num="12068.96551724139">12,069 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Year 2</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="9310.3448275861992">9,310 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="11172.413793103449">11,172 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="13034.482758620701">13,034 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Year 3</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="9999.9999999999927">10,000 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="12000">12,000 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="14000">14,000 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Year 4</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="10689.655172413786">10,690 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="12827.586206896554">12,828 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="14965.517241379324">14,966 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17>Year 5</TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="11379.31034482758">11,379 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="13655.172413793107">13,655 </TD><TD class=xl25 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="15931.034482758636">15,931 </TD></TR><TR style="HEIGHT: 12.75pt" height=17><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; HEIGHT: 12.75pt; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" height=17></TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="50000" x:fmla="=SUM(B1:B5)">$ 50,000 </TD><TD class=xl24 style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" x:num="60000" x:fmla="=SUM(C1:C5)">$ 60,000 </TD><TD class=xl24 title=biggrin style="BORDER-RIGHT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-TOP: #d4d0c8; BORDER-LEFT: #d4d0c8; BORDER-BOTTOM: #d4d0c8; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" alt="" x:num="70000.000000000058" x:fmla="=SUM(D1:D$ 70,000 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Frankly, the third scenario looks more likely to me.

He's already averaging 20 and 6, and he got to an average of 20 points per game with very few games of 30+ points, an indication of consistency.

Anybody that thinks his agent didn't start the discussion with "we want the max" is kidding themselves. Jalen's numbers weren't much worse when he got the max, and he was the leading scorer and best (offensive) player on an NBA Finals team. It will take some solid negotation to even get him to accept the third scenario right now, before he has a chance to have a 24 and 8 season. If it weren't for the risk of injury, if I couldn't get the max now I'd wait another season to sign a contract.

I also can't imagine he would be willing to accept anything less than the maximum annual increase as allowed by the CBA.

(Note: table edited to reflect 8% raises per the CBA. I was thinking of the old CBA when I used 10%.)

CableKC
07-02-2008, 05:31 PM
I would be okay with anything starting at $10 mil to $11.5 mil in the 1st year with incremental increases over the next 5 years for some $60 mil to $72 mil contract.

Lock him up now.....I can totally see the Blazers go after him next season.

idioteque
07-02-2008, 05:37 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with locking Danny up on a 6/76 deal. He's a great player who hasn't peaked, has a great attitude and is invaluable for PR, and he <i>wants to be here</i>. Of course, if you could get him for less, you would, but at 6/76 I still wouldn't flinch too much.

Dece
07-02-2008, 05:48 PM
6/76 for a small forward who isn't even an allstar? That would certainly doom us to mediocrity forever, we can't tie that much money up in a good, but not great player ESPECIALLY one who plays arguably the least important position in small forward.

I like DG, I hope we keep him, but he's not a big man, he's not a point guard, and he's not a dynamic wing player (can't create his own shot well) this to me makes him a 8/year type player in my mind, 10 max.

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 05:57 PM
Agreed. 6 for 76 is way too much. If we assume 5 for 55, the Pacers could back end the contract like teams usually do: 9.0, 9.9, 10.9, 12.0, 13.2. Or they could actually pay a little less than 55 by giving DG his money up front:

13, 13, 10.9, 9.2, 7.8.

Chances are, we aren't going to be major players in the free agent sweepstakes until 2011/12 or 2012/13 and DG's contract wouldn't kick in at 2009/10. It would make sense to pay him up front and give ourselves some more room to maneuver in the last 3 years of his contract.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 05:57 PM
6/76 for a small forward who isn't even an allstar? That would certainly doom us to mediocrity forever, we can't tie that much money up in a good, but not great player ESPECIALLY one who plays arguably the least important position in small forward.

I like DG, I hope we keep him, but he's not a big man, he's not a point guard, and he's not a dynamic wing player (can't create his own shot well) this to me makes him a 8/year type player in my mind, 10 max.
You say this as if Danny has hit his ceiling. He has pretty much everything going for him on the negotiating table. Jay is right, unfortunately.

Dece
07-02-2008, 06:11 PM
DG is 25, I can see (and hope for) his defense getting better, but honestly I can't see him improving that drastically that he can be considered a "franchise" player. So is he at his ceiling? Probably not, but is his ceiling high enough that he's worth franchise money?(12+ per) I really just can't see it.

count55
07-02-2008, 06:12 PM
A six-year contract is not possible this summer. They would be negotiating a contract extension, not a new contract, and the max number of years on an extension is 5.

count55
07-02-2008, 06:14 PM
DG is 25, I can see (and hope for) his defense getting better, but honestly I can't see him improving that drastically that he can be considered a "franchise" player. So is he at his ceiling? Probably not, but is his ceiling high enough that he's worth franchise money?(12+ per) I really just can't see it.


Sadly, 12 mm per year is no longer "franchise" money. Rashard Lewis, who isn't anything resembling a franchise player, just signed for an average of $18.7mm per year.

317Kim
07-02-2008, 06:16 PM
When it comes to Danny, it's not about being a flamboyant All-Star caliber player. It's about being a consistent and respectable All-Star caliber player who plays hard all the time. If he earns what he gets paid, then I'm all for it.

FWIW, I think Danny is one of our better perimeter defenders.

aceace
07-02-2008, 06:16 PM
Granger will get a contract similar to CP3.

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 06:19 PM
You say this as if Danny has hit his ceiling. He has pretty much everything going for him on the negotiating table. Jay is right, unfortunately.

I think he has most things going for him, and I don't think anyone thinks he's hit his ceiling. There are things that mitigate at $12-$13 million deal however. If he was 2 year college player with the same NBA experience putting up these numbers at 22, he'd get more coin. Small forwards won't get quite the same $$$ for their production as other positions because their minutes are a little easier to fill. A 3 is right in the middle of the position chart, so it's a little easier to slide a smaller 4 with mobility down or a 6-5 or 6-6 2 up to fill the 3 rather than pay the extra cash. It's almost impossible to do that with a 1 or 5, and it's still more difficult to do that with a 2 or 4 than it is for a SF.

aceace
07-02-2008, 06:29 PM
Lets hope Danny reads this article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271

ChicagoJ
07-02-2008, 06:55 PM
I think he has most things going for him, and I don't think anyone thinks he's hit his ceiling. There are things that mitigate at $12-$13 million deal however. If he was 2 year college player with the same NBA experience putting up these numbers at 22, he'd get more coin. Small forwards won't get quite the same $$$ for their production as other positions because their minutes are a little easier to fill. A 3 is right in the middle of the position chart, so it's a little easier to slide a smaller 4 with mobility down or a 6-5 or 6-6 2 up to fill the 3 rather than pay the extra cash. It's almost impossible to do that with a 1 or 5, and it's still more difficult to do that with a 2 or 4 than it is for a SF.

Which is why he has little incentive to actually sign something this summer. They're willing to accept the max (or close to it) right now. If the Pacers don't offer it yet, he just needs to earn it next season.

I agree that if there is a commodity in the league, it is good-but-not all-star 2's and 3's. Danny isn't far off from all-star status, even though his quiet personality might not generate the attention he needs to win that popularity contest.

d_c
07-02-2008, 07:10 PM
A six-year contract is not possible this summer. They would be negotiating a contract extension, not a new contract, and the max number of years on an extension is 5.

Correct.

The current CBA doesn't allow a player to be under contract for more than 6 years at a time, including any current year he's under contract.

Because Granger is already under contract for one more season, he can't be signed to a 6 year extension at this point in time because then he'd be under contract for a total of 7 years.

Now if you wait until next summer, Granger will no longer be under contract and you can sign him to a 6 year deal.

Kuq_e_Zi91
07-02-2008, 07:10 PM
A six-year contract is not possible this summer. They would be negotiating a contract extension, not a new contract, and the max number of years on an extension is 5.

That's why everyone is fixed on 5 years. If I could, I'd sign him for 6 but unfortunately that's not possible.

EDIT* We posted at the same time...but I really don't want to wait until next year. Let's get it done now and not even give other teams a chance. You never know what will happen in free agency, especially with people like Paul Allen who can just throw money at people. It's good Danny wants to stay here though. Let's get it done!!

Rajah Brown
07-02-2008, 08:21 PM
I wouldn't pay Granger a penny more than either 4 for $48m or 5
for $60m and I'd be swallowing pretty hard doing that. DG may or may
not be a borderline All-Star (I don't think so myself), but I could care
less wether he ever makes the All-Star team. All that matters is wins
and losses.

ChicagoPacer
07-02-2008, 08:38 PM
Which is why he has little incentive to actually sign something this summer. They're willing to accept the max (or close to it) right now. If the Pacers don't offer it yet, he just needs to earn it next season.

I guess it comes down to how risk-averse you are.

Coming out of next year, he will have made $6.5 million w/ the team, and if he's thrifty by NBA standards, after taxes, he's got $2.5 million sitting in the bank. We should all be so lucky. If I were him, I'd be thinking that I could get hit by a truck tomorrow, so getting myself locked up at $55 to $60 million now is better than waiting a year and gambling for another $10 or $15 million. After taxes, I wouldn't want to risk the $25 million to $30 million for a chance to get $5 million to $8 million. Not when I've "only" got $2.5 million in the bank.

loborick
07-02-2008, 08:46 PM
Lets hope Danny reads this article.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3469271

Danny has played there for three years and it seems you guys still don't know him. There are few more responsible people in the world than him. He is one person i would never worry about blowing all his money on frivolous purchases (except for his bat cave!).

rexnom
07-02-2008, 08:53 PM
Danny has played there for three years and it seems you guys still don't know him. There are few more responsible people in the world than him. He is one person i would never worry about blowing all his money on frivolous purchases (except for his bat cave!).
Don't worry, we feel the same way. We've just gotten burned by pretty much every single FA we've ever had to re-sign so we're a little apprehensive.

I wish we could find out more info about Danny's hobbies and such. I feel like he's the most likable player we've ever had yet I don't feel like we know enough about him. Now that he has evolved into a consistent 20ppg scorer and is becoming the leader of this team, I definitely want to know more about things like his batcave.

Rexnom trivia: My basement apartment sophomore year of college used to be known as the batcave.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 08:58 PM
DG is 25, I can see (and hope for) his defense getting better, but honestly I can't see him improving that drastically that he can be considered a "franchise" player. So is he at his ceiling? Probably not, but is his ceiling high enough that he's worth franchise money?(12+ per) I really just can't see it.
Danny is our franchise player. Whether he's at the level of the elite franchise guys (Kobe, LeBron, CP3) is irrelevant. Granger is our main guy. This is a rebuilding effort with Danny as Batman, for better or worse.

CableKC
07-02-2008, 09:21 PM
I think he has most things going for him, and I don't think anyone thinks he's hit his ceiling. There are things that mitigate at $12-$13 million deal however. If he was 2 year college player with the same NBA experience putting up these numbers at 22, he'd get more coin. Small forwards won't get quite the same $$$ for their production as other positions because their minutes are a little easier to fill. A 3 is right in the middle of the position chart, so it's a little easier to slide a smaller 4 with mobility down or a 6-5 or 6-6 2 up to fill the 3 rather than pay the extra cash. It's almost impossible to do that with a 1 or 5, and it's still more difficult to do that with a 2 or 4 than it is for a SF.
When it comes to negotiating...Granger is in the Driver seat.....try convincing Danny and his Agent that he should take less cuz SFs are easy to find. I can see 5yr/50mil is a starting point.....but I am guessing that it will go higher. I really hope that his agent doesn't look at what Rashard Lewis got and wants that much.

I have no problem with 5yr/65-70mil and hope that he would agree to that.

rexnom
07-02-2008, 09:33 PM
I'm starting to think 60mil might be a bargain...ugh...and it's not like we're the Spurs over here, people don't take pay cuts to play for the Pacers.

Kuq_e_Zi91
07-02-2008, 09:33 PM
His agent understand we're in a rebuilding mode and can't afford to dish out Rashard Lewis money. Hopefully he won't use that in his favor to up the price. I think Danny understands as well though. He seems like somebody who would be in favor of what's best for the team instead of himself.

Rajah Brown
07-02-2008, 10:05 PM
Rexnom-

I'm not trying to be gratiutously contrarian or a smarta$$. But wouldn't
being a 'consistent, 20ppg scorer' imply at least a couple years at
20ppm, if not ideally, several ?

count55
07-02-2008, 10:19 PM
I don't know how much I contributed to this rampant inflation, but I honestly expect Danny to sign a contract extension for 5 years at somewhere between $50 & $55 million. Both Gordon and Deng turned down extensions a little below that range, and both had their performance decline this past year. Okafor is in the same boat after he turned down the reported $12mm per annum extension offered by Charlotte. Now, it's not like these guys had horrible years, but they did not enhance their bargaining position with their performance.

Now they face a market with a limited number of teams that can make significant free agent offers (though it looks like GS is going to offer max contracts to people until somebody takes it), and Josh Smith and Andre Iguodala are getting in line ahead of these guys. Bartelstein was on Kravitz and Eddie today, and I do think they are looking to get this resolved this year. They aren't going to give a discount, but they're not going to gouge. I don't think Danny would command a max offer on the open, but I don't want to risk it, given the level of liquid cash in some corners and just plain stupidity in others.

I believe it'll get done at a number everybody will find relatively easy to swallow.

Taterhead
07-03-2008, 01:26 AM
Danny is our franchise player. Whether he's at the level of the elite franchise guys (Kobe, LeBron, CP3) is irrelevant. Granger is our main guy. This is a rebuilding effort with Danny as Batman, for better or worse.

What do you mean by this exactly? Pay him more than he's worth? If so, I strongly disagree. Danny is at best a sidekick, and shouold be paid accordingly. Otherwise we'll all grow to resent Danny in a few years the exact same way we did with JO. That's not the way to build a contender.

Trust me, it'll go from "Danny is a hard worker, great guy and great young player" to "What a lazy, aging, overpaid bum" in a flash.

The guy put up numbers similiar to Dunleavy, he should be paid similar to Dunleavy, not much more.

5 years 60 million or 6 years 70 million tops. If he wants more he can test the market, IMO.

JayRedd
07-03-2008, 06:11 AM
Granger will get a contract similar to CP3.

If we give Danny $87 million for five years I would hafta consider no longer having a favorite team.

Doddage
07-03-2008, 06:12 AM
Either we sign Danny to a reasonable deal in the $8-10m/yr range, or we sign and trade him to another team and get some nice pieces out of it. This new administration can't afford to fall into the same habits as the past. Although seeing as Bird likes Danny and we probably feel as though he's the man, I expect him to get as much as he wants.

Mourning
07-03-2008, 07:50 AM
If we give Danny $87 million for five years I would hafta consider no longer having a favorite team.

Yup! Me too.

count55
07-03-2008, 08:00 AM
If we give Danny $87 million for five years I would hafta consider no longer having a favorite team.

This isn't going to happen. I think Danny's going to get paid, and he's going to get paid well, but I don't believe any of he, his agent, or the Pacers are going to be that stupid about it.

As I said somewhere at the top of the thread, my ceiling for this year is 5/60, and I'm relatively confident (say, 3 in 4 chance) that we can get the extension done at that, and likely below. If it hits that number, then I wait until end of the year, make my qualifying offer and see what the market bears.

I think we'll get a good sense for what the market will bear when Josh Smith and Andre Iguodala get their contracts. IMO, I think Danny's better/more valuable than Smith, but probably somewhat less valuable than Iggy. Also, Antawn Jamison just signed 4/50 coming off a 21/10 year. Yes, Jamison is 32 (didn't realize it until I looked it up), but that would affect the years, not the dollars. As long as somebody doesn't do something really stupid with Smith/Iggy, then the Pacers should be able to get Danny to sign the extension for an average of $10-11mm per year.

count55
07-03-2008, 08:37 AM
Either we sign Danny to a reasonable deal in the $8-10m/yr range, or we sign and trade him to another team and get some nice pieces out of it. This new administration can't afford to fall into the same habits as the past. Although seeing as Bird likes Danny and we probably feel as though he's the man, I expect him to get as much as he wants.

Well, when discussing "habits of the past", they fall into two categories, and I'm not sure where Danny falls in the spectrum.

First has to do with the desire to keep young talent by locking them up to extensions before they could test the market. I would put the signings of Foster, Bender, Harrington, Tinsley, and Artest into that category. While this practice has drawn some criticism, I'd say that it has been more successful than unsuccessful. Foster and Harrington both earned out their extensions pretty well, and were productive either as players or as trading assets later. Artest, despite all of the troubles, was actually, IMO, a pretty decent contract decision. I think we got him cheaper than we otherwise would've, and that contract actually made it easier for us to move him when we needed. Bender could be argued as a mistake or a good decision where bad luck befell us. If, as I believe, you think Bender was a bust before the injury, it was a mistake. However, if you think he was a really good player whose body betrayed him, then it was a wise risk. Tinsley was an out-and-out mistake. He had already shown signs of backsliding and inability to stay in the line up when we gave him the extension.

At the other end of the spectrum are the max players: Jalen Rose and Jermaine O'Neal. Both hit the free agent market, both were identified as successors to Reggie, and both were widely regarded, both here and throughout the league, as "max" players. Neither delivered on the goods. With Jalen, there are a couple of factors that could excuse the decision: (1) the Pacers were able to parlay him into some good talent (Miller, Artest, Mercer, Ollie) and (2) Jalen was signed early on in the "max" player era...there wasn't a long experience of max players either blowing up in their team's faces (Vin Baker) or simply not being worth the money (JO).

Danny falls somewhere in between these, probably closer to the first. The reason that he doesn't fall fully into the first category is that he's shown significantly more (20/6 last year) than any of those guys did. Therefore, there's little chance of signing him to a contract comparable to them, in the $6-8mm average range. However, he doesn't have the credentials that Rose (leading scorer on finals team) or JO (three straight years of double-doubles) had when their contracts came up, so he's currently not going to be considered a max player by anyone.

First, the truth of the "habits of the past" is that all of the sins (real or perceived) were actually committed between 2000 & 2003, regarding the contracts that were signed...2004, if you elect to expand to include the S&T for Stephen Jackson (debatable). The problem is that all of them were reasonable decisions at the time. That is not to say that everybody (fans, media, etc) agreed 100% with the decisions while they were occurring, rather that the prevailing opinion was that they made sense and even those who disagreed could see a clear logic in the moves.

This is what we're faced with now. Danny is a very good player who can be an excellent foundation piece for this franchise. While I understand the wisdom and the motivation behind not wanting to re-create the contractual snares that we are dealing with now, we must balance that against the need to actually create some continuity and have good players on the roster. If we swing too far one way, we're back where we started. If we swing too far the other way, then we become the Clippers of the '80's and '90's, watching young talent leave and flourish elsewhere while we continue to flounder in the cellar.

So, while I would definitely put a ceiling on Danny, I would put it slightly higher than yours. I'd start my negotiations at an $8-9mm average, then put the cap at the $12mm average. If that doesn't work, we go into next season and test the market. If Danny comes back, averages 24 & 7, and the team appears to be on the upswing, then I'll adjust my ceiling, otherwise the process starts over again with the same thought process.

rexnom
07-03-2008, 09:29 AM
So, while I would definitely put a ceiling on Danny, I would put it slightly higher than yours. I'd start my negotiations at an $8-9mm average, then put the cap at the $12mm average. If that doesn't work, we go into next season and test the market. If Danny comes back, averages 24 & 7, and the team appears to be on the upswing, then I'll adjust my ceiling, otherwise the process starts over again with the same thought process.
Probably the wise thing to do. Good post, count.

avoidingtheclowns
07-03-2008, 10:48 AM
Rexnom trivia: My basement apartment sophomore year of college used to be known as the batcave.

is that just because you kept your own spandexed "boy wonder" locked in there?

rexnom
07-03-2008, 10:54 AM
is that just because you kept your own spandexed "boy wonder" locked in there?
You know me too well.

EDIT: Actually, it was him, me, and JayRedd's mom. Good times.

ChicagoPacer
07-03-2008, 01:09 PM
At the other end of the spectrum are the max players: Jalen Rose and Jermaine O'Neal. Both hit the free agent market, both were identified as successors to Reggie, and both were widely regarded, both here and throughout the league, as "max" players. Neither delivered on the goods. With Jalen, there are a couple of factors that could excuse the decision: (1) the Pacers were able to parlay him into some good talent (Miller, Artest, Mercer, Ollie) and (2) Jalen was signed early on in the "max" player era...there wasn't a long experience of max players either blowing up in their team's faces (Vin Baker) or simply not being worth the money (JO).

A little off-topic, but I never understood the big money thrown Rose's way. You compare Rose's numbers to Danny's and I never knew why anyone would consider him anything more than a good #2 or #3 option on a good team.

Comparing Granger vs Rose on his contract year:
-Granger is 3 years younger
-Granger is the more efficient scorer in terms of pts per FGA and FT shooting
-Granger put up his shooting numbers without having the benefit of a Smits and Miller to stretch the defense.
-Granger is the better rebounder, especially on the offensive end
-Granger is the better defender
-Granger is less turnover prone
-Rose is the better passer

I really think the money given to Rose came down to the Pacers feeling like they were on the cusp of being a 2-3 year contender post Smits and being scared to part w/ Rose and doing the right thing for the long-term interests of the franchise.

count55
07-03-2008, 01:22 PM
A little off-topic, but I never understood the big money thrown Rose's way. You compare Rose's numbers to Danny's and I never knew why anyone would consider him anything more than a good #2 or #3 option on a good team.

Comparing Granger vs Rose on his contract year:
-Granger is 3 years younger
-Granger is the more efficient scorer in terms of pts per FGA and FT shooting
-Granger put up his shooting numbers without having the benefit of a Smits and Miller to stretch the defense.
-Granger is the better rebounder, especially on the offensive end
-Granger is the better defender
-Granger is less turnover prone
-Rose is the better passer

I really think the money given to Rose came down to the Pacers feeling like they were on the cusp of being a 2-3 year contender post Smits and being scared to part w/ Rose and doing the right thing for the long-term interests of the franchise.

I think in both Rose and JO's cases, they were considered to be the heir apparent to Reggie. Again, I think timing helped Rose out a lot. They were coming off a finals run, losing Smits and Jackson, and Rose was arguably their best player at that point. Plus, it's not like he exactly flopped after signing the contact. He averaged over 20 pts a game in each of the next three seasons (While only missing 10 games, total.)

ChicagoJ
07-03-2008, 01:39 PM
Jalen was the best (offensive) player and leading scorer on a NBA Finals team. How is that unworthy of a max contract?

Eddie Jones and Brian Grant may not have deserved the max contracts they got, but I've got no problem with Jalen getting his money in that contract. Then again, that was the same summer the Rockets and Bulls threw crazy money at Croshere, and the Pacers matched.

2minutes twowa
07-03-2008, 03:26 PM
You know me too well.

EDIT: Actually, it was him, me, and JayRedd's mom. Good times.

OH SNAP!!:surprised

ChicagoPacer
07-03-2008, 05:30 PM
Jalen was the best (offensive) player and leading scorer on a NBA Finals team. How is that unworthy of a max contract?


At the time, it was considered worthy, but GMs have wised up since then. I'll give you a list of the most productive scoring SFs/SGs of that season (2000/2001) who were roughly Jalen's age (26 to 29).

Player& Pts/36 min
Stackhouse 26.7
Finley 18.5
Houston 18.4
Rose 18.1

Where were these guys by 03/04? Stackhouse was hurt and never the same. Houston had his last productive season. Finley held up fairly well, but not enough to justify what he's getting paid. Rose was up in Toronto on his decline scoring 15-16 a game on 40% shooting. Three were max guys while the other (Stackhouse) was not, but only due to injury and his reputation. Rose had $45 million left on his contract for 3 more years at that point. Finley and Houston's contracts were worse.

In hindsight, all three of these contracts were bad, and if Stackhouse hadn't screwed up, he would have had an equally bad one. A few years later, half of the GMs got smart and locked up players at 24 or 25 to avoid paying a bigger chunk of the contract on the downside of a player's career (Pierce and Allen) . The other half didn't (see: Carter, Vince and Hughes, Larry). Even without hindsight of Rose's decline, GMs today wouldn't offer Jalen the deal he got. It's less about what you did for me last year and more about what you will be able to do for me over the next 5 years.

mike_D
07-03-2008, 08:24 PM
Danny is our franchise player. Whether he's at the level of the elite franchise guys (Kobe, LeBron, CP3) is irrelevant. Granger is our main guy. This is a rebuilding effort with Danny as Batman, for better or worse.


Your Franchise player better be one of the games best players. He better be somebody you TPTB see as a leader,hardworker,somebody who can be that #1 option and carry a team on his back. Granger alreay has some of those attributes but its uncertain if he will ever be able to carry a team on his back and be that #1 option . If Danny wants an extension I have no problem starting it at 10 mill per but I would not go over 12mill anything more then that I the TPTB will have to consider moving him.

I don't think it matters if he's your best player right now or if your in a rebuilding situation. You don't give good players max money. If Danny is unreasonable and wants Rashard Lewis money I would look to move him and get a young talent back and or future draft picks. I would rather do that then add 18 million to our payroll for just a good player. I think the most important thing to have when your in a rebuilding sitution to aquire assets such as young players, draft picks and salary cap flexibility to make trades and sign free agents.

LoneGranger33
07-04-2008, 12:56 AM
I just hope Danny has no idea how much Troy Murphy makes.

count55
07-04-2008, 04:16 AM
Well, in related news, Chris Paul signed a 4-yr, $68mm deal with the Hornets, which is the max allowable starting salary and the maximum raise, but it's one year short of the max years.

This doesn't help us understand Danny's market value any better because Danny is not in Paul's class. Paul is an MVP candidate and, arguably, one of the few honest-to-god franchise players around. However, it does tell us a couple of things:

1. The max starting salary for a player with 5yrs or less experience is not $13.5, as I was estimating based on last year's $13.1...rather, it is actually $14.6mm.

2. The max extension is actually 5/89+, not 5/84.

Shade
07-04-2008, 04:24 AM
I think Danny will get about $11-12 mil/year.

Hicks
07-04-2008, 10:49 AM
He could always earn a statue right now if he signs for 5 years, $5 mil. ;)

I could see him getting that much, Shade, but I'm looking at more around $10mm/yr.

JayRedd
07-04-2008, 01:42 PM
A little off-topic, but I never understood the big money thrown Rose's way. You compare Rose's numbers to Danny's and I never knew why anyone would consider him anything more than a good #2 or #3 option on a good team.

Umm...He was our #1 option. And since we went to the Finals and all, I'd guess we qualify as a a good team.



Well, in related news, Chris Paul signed a 4-yr, $68mm deal with the Hornets, which is the max allowable starting salary and the maximum raise, but it's one year short of the max years.

This doesn't help us understand Danny's market value any better because Danny is not in Paul's class. Paul is an MVP candidate and, arguably, one of the few honest-to-god franchise players around. However, it does tell us a couple of things:

1. The max starting salary for a player with 5yrs or less experience is not $13.5, as I was estimating based on last year's $13.1...rather, it is actually $14.6mm.

2. The max extension is actually 5/89+, not 5/84.

I heard his other choice was 5 years/$87 million. Not a big deal, just saying what I saw.

But he went for the shorter deal from the LeBron/Dwyane school of maximizing your career value.

ChicagoPacer
07-04-2008, 02:31 PM
Umm...He was our #1 option. And since we went to the Finals and all, I'd guess we qualify as a a good team.

We can debate all day long if (A) he was really our #1 option (Miller scored more in the playoffs), or (B) it was the Reggie/Smits combo that allowed him to excel a la Croshere. He became "the guy" after that series, and his FG% dropped every year. By year 3 of his deal he was a 40% shooter, and by year 4, was a 40% 15ppg, $13.3 million a year number one option for the Bulls and Toronto Craptors. I'm taking option B.

And yet the question really is, was he worth the money we signed him for? I'm not talking what he did the year before his contract. I'm talking about what he did under his new contract, because that's all that really matters:

Year 1: $9.7 million
Year 2: $10.9 million
Year 3: $12.0 million
Year 4: $13.3 million
Year 5: $14.5 million
Year 6: $15.7 million
Year 7: $14.6 million

The last 4 years of that contract were indisputably "bad". Sure, we managed to get rid of Jalen, but if you think that he was worth the money and this was a "good" contract that he "deserved", then by all standards Troy Murphy's current deal is no worse than decent. I don't see GMs lining up for the services of Murphy right now.

JayRedd
07-04-2008, 02:56 PM
And yet the question really is, was he worth the money we signed him for?

Of course not.

My only point was that he was the best player on our Finals team at the time. I imagine you disagree, but to me it's not even debatable.

Hicks
07-04-2008, 05:30 PM
Of course not.

My only point was that he was the best player on our Finals team at the time. I imagine you disagree, but to me it's not even debatable.

Reggie was still the man in the post season.

count55
07-04-2008, 07:38 PM
Umm...He was our #1 option. And since we went to the Finals and all, I'd guess we qualify as a a good team.




I heard his other choice was 5 years/$87 million. Not a big deal, just saying what I saw.

But he went for the shorter deal from the LeBron/Dwyane school of maximizing your career value.

It's likely the difference could be in rounding. I was backsolving from a flat $68mm, which could fluctuate the extrapolation if it was actualy +/- 500k from that.

ChicagoPacer
07-04-2008, 09:54 PM
Before I hi-jacked this thread and turned it into a Jalen Rose post mortem, I guess the point I was trying to make is that while DG is a very good player, we need to consider the players surrounding him in the future and the impact this may have on his production and future value.

We hitched our wagon to Croshere and Rose on the back of a very productive season, but mgmt failed to predict the future effectiveness of either under different personnel circumstances and we ultimately wound up overpaying. Both of those guys were very effective that finals season and especially during that playoff run, but it came on the backs of the vets. Jalen was the high minute, steady scorer type, and Croshere had spurts of great play. Smits couldn't play many minutes by this point in time, but when you look his production when he was on the court, it is pretty clear he was drawing doubles for the benefit of Cro and Jalen. You can see this in everyone's per 36 minutes stats from the run:

Reggie 21.3 pts/36 min, Smits 18.8, Jalen 17.9, Travis and Cro 15.9.

When Jalen, Reggie, and Smits were on the court together, Jalen was our third option.

Smits retired and Reggie got a year older...Jalen got more touches the following year and scored more but at the expense of efficiency, and Cro... well let's just say those drives to the hoop for dunks are harder to come by when Smits isn't around to keep post defenders from cheating over to help. We failed to figure out what these two guys were capable of when they were asked to do more on the offensive end.

With Granger, it's the opposite. We need to figure out what he is capable of if he is asked to do less on the offensive end. Is he putting up his numbers because he's a budding all-star, or is he putting them up because we stink and no one else is around to do the things he does? Are we paying for a future 22 pt, 7 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Or, assuming our roster improves and DG's touches decline, are we paying for a 15-16 pt, 6 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Because there is a big difference...

Some guys, when asked to do less, do things better and more efficiently (Cro and Rose). Some, like an Allen Iverson or Adrian Dantley, don't. We don't want to pay too much if Danny can't pick up other parts of his game with less touches (defense and passing).

Anthem
07-04-2008, 11:35 PM
Some guys, when asked to do less, do things better and more efficiently (Cro and Rose). Some, like an Allen Iverson or Adrian Dantley, don't.
So far, both Danny and Dunleavy seem to fall into the latter category. Dun especially, but Danny to a lesser extent.

Anybody disagree?

Hicks
07-05-2008, 12:09 AM
Are you saying they're not efficient?

Anthem
07-05-2008, 12:39 AM
Are you saying they're not efficient?
I'm saying they kick themselves into a higher gear when everything's on them, but neither has shown the ability to play well in a supporting role. We say that Danny's an ideal 2nd or 3rd man, but so far he's gotten timid when asked to be in that role.

And Dunleavy's the same, except moreso.

imawhat
07-05-2008, 01:48 AM
I'm saying they kick themselves into a higher gear when everything's on them, but neither has shown the ability to play well in a supporting role. We say that Danny's an ideal 2nd or 3rd man, but so far he's gotten timid when asked to be in that role.

And Dunleavy's the same, except moreso.


This is definitely true. Danny really seemed to struggle with O'Neal in the lineup (until the last few games of last season..then again, they weren't exactly sharing a lot of floor time with O'Neal coming off the bench).

Barring a major trade involving another player, I think Danny is going to assume the leadership role for a few years to come, so I'm not necessarily concerned about him being a 2nd or 3rd guy.

Dunleavy though...it will be interesting to see what happens next year. I certainly expect his numbers to be lower, but I'm really thinking he'll be more efficient. He needs to be. He did play well at Duke in a tertiary role.

Hicks
07-05-2008, 10:50 AM
I'm saying they kick themselves into a higher gear when everything's on them, but neither has shown the ability to play well in a supporting role. We say that Danny's an ideal 2nd or 3rd man, but so far he's gotten timid when asked to be in that role.

And Dunleavy's the same, except moreso.

Keep in mind Danny was only a rookie/sophomore before in year 3 he was suddenly "Co-The-Man" with Dunleavy. So I don't think we truly know how a veteran Danny would handle being Guy 2 or Guy 3.

Dunleavy, not so much, but then again was he really that bad in Golden State? Sure, his numbers were worse, but he wasn't C-T-M there, either.

I guess what I'm saying is while I understand why you and others feel that way, I'm far from convinced that it's a closed case.

count55
07-05-2008, 12:56 PM
Keep in mind Danny was only a rookie/sophomore before in year 3 he was suddenly "Co-The-Man" with Dunleavy. So I don't think we truly know how a veteran Danny would handle being Guy 2 or Guy 3.

Dunleavy, not so much, but then again was he really that bad in Golden State? Sure, his numbers were worse, but he wasn't C-T-M there, either.

I guess what I'm saying is while I understand why you and others feel that way, I'm far from convinced that it's a closed case.

This is where I'm at, at least on Danny.

loborick
07-05-2008, 06:04 PM
I'm saying they kick themselves into a higher gear when everything's on them, but neither has shown the ability to play well in a supporting role. We say that Danny's an ideal 2nd or 3rd man, but so far he's gotten timid when asked to be in that role.

And Dunleavy's the same, except moreso.

Danny's role was never clearly defined until this past year. Is it a coincidence it was his best year? Was he a PF, SF or SG? I don't think he ever knew.

I don't think the observation is valid because there were to many other factors.

imawhat
07-05-2008, 06:35 PM
Danny's role was never clearly defined until this past year. Is it a coincidence it was his best year? Was he a PF, SF or SG? I don't think he ever knew.

I don't think the observation is valid because there were to many other factors.

I think it's completely valid. Go back two years ago.

When Jermaine went out, Danny looked amazing. When Jermaine was back into the lineup, Danny completely disappeared and looked lost. At this time, there was a lot of talk (on here) that it would make more sense to keep Shawne and trade Danny, as even Shawne was looking less lost.

Anthem
07-06-2008, 12:53 PM
I guess what I'm saying is while I understand why you and others feel that way, I'm far from convinced that it's a closed case.
My whole point is that it's NOT a closed case. People keep saying we'll find a Batman to put with Danny's Robin, but I'm saying it's not clear that Danny will ever flourish in a Robin situation.

It could happen. But it hasn't yet.

Anthem
07-06-2008, 12:54 PM
When Jermaine went out, Danny looked amazing. When Jermaine was back into the lineup, Danny completely disappeared and looked lost. At this time, there was a lot of talk (on here) that it would make more sense to keep Shawne and trade Danny, as even Shawne was looking less lost.
Exactly. People got on JO for not sharing well or whatever, but he sure looked like he was trying to share the ball. Danny just wasn't the same player when Jermaine was in uniform.

Hopefully he's over it by now, but I don't think there's any other way to interpret the history.

Kid Minneapolis
07-06-2008, 01:20 PM
Why does a team have to be set up in a "Batman & Robin" configuration? Just learn to play well together, and you'll have success. Who is the batman and who is the robin on this year's Celtic team? Can you honestly answer it? It is Garnett? Or Pierce? If Pierce and Garnett are Batman and Robin in no particular order, then what is Ray Allen?

I liked how Boston was playing at the end of the season. There was no real defined #1 man... just 3 really good guys who had built a great synergy. You could make a case for Pierce or Garnett and be reasonable, but then again Allen arguably had the best Finals.

idioteque
07-06-2008, 03:18 PM
Why does a team have to be set up in a "Batman & Robin" configuration?

I don't think that's as common as you're leading on. What Batman and Robin team has won the finals in recent memory besides the Jordan-Pippen Bulls?

juadam09
07-06-2008, 03:27 PM
I don't think that's as common as you're leading on. What Batman and Robin team has won the finals in recent memory besides the Jordan-Pippen Bulls?

I believe that was his point.

BlueNGold
07-06-2008, 04:26 PM
Why does a team have to be set up in a "Batman & Robin" configuration? Just learn to play well together, and you'll have success. Who is the batman and who is the robin on this year's Celtic team? Can you honestly answer it? It is Garnett? Or Pierce? If Pierce and Garnett are Batman and Robin in no particular order, then what is Ray Allen?

I liked how Boston was playing at the end of the season. There was no real defined #1 man... just 3 really good guys who had built a great synergy. You could make a case for Pierce or Garnett and be reasonable, but then again Allen arguably had the best Finals.

Same with the Pistons. There is no strict formula. However, multiple go-to guys are helpful...probably better than having one. Maybe that's where the Batman/Robin reference comes from. It usually takes at least two great players....both who will usually get their shot off or get fouled.

With the Celtics you may actually have more than 3. Rondo played out of his mind. Perkins was pretty solid. Posey was solid. IMO, Rondo is one heckuva player.

With LA, they have Kobi and Gasol...and that ghost named Odom. IOW, Odom is a pretender. Along with that, you have a weaker supporting cast. They will need every bit of Bynum to overcome the Celtics next year...

As for Ray Allen, he's Wonderwoman. I never did care for him...that is, I hated it when he hit 3's against the Pacers.

Mourning
07-06-2008, 05:54 PM
Exactly. People got on JO for not sharing well or whatever, but he sure looked like he was trying to share the ball. Danny just wasn't the same player when Jermaine was in uniform.

Hopefully he's over it by now, but I don't think there's any other way to interpret the history.

I don't think that's very fair considering Danny was only in his second year in the league and still learning the ropes of everything.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

imawhat
07-07-2008, 02:25 AM
Who is the batman and who is the robin on this year's Celtic team? Can you honestly answer it? It is Garnett? Or Pierce? If Pierce and Garnett are Batman and Robin in no particular order, then what is Ray Allen?

They're "The Three Amigos" (or Boston Three Party, your choice).

LAPacer
07-07-2008, 02:29 AM
At what point in the summer do we worry that Danny hasn't been extended yet? (don't take this the wrong way)

count55
07-07-2008, 06:38 AM
At what point in the summer do we worry that Danny hasn't been extended yet? (don't take this the wrong way)

Obviously, the longer it drags out, the less likely it is that it happens...but I wouldn't worry until end of September, early October. The deadline for an extension is October 31st. (Unless, of course, there were leaks coming out that it was not going to get done for some reason.)

Anthem
07-07-2008, 02:30 PM
I don't think that's very fair considering Danny was only in his second year in the league and still learning the ropes of everything.
Hey, I'm not dissing Danny. I'm not saying he can't do better in the future. I'm just saying that he hasn't showed it so far.

Mourning
07-07-2008, 03:08 PM
Hey, I'm not dissing Danny. I'm not saying he can't do better in the future. I'm just saying that he hasn't showed it so far.

Yeah, but is it realistic to have expected him to have shown much at that point in his career? IMHO it is not, but ok fair enough, fair enough :).

CableKC
07-09-2008, 01:41 PM
Can someone explain to me the difference between "extending" Granger and resigning him next season?

I'm not sure if they are used as "interchangeable" terms.....or if they is a difference between the two terms.

Are we able to negotiate a contract extension with Granger NOW so that we can lock him up for a contract before the Free Agency period starts in the 2009-2010 season?

I'm looking at the Salarycap situation for the Blazers next season...and I can totatlly see Pritchard rolling up a huge truck of $$$ to Granger's frontdoor IF he is given the chance. I want to lock him up ASAP if given the chance before the Blazers make a overpaid $$$ offer to him that will likely force us to match.

count55
07-09-2008, 01:54 PM
Can someone explain to me the difference between "extending" Granger and resigning him next season?

I'm not sure if they are used as "interchangeable" terms.....or if they is a difference between the two terms.

Are we able to negotiate a contract extension with Granger NOW so that we can lock him up for a contract before the Free Agency period starts in the 2009-2010 season?

I'm looking at the Salarycap situation for the Blazers next season...and I can totatlly see Pritchard rolling up a huge truck of $$$ to Granger's frontdoor IF he is given the chance. I want to lock him up ASAP if given the chance before the Blazers make a overpaid $$$ offer to him that will likely force us to match.

Up until October 31st, the Pacers are free to extend Danny's rookie contract. On normal extensions, there would be a limit on how much Danny's first year salary could be raised or lowered, but with a rookie contract, we can offer anything up to the max salary for a player of his experience. In Danny's case, that would be about $14.6mm the first year with 10.5% raises. (I am not suggesting this, merely giving parameters.) As with all extensions, this would be a max of 5 years.

If we waited until next season, Danny would effectively become a "restricted free agent". If we couldn't come to an agreement, we would make a one-year tender offer at about $3.3mm, which would keep our right to match any offer sheet he'd receive. Danny could test the market, get a price, and we could take him or let him go at that price. He could also elect to take the one-year tender, wait until the following season, then be an "unrestricted" free agent. This happens on rare occasions and usually indicates the player intends to leave.

If we get to next summer, then the max dollars would be about the same (maybe slightly higher), but the max years would be 6, but only for us. Portland would have to do a S&T to get Danny a 6-yr contract, in this example. The problem with letting it go to next year is that you allow him to test the market and risk losing him altogether.

If we sign the extension this summer (as I hope), he will remain on this year's cap at $2.3mm, and the extension would take effect for the 2009-2010 season. The main advantage, as I've noted, is keeping the player off of the market where someone could offer more money than we would want to (or even could) pay.

EDIT: Danny would have to agree to his extension. It's not like the options the Pacers had for years 3 and 4 of his rookie contract. I think this is assumed, but re-reading my post, it implied that the Pacers could make a unilateral decision to extend Danny. This is not correct.

Placebo
07-09-2008, 01:57 PM
Maggette signed 5 year 50m$. He is already 29, injury prone and plays no defense whatsoever. I think Granger WILL ask more than 5 year 50m$. Probably something closer to 60-65 range. Yeah I know, market is crazy right now.

CableKC
07-09-2008, 02:16 PM
Up until October 31st, the Pacers are free to extend Danny's rookie contract. On normal extensions, there would be a limit on how much Danny's first year salary could be raised or lowered, but with a rookie contract, we can offer anything up to the max salary for a player of his experience. In Danny's case, that would be about $14.6mm the first year with 10.5% raises. (I am not suggesting this, merely giving parameters.) As with all extensions, this would be a max of 5 years.

If we waited until next season, Danny would effectively become a "restricted free agent". If we couldn't come to an agreement, we would make a one-year tender offer at about $3.3mm, which would keep our right to match any offer sheet he'd receive. Danny could test the market, get a price, and we could take him or let him go at that price. He could also elect to take the one-year tender, wait until the following season, then be an "unrestricted" free agent. This happens on rare occasions and usually indicates the player intends to leave.

If we get to next summer, then the max dollars would be about the same (maybe slightly higher), but the max years would be 6, but only for us. Portland would have to do a S&T to get Danny a 6-yr contract, in this example. The problem with letting it go to next year is that you allow him to test the market and risk losing him altogether.

If we sign the extension this summer (as I hope), he will remain on this year's cap at $2.3mm, and the extension would take effect for the 2009-2010 season. The main advantage, as I've noted, is keeping the player off of the market where someone could offer more money than we would want to (or even could) pay.

EDIT: Danny would have to agree to his extension. It's not like the options the Pacers had for years 3 and 4 of his rookie contract. I think this is assumed, but re-reading my post, it implied that the Pacers could make a unilateral decision to extend Danny. This is not correct.
Wow.....is the $14mil # an accurate 1st year salary if we were to give him the MAX for an extension?

I may still consider it. There is nothing that Granger has shown me ( on/off court issues, injury problems, bad lockerroom presense, lack of improvement ) that would dissuade me from doing this. He maybe our likely Franchise player and NOT on the same level of All-Star level as Deron Williams or Chris Paul....but I still think that he's worth it.

A starting salary of about $14 mil maybe overpaying....I'm okay with 11-12 mil starting in 2009-2010....but with the Blazers apparent interest, need to fill their Starting SF position with a solid player that can defend and huge Salarycap flexiblility next season....I can totally see them making a serious push for him to solidify their roster for the future. At least if we overpay him...it will be on our terms...not theirs.

avoidingtheclowns
07-09-2008, 02:19 PM
A starting salary of about $14 mil maybe overpaying....

umm yeah. it'd be mullin-esque.

count55
07-09-2008, 02:34 PM
I do not believe we should offer the max. I was merely giving an idea of the framework.

I'd hope to sign him to a 5/$55, flat payout or perhaps front-end loaded.

CableKC
07-09-2008, 07:21 PM
I do not believe we should offer the max. I was merely giving an idea of the framework.

I'd hope to sign him to a 5/$55, flat payout or perhaps front-end loaded.
With Monta likely to get a contract starting at about $10-11 mil, Baron starting at about $13 mil, and Josh Smith likely to get something in that range ( or more IF the Clips decide to overpay him )......I may not like it....but I'm guessing that we will be overpaying to a tune of about $11-13 mil as a starting salary to extend Granger.

purdue101
07-10-2008, 12:02 AM
I'm pretty sure Bird and Morway will take a page out of Philly's book (Brand and Iggy) and wait to extend Danny along with Jack until next summer. It would be a smart move in order to maximize our cap space and then use our bird rights to go over the cap to keep these guys.

Including Rush, Hibbert, and our draft pick next year, we'll probably have about 42 million in committed salary for the 09/10 season. Danny, Jack, and Foster will likely be the only free agents we have any interest in keeping. I would guess the cap will be right around 60 million with the luxury tax at 73 million.

If we extend Danny and Jack now at say 14 million per season, then we only have about 4 million in cap space to throw at a FA before hitting the cap. We could then use the MLE on another player.

However, if we hold off on the extensions, we could go throw 12-14 million per season at a big name free agent (odom, marion, boozer, etc). That would put us at 54-56 million. We could then go over the cap for Danny and Jack by using our bird rights and still fall short of the luxury tax by coming in at 68-70 million. Use the remaining space under the luxury tax on Foster w/ the MLE

It could backfire b/c Danny could explode and command 15 million per season. But if we want to snag a nice player in FA next summer, we gotta wait.

CableKC
07-10-2008, 12:27 AM
I'm pretty sure Bird and Morway will take a page out of Philly's book (Brand and Iggy) and wait to extend Danny along with Jack until next summer. It would be a smart move in order to maximize our cap space and then use our bird rights to go over the cap to keep these guys.

Including Rush, Hibbert, and our draft pick next year, we'll probably have about 42 million in committed salary for the 09/10 season. Danny, Jack, and Foster will likely be the only free agents we have any interest in keeping. I would guess the cap will be right around 60 million with the luxury tax at 73 million.

If we extend Danny and Jack now at say 14 million per season, then we only have about 4 million in cap space to throw at a FA before hitting the cap. We could then use the MLE on another player.

However, if we hold off on the extensions, we could go throw 12-14 million per season at a big name free agent (odom, marion, boozer, etc). That would put us at 54-56 million. We could then go over the cap for Danny and Jack by using our bird rights and still fall short of the luxury tax by coming in at 68-70 million. Use the remaining space under the luxury tax on Foster w/ the MLE

It could backfire b/c Danny could explode and command 15 million per season. But if we want to snag a nice player in FA next summer, we gotta wait.
I think that the best that we can hope for is to resign Granger, Jack and Foster while signing a $3-4 mil player in the 2009 offseason.

You're probably going to have to run some #s for me....but even if we did this and avoid the Luxury Tax in the 2009-2010 season....how are we going to look in the 2010-2011 season after this big FA signing?

Aren't we still going to be over the Luxury tax then?

count55
07-10-2008, 10:11 AM
I'm pretty sure Bird and Morway will take a page out of Philly's book (Brand and Iggy) and wait to extend Danny along with Jack until next summer. It would be a smart move in order to maximize our cap space and then use our bird rights to go over the cap to keep these guys.

Including Rush, Hibbert, and our draft pick next year, we'll probably have about 42 million in committed salary for the 09/10 season. Danny, Jack, and Foster will likely be the only free agents we have any interest in keeping. I would guess the cap will be right around 60 million with the luxury tax at 73 million.

If we extend Danny and Jack now at say 14 million per season, then we only have about 4 million in cap space to throw at a FA before hitting the cap. We could then use the MLE on another player.

However, if we hold off on the extensions, we could go throw 12-14 million per season at a big name free agent (odom, marion, boozer, etc). That would put us at 54-56 million. We could then go over the cap for Danny and Jack by using our bird rights and still fall short of the luxury tax by coming in at 68-70 million. Use the remaining space under the luxury tax on Foster w/ the MLE

It could backfire b/c Danny could explode and command 15 million per season. But if we want to snag a nice player in FA next summer, we gotta wait.

I believe there are some major problems with this approach.

First, there was no "Philly Book". Had everything gone according to the Sixers plan, they would've sign Iggy to an extension last summer. They were in serious negotiations, but never met Iggy's price. I could find articles about the negotiations, but none that gave dollars. For some reason, the number 5/50 is stuck in my head, but that could be Gordon/Deng. That they were able to make chicken salad out of chicken **** is more a commentary on their problem solving skills than their planning. (And it's also a function of being just plain lucky that Brand ended up on the market.)

Second, is the core concern I've had all along with letting Danny get on the Free Agent market. Though Granger has some limitations, I think even his most ardent detractors would admit that he has shown an impressive improvement arc. While there are valid reasons to look at Junior's year last year and wonder if he can repeat it, it seems to me to be a reasonable expectation for Danny to maintain and possibly build on last year's outing. Therefore, it seems that the most likely scenario is that Danny will be more expensive this summer than next, and, however infinitessimally, the chances of him leaving will increase.

Third is what I consider to be the achilles heel in your plan: the belief that (a) we'll be significantly under the cap next summer and that (b) we'll bag a big name free agent.

Taking the second part first, we have absolutely no history of being a destination for major free agents, nor do we have a history of even pursuing them. Also, I'm not even sure who the major free agents will be next summer. While I expect us to go after a MLE-type player next year (for the first time since Jackson), I don't think we'll go big game hunting. Now, it's fair to say that there's a new sheriff in town with Bird, but the Simons, as much as I love them as owners, are not Paul Allen or Mark Cuban. There are limits to what they'll spend, particularly given their experience with max contract players (Jalen, JO).

However, the deal breaker is the cap position. According to Shamsports, the Pacers will have about $43mm in committed contracts in the summer of 2009. This includes Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, JT, Travis, and estimates for BRush and Hibbert. Assuming 5% growth on the cap next year (roughly last three years' average), this would, on the surface, leave us $19mm under the cap (and about $32mm under the tax). However, this is misleading. There are the issues of cap holds. (Disclaimer: While I've read as much as I can on cap holds, I freely admit that I am far from comfortable that I understand them completely. What I'm about to talk about is based on the best of my knowledge and understanding, which should be pretty solid for this forum. However, I welcome correction if I'm misunderstanding any piece of it.)

There are a number of things, big and small, that gobble up that $19mm of cap space that you're proposing we use to get an FA. First, I think it's probably at least 50/50 that we pick up Shawne Williams' option of $2.4mm. It's far from a certainty, but it seems like a low risk gamble that we're likely to take. (At this point, I should note that for this discussion, I'm assuming no further trades that would material change our cap position for next summer.) That would leave us with only slightly over $16mm to sign a free agent. However, the Pacers will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $43mm in cap holds next summer, including an estimate for the 2009 1st round pick.

These cap holds are salary allocations for free agents with Bird rights. You can renounce a free agent to remove their cap hold but can no longer sign them with an exception. (I have not found out how these are calculated.)

The holds that are listed at Draft Express (http://http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-player-salaries/team/Pacers/) include Rasho, Danny, Jack, Foster, Graham, and McRoberts. In order to release these holds, we would need to renounce the free agent (as noted above), thereby basically losing any realistic chance of keeping them. Now, we'd probably fine doing this with Rasho ($12.6mm hold), Graham ($1.1mm), and McBob ($0.9mm). However, I think we're going to want to hold on to those rights for Jack ($8.7mm) and Foster ($8.3mm). Even if we didn't, we would absolutely, positively not relinquish Danny & his $9.9mm.

By my math, the $43mm is really at least $54mm in cap figures (43+Danny's 10+1st Rounder's 1), leaving us only $8mm or so under the cap. Philly on the other hand, had only $35mm in salaries to start. Iggy had a cap hold of about $11mm, and I'm guessing they retained Louis Williams' $1mm hold, so they were at about $47mm ($12mm under the cap). This is why they had to do the Carney/Booth deal, to get them enough breathing room under the cap to sign Brand to a starting salary of around $14mm. The Pacers will have no such luxury, in my opinion. In all likelihood, the holds on the cap would prevent any major signing.

In fact, I believe they would be best served by signing both Danny and Jack to extensions this summer to maximize cap space. If they were looking to maximize space, extensions for these guys would likely reduce their cap holds. A 5-yr extension starting at Danny's $9.9mm cap hold figure with max 10.5% increases annually would net Danny $60mm in that period. This could keep that impact neutral. Jack, on the other hand, will command nowhere near his $8.7mm cap hold figure. I would think a 4-yr deal starting at $3.5 to $4.0mm (effectively $16-$19mm) would be more than enough to sign him, thus greatly reducing his hold. I'm not sure what we do with Jeff, but I know that he will not get anywhere near his cap hold figure either.

In any case, the amount of capspace available for the Pacers next year appears to be illusory. It is my opinion that the best path for the Pacers is for them to consolidate the gains they've made this summer (Danny, Jack) at a time when it's most likely to be less expensive, then move slowly forward developing the team. Of course, the fact that this was the strategy that resulted in contracts to Bender and Tinsley is not lost on me. However, I think that it also yielded reasonable contracts for Artest, Harrington (1st time around), and Jeff Foster. I believe the strategy is sound, despite the fact we got burned on a couple occasions. In other words, it seems to me that the most sensible path for the Pacers to take is the use of the draft and prudent trades to continue their improvement. Mid-level Free Agents should also be pursued, but I don't see this team being in a position to go for a big splash FA, at least not until the unholy triumvirate of contracts in Murphy, Dunleavy, and Tinsley expire.

Rajah Brown
07-10-2008, 10:25 AM
I'll be very surprised if Foster is in Indy 2 years from now.

count55
07-10-2008, 10:43 AM
I'll be very surprised if Foster is in Indy 2 years from now.

While I think it's far from a sure thing, but I think it's a reasonable possibility. He's a solid player who has a reasonable price. He fits well in both the team and the community. Granted, all those things also make him more attractive to others, but I think the Pacers will be interested in keeping him.

purdue101
07-10-2008, 11:04 AM
I believe there are some major problems with this approach.

First, there was no "Philly Book". Had everything gone according to the Sixers plan, they would've sign Iggy to an extension last summer. They were in serious negotiations, but never met Iggy's price. I could find articles about the negotiations, but none that gave dollars. For some reason, the number 5/50 is stuck in my head, but that could be Gordon/Deng. That they were able to make chicken salad out of chicken **** is more a commentary on their problem solving skills than their planning. (And it's also a function of being just plain lucky that Brand ended up on the market.)

Second, is the core concern I've had all along with letting Danny get on the Free Agent market. Though Granger has some limitations, I think even his most ardent detractors would admit that he has shown an impressive improvement arc. While there are valid reasons to look at Junior's year last year and wonder if he can repeat it, it seems to me to be a reasonable expectation for Danny to maintain and possibly build on last year's outing. Therefore, it seems that the most likely scenario is that Danny will be more expensive this summer than next, and, however infinitessimally, the chances of him leaving will increase.

Third is what I consider to be the achilles heel in your plan: the belief that (a) we'll be significantly under the cap next summer and that (b) we'll bag a big name free agent.

Taking the second part first, we have absolutely no history of being a destination for major free agents, nor do we have a history of even pursuing them. Also, I'm not even sure who the major free agents will be next summer. While I expect us to go after a MLE-type player next year (for the first time since Jackson), I don't think we'll go big game hunting. Now, it's fair to say that there's a new sheriff in town with Bird, but the Simons, as much as I love them as owners, are not Paul Allen or Mark Cuban. There are limits to what they'll spend, particularly given their experience with max contract players (Jalen, JO).

However, the deal breaker is the cap position. According to Shamsports, the Pacers will have about $43mm in committed contracts in the summer of 2009. This includes Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, JT, Travis, and estimates for BRush and Hibbert. Assuming 5% growth on the cap next year (roughly last three years' average), this would, on the surface, leave us $19mm under the cap (and about $32mm under the tax). However, this is misleading. There are the issues of cap holds. (Disclaimer: While I've read as much as I can on cap holds, I freely admit that I am far from comfortable that I understand them completely. What I'm about to talk about is based on the best of my knowledge and understanding, which should be pretty solid for this forum. However, I welcome correction if I'm misunderstanding any piece of it.)

There are a number of things, big and small, that gobble up that $19mm of cap space that you're proposing we use to get an FA. First, I think it's probably at least 50/50 that we pick up Shawne Williams' option of $2.4mm. It's far from a certainty, but it seems like a low risk gamble that we're likely to take. (At this point, I should note that for this discussion, I'm assuming no further trades that would material change our cap position for next summer.) That would leave us with only slightly over $16mm to sign a free agent. However, the Pacers will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $43mm in cap holds next summer, including an estimate for the 2009 1st round pick.

These cap holds are salary allocations for free agents with Bird rights. You can renounce a free agent to remove their cap hold but can no longer sign them with an exception. (I have not found out how these are calculated.)

The holds that are listed at Draft Express (http://http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-player-salaries/team/Pacers/) include Rasho, Danny, Jack, Foster, Graham, and McRoberts. In order to release these holds, we would need to renounce the free agent (as noted above), thereby basically losing any realistic chance of keeping them. Now, we'd probably fine doing this with Rasho ($12.6mm hold), Graham ($1.1mm), and McBob ($0.9mm). However, I think we're going to want to hold on to those rights for Jack ($8.7mm) and Foster ($8.3mm). Even if we didn't, we would absolutely, positively not relinquish Danny & his $9.9mm.

By my math, the $43mm is really at least $54mm in cap figures (43+Danny's 10+1st Rounder's 1), leaving us only $8mm or so under the cap. Philly on the other hand, had only $35mm in salaries to start. Iggy had a cap hold of about $11mm, and I'm guessing they retained Louis Williams' $1mm hold, so they were at about $47mm ($12mm under the cap). This is why they had to do the Carney/Booth deal, to get them enough breathing room under the cap to sign Brand to a starting salary of around $14mm. The Pacers will have no such luxury, in my opinion. In all likelihood, the holds on the cap would prevent any major signing.

In fact, I believe they would be best served by signing both Danny and Jack to extensions this summer to maximize cap space. If they were looking to maximize space, extensions for these guys would likely reduce their cap holds. A 5-yr extension starting at Danny's $9.9mm cap hold figure with max 10.5% increases annually would net Danny $60mm in that period. This could keep that impact neutral. Jack, on the other hand, will command nowhere near his $8.7mm cap hold figure. I would think a 4-yr deal starting at $3.5 to $4.0mm (effectively $16-$19mm) would be more than enough to sign him, thus greatly reducing his hold. I'm not sure what we do with Jeff, but I know that he will not get anywhere near his cap hold figure either.

In any case, the amount of capspace available for the Pacers next year appears to be illusory. It is my opinion that the best path for the Pacers is for them to consolidate the gains they've made this summer (Danny, Jack) at a time when it's most likely to be less expensive, then move slowly forward developing the team. Of course, the fact that this was the strategy that resulted in contracts to Bender and Tinsley is not lost on me. However, I think that it also yielded reasonable contracts for Artest, Harrington (1st time around), and Jeff Foster. I believe the strategy is sound, despite the fact we got burned on a couple occasions. In other words, it seems to me that the most sensible path for the Pacers to take is the use of the draft and prudent trades to continue their improvement. Mid-level Free Agents should also be pursued, but I don't see this team being in a position to go for a big splash FA, at least not until the unholy triumvirate of contracts in Murphy, Dunleavy, and Tinsley expire.

I can see your point of view, definitely. Extending now has it's benefits and is the safer bet. Waiting is riskier but could potentially reap bigger rewards.

I think Bird is more a risk taker than Donnie. Donnie seemed to always give out extensions a year before they hit FA.

Bird had an interesting comment in the indystar today. "We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road"

Obviously he is talking about next summer b/c we already had a ton of cap space coming in two summers w/ JO's expiring.

Time will tell I guess.

count55
07-10-2008, 11:06 AM
I should note that I just read a Bird quote in the Star saying:

"We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road."

This is a marked change from past Pacer practice, and probably negates, or at least brings into question some of the premises I used in my earlier post. I still think that capspace isn't going to be as abundant next year, but it's obvious that some of my assumptions my not be correct.

Rajah Brown
07-10-2008, 11:10 AM
Count55-

On Foster, understood. Sentamentality-wise, I'd like to see the guy
stay a Pacer forever. But as a big who relies as much on quickness
as he does, at 32, he's moving into a stage where aches and pains
and general slowing down a bit will diminish his effectiveness some.

If he could shoot it well, it'd be a different story. But as is, from a
purely biz perspective, it's probably in the Pacer org's best interest
to try and maximize return on his present value by shopping him to
a contender or using him to facilitate/sweeten another deal.

As long as they don't overpay him if they decide to keep him, I'm ok
with either scenario.

count55
07-10-2008, 11:42 AM
I can see your point of view, definitely. Extending now has it's benefits and is the safer bet. Waiting is riskier but could potentially reap bigger rewards.

I think Bird is more a risk taker than Donnie. Donnie seemed to always give out extensions a year before they hit FA.

Bird had an interesting comment in the indystar today. "We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road"

Obviously he is talking about next summer b/c we already had a ton of cap space coming in two summers w/ JO's expiring.

Time will tell I guess.

Didn't see this until after I posted mine second post.

CableKC
07-10-2008, 01:16 PM
I can see your point of view, definitely. Extending now has it's benefits and is the safer bet. Waiting is riskier but could potentially reap bigger rewards.

I think Bird is more a risk taker than Donnie. Donnie seemed to always give out extensions a year before they hit FA.

Bird had an interesting comment in the indystar today. "We're going to get an awful lot of money (in salary cap space) and be able to be a major player in free agency down the road"

Obviously he is talking about next summer b/c we already had a ton of cap space coming in two summers w/ JO's expiring.

Time will tell I guess.
I don't necessarily agree here. If this last offseason proves anything....Bird isn't as much of a Risk taker then most would think whereas Donnie has always been the one that would take risks ( as noted by draft picks and extensions ). Although I think that these last draft picks were dictated by our situation ( as in compete now instead of build for the future ), I don't get the sense that Bird would freely spend the new found $$$ that he has now. Just like before the draft....I don't think that we have the luxury to gamble now....we have to be very smart in the moves that we make over the next 2 or 3 seasons.

I want to win a Championship now...but I am realistic enough to understand that this is a long 2-3 year process given the situation that we are in. This doesn't mean that if there is a no-brainer deal out there that make sense for us....like trading Tinsley for some Low-Post scoing PF that no one wants that won't kill us financially...that I wouldn't do it. I'm just saying that I would much rather be patient and see how things pan out then rush headlong into a situation based solely on a need to acquire a "Big Name" FA simply cuz we have the resources to do so.

Keep in mind....slow and steady wins the race....not quick and potentially reckless.

CableKC
07-10-2008, 01:28 PM
There are a number of things, big and small, that gobble up that $19mm of cap space that you're proposing we use to get an FA. First, I think it's probably at least 50/50 that we pick up Shawne Williams' option of $2.4mm. It's far from a certainty, but it seems like a low risk gamble that we're likely to take. (At this point, I should note that for this discussion, I'm assuming no further trades that would material change our cap position for next summer.) That would leave us with only slightly over $16mm to sign a free agent. However, the Pacers will have somewhere in the neighborhood of $43mm in cap holds next summer, including an estimate for the 2009 1st round pick.

These cap holds are salary allocations for free agents with Bird rights. You can renounce a free agent to remove their cap hold but can no longer sign them with an exception. (I have not found out how these are calculated.)

The holds that are listed at Draft Express (http://http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-player-salaries/team/Pacers/) include Rasho, Danny, Jack, Foster, Graham, and McRoberts. In order to release these holds, we would need to renounce the free agent (as noted above), thereby basically losing any realistic chance of keeping them. Now, we'd probably fine doing this with Rasho ($12.6mm hold), Graham ($1.1mm), and McBob ($0.9mm). However, I think we're going to want to hold on to those rights for Jack ($8.7mm) and Foster ($8.3mm). Even if we didn't, we would absolutely, positively not relinquish Danny & his $9.9mm.
Based off of your calculations, how much do you think we have to sign a FA next season assuming that we do resign Granger, Jack, Foster and whoever we draft next season?

Maybe $3-4 mil to spend before hitting the Luxury Tax?

count55
07-10-2008, 01:56 PM
Based off of your calculations, how much do you think we have to sign a FA next season assuming that we do resign Granger, Jack, Foster and whoever we draft next season?

Maybe $3-4 mil to spend before hitting the Luxury Tax?

Well, if we say $10mm start for Danny, $4 for Jack & $5 for Jeff (rough guesses), plus $1 for the 1st rounder (it might be closer to 2, but I think I'm heavy on the first three and possibly my Rush/Hibbert estimates), that puts us at 43+10+4+5+1, or $63mm vs. a cap of $61 (est) and a tax of just under $75 (est) with 10 players under contract. We could pick up Shawne's option ($2.4mm) and be at about $66mm, with 12 players under contract and around $8-9mm left under the tax. We'd be over the cap, so we'd have to use the MLE (and could use it, I think) without going over the tax.

The following year (summer 2010), assuming we add another 1st rounder and pick up Rush/Hibbert's options, but let Shawne & Travis go (along with the signings mentioned above) we'd be at roughly $67mm against a cap of $65 (est) and a tax of $78 (est), but that would be for only 11 players. If we had used the full MLE in 2009, we'd have 12 players and roughly $73mm in salaries, so we could conceivably use the full MLE again, or close to it to and possibly stay under the tax. Then, summer of 2011 is when we really get a lot of space, with Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Tinsley ($39mm) coming off the books.

Really it depends on how the Pacers view their expirings. I would think that they do not have Rasho, Graham, McRoberts, and Daniels in their plans beyond this year. I would expect at least one of Jeff Foster or Jarrett Jack to be back next season with a new contract or extension, but both would be a luxury they couldn't afford if they want to make a splash in Free Agency.

While we have certainly made large improvements in our financial position, we haven't exactly cleared the decks, unless we're willing to part with a number of players that could be contributors down the road.

CableKC
07-10-2008, 05:37 PM
Well, if we say $10mm start for Danny, $4 for Jack & $5 for Jeff (rough guesses), plus $1 for the 1st rounder (it might be closer to 2, but I think I'm heavy on the first three and possibly my Rush/Hibbert estimates), that puts us at 43+10+4+5+1, or $63mm vs. a cap of $61 (est) and a tax of just under $75 (est) with 10 players under contract. We could pick up Shawne's option ($2.4mm) and be at about $66mm, with 12 players under contract and around $8-9mm left under the tax. We'd be over the cap, so we'd have to use the MLE (and could use it, I think) without going over the tax.

The following year (summer 2010), assuming we add another 1st rounder and pick up Rush/Hibbert's options, but let Shawne & Travis go (along with the signings mentioned above) we'd be at roughly $67mm against a cap of $65 (est) and a tax of $78 (est), but that would be for only 11 players. If we had used the full MLE in 2009, we'd have 12 players and roughly $73mm in salaries, so we could conceivably use the full MLE again, or close to it to and possibly stay under the tax. Then, summer of 2011 is when we really get a lot of space, with Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Tinsley ($39mm) coming off the books..
I'm gonna be more conservative and go with Granger ( signing at $12 mil starting ), Jarrett ( signing $4.5 mil ) and Foster ( signing at $5.5 mil ) while picking up Shawne's Team Option and letting everyone else expire....with a Luxury Tax of about $73 mil ( let's say that it doesn't go up that much )...that would mean taht we would have about $4+ mil to spend on a FA before we hit the Luxury Tax.

As for making a splash in FA next season...at best...I think that we can expect a player like Maggette ( basically what the Warriors got for 8-10 mil a year )....not an All-Star level type player. My priorities are resigning Granger, Jack and Foster...everything else is gravy.

ChicagoJ
07-14-2008, 01:48 PM
Before I hi-jacked this thread and turned it into a Jalen Rose post mortem, I guess the point I was trying to make is that while DG is a very good player, we need to consider the players surrounding him in the future and the impact this may have on his production and future value.

We hitched our wagon to Croshere and Rose on the back of a very productive season, but mgmt failed to predict the future effectiveness of either under different personnel circumstances and we ultimately wound up overpaying. Both of those guys were very effective that finals season and especially during that playoff run, but it came on the backs of the vets. Jalen was the high minute, steady scorer type, and Croshere had spurts of great play. Smits couldn't play many minutes by this point in time, but when you look his production when he was on the court, it is pretty clear he was drawing doubles for the benefit of Cro and Jalen. You can see this in everyone's per 36 minutes stats from the run:

Reggie 21.3 pts/36 min, Smits 18.8, Jalen 17.9, Travis and Cro 15.9.

When Jalen, Reggie, and Smits were on the court together, Jalen was our third option.

Smits retired and Reggie got a year older...Jalen got more touches the following year and scored more but at the expense of efficiency, and Cro... well let's just say those drives to the hoop for dunks are harder to come by when Smits isn't around to keep post defenders from cheating over to help. We failed to figure out what these two guys were capable of when they were asked to do more on the offensive end.

With Granger, it's the opposite. We need to figure out what he is capable of if he is asked to do less on the offensive end. Is he putting up his numbers because he's a budding all-star, or is he putting them up because we stink and no one else is around to do the things he does? Are we paying for a future 22 pt, 7 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Or, assuming our roster improves and DG's touches decline, are we paying for a 15-16 pt, 6 reb, 4 assist kind of guy? Because there is a big difference...

Some guys, when asked to do less, do things better and more efficiently (Cro and Rose). Some, like an Allen Iverson or Adrian Dantley, don't. We don't want to pay too much if Danny can't pick up other parts of his game with less touches (defense and passing).

I agree with most of what you are saying, but Jalen, IMO, was clearly the #1 option of that team, and Jalen was, IMO, the #1 option of the lockout season team, even when Reggie and Smits were on the court. Jalen was the only guy that could consistently create his own shot (at least after the Mark Jackson post-up rule was created), and Jalen created most of Smits' shots, too. There was a teamwork that, admittedly, relied on all five players together to complement each other. And that part of your point is well-taken.

Now, at crunch time, Reggie became the #1 option again because he still had icewater in his veins. And yes, that accounts for something. But for the first 44 minutes of the game, the ball would go through Jalen. Reggie had already begun the "save it up for the last few minutes of the game" portion of his career - except when he was truly in a zone. And that's fine.

I agree that every FA in the summers of 1999/2000 was vastly overpaid. That was long before anybody thought the luxury tax would ever kick in.

I agree that I wouldn't want to pay Danny the max. But nobody seems to be looking at this from the player's/ agent's perspective: make the most money possible. Isn't that what we all do, too? Danny isn't going to get the max but I'll bet that is where his agent starts the negotiations. What good agent is going to leave money on the table for his player? Once the negotiations get down to a certain number (say, less than $11 million starting salary), why wouldn't Danny walk away and negotiate again next summer? The actuarial tables don't show that many career-ending injuries at this stage of the career.

Sidebar: I know its heresy, but I think we would have had a better chance against the Lakers if Jalen were still the #1 option in that series instead of Reggie (and of course the stupid hack-a-Shaq approach in Game #2). In other words, if we had played that series like we played the regular season, working the ball through Jalen and playing Shaq straight-up while not allowing Rice, Harper, and Fisher to hurt us, we might have had a better outcome.