PDA

View Full Version : Predicting the cuts



Anthem
10-11-2008, 05:02 PM
I've not really had time to go through and figure out the Pacers roster situation to my full satisfaction. Might as well do that on here where it can spawn some discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that we're done trading. If we move Tinsley for two players, or Tinsley+1 for two players, then we'd clearly have to rework this

Here's a list of our current players, along with the depth chart as I imagine it. This isn't my preferred depth chart, just my understanding of the current one.

Rasho / Hibbert / McRoberts
Murphy / Foster / Baston / Croshere / Davis
Granger / Quis / Graham
Dunleavy / Rush / Jones
Ford / Jack / Diener / Tinsley

Allowing a 3-man rotation at each position (simplistic, I know) we have 2 extra PFs and one extra PG. So we have 3 extra players currently.

Now, the sorting. It's safe to say the following players are in no danger of being cut:

Travis Diener
Mike Dunleavy
T.J. Ford
Jeff Foster
Danny Granger
Roy Hibbert
Jarrett Jack
Troy Murphy
Rasho Nesterovic
Brandon Rush
Jamaal Tinsley
Marquis Daniels

That's 12 guys. So there are 3 spots for the following 6 guys. Three have to be cut.

Maceo Baston
Austin Croshere
Josh Davis
Stephen Graham
Eddie Jones
Josh McRoberts

If it was my choice, I'd cut Cro, Davis, and Maceo and keep McRoberts, Graham, and E.Jones. McBob shows that he's worth another look, Graham has the potential to be a very solid backup swingman, and Eddie Jones can be the guy who practices with the team and teaches the boys how to be men. If Eddie doesn't show up for camp, I'd keep Maceo over Croshere or Davis.

If we go 2-for-1 w/ Tinsley and need an extra spot, though, I'd cut Eddie.

Thoughts? Anybody disagree with my top 12? With my three picks?

Peck
10-11-2008, 05:07 PM
I've not really had time to go through and figure out the Pacers roster situation to my full satisfaction. Might as well do that on here where it can spawn some discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that we're done trading. If we move Tinsley for two players, or Tinsley+1 for two players, then we'd clearly have to rework this

Here's a list of our current players, along with the depth chart as I imagine it. This isn't my preferred depth chart, just my understanding of the current one.

Rasho / Hibbert / McRoberts
Murphy / Foster / Baston / Croshere / Davis
Granger / Quis / Graham
Dunleavy / Rush / Jones
Ford / Jack / Diener / Tinsley

Allowing a 3-man rotation at each position (simplistic, I know) we have 2 extra PFs and one extra PG. So we have 3 extra players currently.

Now, the sorting. It's safe to say the following players are in no danger of being cut:

Travis Diener
Mike Dunleavy
T.J. Ford
Jeff Foster
Danny Granger
Roy Hibbert
Jarrett Jack
Troy Murphy
Rasho Nesterovic
Brandon Rush
Jamaal Tinsley
Marquis Daniels

That's 12 guys. So there are 3 spots for the following 6 guys. Three have to be cut.

Maceo Baston
Austin Croshere
Josh Davis
Stephen Graham
Eddie Jones
Josh McRoberts

If it was my choice, I'd cut Cro, Davis, and Maceo and keep McRoberts, Graham, and E.Jones. McBob shows that he's worth another look, Graham has the potential to be a very solid backup swingman, and Eddie Jones can be the guy who practices with the team and teaches the boys how to be men. If Eddie doesn't show up for camp, I'd keep Maceo over Croshere or Davis.

If we go 2-for-1 w/ Tinsley and need an extra spot, though, I'd cut Eddie.

Thoughts? Anybody disagree with my top 12? With my three picks?


I guess I never put two and two together before but I see a very big pattern in your dislikings.

You have never been a fan of Croshere and you certainly are not president of the Troy Murphy fan club.

Am I to assume that you don't like power forwards who are really not powerful? Or you hate face up jump shooting big men?

Peck
10-11-2008, 05:17 PM
I've not really had time to go through and figure out the Pacers roster situation to my full satisfaction. Might as well do that on here where it can spawn some discussion. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll assume that we're done trading. If we move Tinsley for two players, or Tinsley+1 for two players, then we'd clearly have to rework this

Here's a list of our current players, along with the depth chart as I imagine it. This isn't my preferred depth chart, just my understanding of the current one.

Rasho / Hibbert / McRoberts
Murphy / Foster / Baston / Croshere / Davis
Granger / Quis / Graham
Dunleavy / Rush / Jones
Ford / Jack / Diener / Tinsley

Allowing a 3-man rotation at each position (simplistic, I know) we have 2 extra PFs and one extra PG. So we have 3 extra players currently.

Now, the sorting. It's safe to say the following players are in no danger of being cut:

Travis Diener
Mike Dunleavy
T.J. Ford
Jeff Foster
Danny Granger
Roy Hibbert
Jarrett Jack
Troy Murphy
Rasho Nesterovic
Brandon Rush
Jamaal Tinsley
Marquis Daniels

That's 12 guys. So there are 3 spots for the following 6 guys. Three have to be cut.

Maceo Baston
Austin Croshere
Josh Davis
Stephen Graham
Eddie Jones
Josh McRoberts

If it was my choice, I'd cut Cro, Davis, and Maceo and keep McRoberts, Graham, and E.Jones. McBob shows that he's worth another look, Graham has the potential to be a very solid backup swingman, and Eddie Jones can be the guy who practices with the team and teaches the boys how to be men. If Eddie doesn't show up for camp, I'd keep Maceo over Croshere or Davis.

If we go 2-for-1 w/ Tinsley and need an extra spot, though, I'd cut Eddie.

Thoughts? Anybody disagree with my top 12? With my three picks?

Ok, now to actually answer your question.

I'll give you two thoughts, one is what I would do and two will be what I think they will do.

I would cut the following

Davis
Graham
Jones

I believe the Pacers will cut

Davis
Graham
Jones

Actually Jones will be allowed to retire or be bought out or something else. I doubt they would cut him.

JayRedd
10-11-2008, 05:29 PM
Presuming Tinsley isn't traded for nothing (i.e., an immediately cuttable guy), I can't see how it's not Eddie Jones (who's done-ski), Josh Davis (who is this guy?) and Stephen Graham (of zero utility behind Danny, Dun, Quis, Rush, Croshere).

FinPacers
10-11-2008, 05:38 PM
Now, the sorting. It's safe to say the following players are in no danger of being cut:

Travis Diener
Mike Dunleavy
T.J. Ford
Jeff Foster
Danny Granger
Roy Hibbert
Jarrett Jack
Troy Murphy
Rasho Nesterovic
Brandon Rush
Jamaal Tinsley
Marquis Daniels

That's 12 guys. So there are 3 spots for the following 6 guys. Three have to be cut.

Maceo Baston
Austin Croshere
Josh Davis
Stephen Graham
Eddie Jones
Josh McRoberts

If it was my choice, I'd cut Cro, Davis, and Maceo and keep McRoberts, Graham, and E.Jones.

Well, as we all know, Tinsley won't make the team for sure. Let's assume we ain't gonna get anybody in return for Tinsley... at least not anyone we'd like to keep eventually.

So, in this scenario, of those 6 guys we'd have to cut only 2, and in my mind they should be Davis and Graham.

However, I do predict that those cuts will be Davis and either Baston or McRoberts - most likely Davis and Baston because McRoberts is projected to be developing as a player... hopefully, that is.

I'd give Jones a fair shot to show his desire. Besides, he and Croshere are veterans and I value veteran presence in this team (in any team). Graham would be odd man out at swingman position and also, he is the cheapest player to be cutted - not including non-guaranteed players Davis and Croshere, of course.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 05:44 PM
I guess I never put two and two together before but I see a very big pattern in your dislikings.

You have never been a fan of Croshere and you certainly are not president of the Troy Murphy fan club.

Am I to assume that you don't like power forwards who are really not powerful? Or you hate face up jump shooting big men?
"Hate" is too strong a word, I think. But yes, I want a power forward to be powerful. Jump-shooting is a neat trick, but not terribly useful if you can't defend the paint and rebound. It's like having a crappy car with great cupholders. This has been a pretty consistent position for me: I'm similarly low on Barghani, and hated the idea of Jon Bender shooting threes. I had hope for him not because of his shooting, but because of the brilliant way he handled being played at center for two weeks when everyone was injured. I hated that we moved him back to SF once everybody came back.

Also, I must say that I've softened on Troy since his excellent play in the second part of last year. I still think it's a fluke, but I'm willing to let him prove it's not.

EDIT: I didn't realize this was a new thought; actually I thought we'd discussed it before. I'm ok with having a shooter PF as a backup, because that's where gimmick players are best. They don't get gameplanned against. That's why I like Murphy as a PF backup to Foster, even though Foster will likely put up an inferior line if you're only watching the box score.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 05:45 PM
Well, as we all know, Tinsley won't make the team for sure.
I'd say that's far from given. If the Pacers can't trade him, they'll hold onto him until the ASB to find a taker. They certainly won't cut him, which means he ties up a roster spot whether he travels with the team or not.

FinPacers
10-11-2008, 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinPacers
Well, as we all know, Tinsley won't make the team for sure.


I'd say that's far from given. If the Pacers can't trade him, they'll hold onto him until the ASB to find a taker. They certainly won't cut him, which means he ties up a roster spot whether he travels with the team or not.

Yeah, I see your point, and indeed, that might prove to be the best thing to do in Tinsley's case.

Why not wait a little longer to maximize the profit in this case?

Compared to that upcoming profit, one last roster spot at the end of the bench will be practically meaningless.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 06:08 PM
Yeah, I see your point, and indeed, that might prove to be the best thing to do in Tinsley's case.

Why not wait a little longer to maximize the profit in this case?

Compared to that upcoming profit, one last roster spot at the end of the bench will be practically meaningless.
That's certainly fair. If you can't get a remotely decent deal, then you probably have to do that. But if you're TPTB and you get the opportunity to take a non-terrible deal you take it right away. It's a big bonus to have Tinsley off the team and out of our hair.

rexnom
10-11-2008, 06:20 PM
I don't understand why Croshere would come to camp, why the Pacers would bring him and make such a big story about him just to cut him.

Whether we like it or not, this franchise is not all about basketball. I think it's Davis, Jones and Baston.

Doddage
10-11-2008, 06:34 PM
I would say Cro is going to make the team, but he hasn't done a lick in the preseason so far. He's got to make a better impression in these next few games.

Other than that, I think McRoberts is proving that he's worthy of a spot, Graham is a solid third stringer, as is Baston. I see the first two as almost locks, while the last depends on Cro's upcoming performances. If he does well, he and Baston will compete for the final spot.

Davis won't make it, and Jones will be waived.

Justin Tyme
10-11-2008, 06:45 PM
If it was my choice, I'd cut Cro, Davis, and Maceo and keep McRoberts, Graham, and E.Jones. McBob shows that he's worth another look, Graham has the potential to be a very solid backup swingman, and Eddie Jones can be the guy who practices with the team and teaches the boys how to be men. If Eddie doesn't show up for camp, I'd keep Maceo over Croshere or Davis.

I like your view, but I don't believe it will play out that way.


I'm not in favor of bringing back Cro, and if the Pacers want to bring back an old former Pacer PF who can lead and help the youngsters then bring back DD. A REAL PF! He's got to be able to help Hibbert. McBob, etc.

I'm not a fan of Baston whatsoever, but it's hard for me to see the Simons' bean counters voting for cutting Baston's 1.9 mil. I would though.

I see Graham being cut with his $800,000 salary, Davis as well, with Jones a possibility.

Speaking of Jones, if he decided to retire do the Pacers owe him a salary? How about him retiring and the Pacers pick him up as a coach? Not sure how that would work.

Major Cold
10-11-2008, 07:25 PM
Croshere's contract would not cost anything but the cap.

Same with Eddie?

I would say that:
Croshere
Eddie
McRoberts all make the team

if Eddie is waived then I would say that Graham will make that spot.

Will Galen
10-11-2008, 07:26 PM
I did one of these earlier when we thought Tinsley was going to be traded for Hunter and Atkins. I said in it I thought Williams would be traded.

It was post 129 here, http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=786312#post786312

Well's is saying the rumored deal might go though on Monday, and the Rocky Mountain News has added Tins to the Nuggets roster. So . . .

Let's look at who we think would be cut if this deal goes though. I'll set up a chart for who would be at camp.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels/ 6'9 Williams / 6'10 McRoberts
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'11 Foster/ 6'10 Cro / 6'10 Baston/ 6'8 Davis
C---7'0 Rasho/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush/ 6'6 Graham
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener/ 5'11 Atkins

I don't think those I have in blue have a chance at being cut.

I don't know what position Josh Davis played other than forward, but I don't think it matters since he would probably be the first cut. So we would have eight guys and five roster spots.

I think Hunter is a definite keeper. He's 26, has a cheap contract, and as someone else already said would be a good backup for Hibbert next year if Rasho doesn't return. So with one keeper and one cut, the roster looks like this. Seven guys and four roster spots.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels/ 6'9 Williams/ 6'10 McRoberts
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'11 Foster/ 6'10 Cro/ 6'10 Baston
C---7'0 Rasho/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush/ 6'6 Graham
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener/ 5'11 Atkins

The Pacers probably don't want Williams anymore, and do we know that he even wants to be here? Dun said, I quote, "For the most part everyone wants to be here." I took it that he was talking about Rasho or Baston, or both, but Williams might rather be traded than be in Bird's doghouse. Regardless I think he will be traded or moved for a 2nd rounder.

McRoberts can probably play either forward position. And I think the Pacers probably want to take a long look at him. However, if they do that I think they will keep Cro too, just in case. Cro wouldn't cost much since the NBA will help pay his salary. That's leaves us.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels/ 6'10 McRoberts
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'11 Foster/ 6'10 Cro/ 6'10 Baston
C---7'0 Rasho/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush/ 6'6 Graham
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener/ 5'11 Atkins

I think Baston wouldn't mind being cut or let go because he could go back to Europe, or maybe rejoin the Raptors. Doing that leaves are front court three deep at every position. That leaves us cutting one in the backcourt . . .

Graham can score, but how is his defense this year? If it's improved I doubt the Pacers want to cut him.

As for Diener and Atkins they are both injured. Since Atkins is 34, he's going to miss all of training camp, and next years salary is only partially guaranteed, I look for him to be cut. Which would leave us at least three deep at every position.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels/ 6'10 McRoberts
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'11 Foster/ 6'10 Cro
C---7'0 Rasho/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush/ 6'6 Graham
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener

Of course they might cut Graham and keep both Diener and Atkins, which would give more time to Jack at shooting guard. In fact the more I think about it the more I think that might be what happens.
------------------------------------

As of right now I don't know if the Pacers are still talking to Denver about trading Tinsley for Hunter and Atkins. If all it took was some money and a draft pick like some of you assume, why wouldn't it have been announced Friday along with the rest of the Pacer's moves? I'm thinking the Pacers probably want to include Graham and Denver either doesn't want that or if someone is included they want McRoberts.

Assuming they still do the trade with Denver, I look at it like this now.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'10 Cro/ 6'10 McRoberts/ 6'10 Baston
C---7'0 Rasho/ 6'11 Foster/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener

Cuts, Davis, Jones, Atkins, and Graham if he's not traded.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 07:50 PM
Assuming they still do the trade with Denver, I look at it like this now.

SF--6'8 Granger/ 6'6 Daniels
PF--6'11 Murphy/ 6'10 Cro/ 6'10 McRoberts/ 6'10 Baston
C---7'0 Rasho/ 6'11 Foster/ 7'2 Hibbert/ 7'0 Hunter
SG--6'8 Dun/ 6'6 Rush
PG--6'0 Ford/ 6'3 Jack/ 6'1 Diener

Cuts, Davis, Jones, Atkins, and Graham if he's not traded.
And if that's the way it plays out then I absolutely do not want Cro on this team. He's taking minutes away from Hibbert.

NuffSaid
10-11-2008, 07:59 PM
First off, I'd like to say I think the Williams trade was a prelude to trading Tinsley. It makes sense when you think about it.

The Nuggets wanted more cash ($3M) to help take on Tinsley's $21M salary. The $1.8M the Pacers received from the Mavs in trading for Williams can be used for that purpose considering it was "cash consideration" and not another trade exemption. Throw in one of the two 2nd-round trades as additional sweetener.

I believe Eddie Jones will probably "voluntarily" retire. Yes, JOB has said he wants to see what EJ can do over during the preseason, but it's unlikely he'll heal enough to play. Besides, he's already stated he'd rather play for a contender (re: "Kidd trade").

That said, assuming that Tinsley is traded and EJ does "retire", the Pacers would only need to clear room for one more player.

The candidates: Austin Croshere, Josh Davis and Stephen Graham

Neither Croshere nor Davis have (guaranteed) contracts right now. So, it would be easy to release either of them. However, in the two pre-season games I've seen, I like more of what I've seen of Davis over Croshere.

Davis received a DNP for Game 1, but Croshere only scored 1-pt. There stat lines for both games are as follows:

Game 1:
Players - FGA/3PA/FTA/RBS-O-D//PTS
Davis - DNP
Croshere - 0-2/0-2/1-2/0-7=7//1

Game 2:
Players - FGA/3PA/FTA/RBS-O-D//PTS
Davis - 2-4/2-2/1-3/1-3=4//7
Croshere - 0-3/0-2/2-4/2-3=5//2

Davis has rebounded the ball well, defended the paint pretty good, but most noticeably he has scored the ball better. Plus, he's another mobile big body.

Graham's contract is guaranteed. He'd take up no more roster space than Eddie Jones would have. Plus, they both play the same position(s). Furthermore, in the one pre-season game Graham has played (he received a DNP for Game 1), he scored the same amount of points as Croshere only Graham earned his from the floor while Croshere earned his from the charity stripe. He also pulled down one fewer rebounds than Croshere (0-off/4-def) and had one steal. At this stage, Graham has outplayed Croshere. Walsh once said "Don't fall in love w/talent". I'd add to that, "Don't go back in time."

My vote (unless he shows me something more): release Croshere.

NuffSaid
10-11-2008, 08:05 PM
Of course, Will Galen's proposal ain't bad either. :)

Anthem
10-11-2008, 08:11 PM
First off, I'd like to say I think the Williams trade was a prelude to trading Tinsley. It makes sense when you think about it.

The Nuggets wanted more cash ($3M) to help take on Tinsley's $21M salary. The $1.8M the Pacers received from the Mavs in trading for Williams can be used for that purpose considering it was "cash consideration" and not another trade exemption. Throw in one of the two 2nd-round trades as additional sweetener.
All reasonable, and I think (hope) that's probably what's going on behind the scenes.

But if the Denver trade does go down, don't forget that we're taking two guaranteed players back. That means that rather than gaining us a roster spot, the Tinsley trade actually costs us one.

McKeyFan
10-11-2008, 08:12 PM
Croshere will stay merely for PR reasons. I'm not necessarily disagreeing.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 08:16 PM
Hmm. If I made new thread with a poll, could the mods merge it into this one?

Peck
10-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Hmm. If I made new thread with a poll, could the mods merge it into this one?

Ask and ye shall recieve!!!! That is assuming that it will allow me to add a poll.;)

JayRedd
10-11-2008, 08:44 PM
Just so we're clear, the "cash considerations" sent over by Cuban were almost certainly to cover the cost of Eddie Jones' salary. And, even if by some minor chance we keep Eddie and they don't cover Eddie per se', the utility of those funds is to cover the guy we waive instead (e.g., Baston). If we cut Croshere or Graham instead of Eddie, it will give us a tiny bit of extra dough on the balance sheet, but it's still not really a huge windfall or anything.

Essentially, that money should be looked at as "Cuban paying for us to buy out Shawne" and little else.

speakout4
10-11-2008, 08:54 PM
Jones' physical readiness has to be taken into account before they will decide if he stays or goes. Cro stays because most of his salary is paid by the league and tptb think he is a fan favorite. Both these guys are so-called good citizens. Baston is gone. His minutes are minimal and he was a throw in. I wouldn't be surprised to see Daniels and Baston traded since neither will be with the team next season.

McRob has potential and he stays. I don't get what their plans are for Graham.

Anthem
10-11-2008, 09:00 PM
This page intentionally left blank.

IndyBball
10-11-2008, 11:15 PM
I would cut the top four and hope we can keep hunter from a tinsley deal.

aero
10-12-2008, 03:07 AM
Josh Davis
Eddie Jones
Josh McRoberts

is who i would cut....

MillerTime
10-12-2008, 03:52 AM
Is there any way to get Eddie Jones to retire? Would we benefit from it?

wjs
10-12-2008, 09:17 AM
Keep Graham, McRoberts, Jones.

Stephen Graham -- In the glimpses we had of him last season, I think he can play. I would keep Graham.

Josh McRoberts -- Supposedly he has played well in the preseason. If so, and if he has practiced well, then I am for giving him a crack at some PF time. The Carmel connection will work for him too. Keep McRoberts.

Eddie Jones -- Have always really liked this player. Solid, a real pro. He's 37 yrs old, he is injured, he may not want to play in a rebuilding situation. However, if he had another year in his tank and if he wanted to play here, I would keep him for sure.

Josh Davis -- I have no idea. Have not seen him play. Will depend on his play in practice I guess, although he seems a likely odd man out.

Maceo Baston -- On my bubble.

Austin -- On my bubble, as much as I am rooting for him to make the team on merit.

So my keepers would be Graham and McRoberts, and then 1 of the other 4, depending on multiple variables. If it worked out, I'd keep Eddie Jones. If that did not work out, then I keep whoever showed better in practice/preseason.

Meantime, they are doing their best to deal Tinsley. If they do the Denver trade as advertised, I definitely hang on to Steven Hunter.

pacergod2
10-12-2008, 10:17 AM
Has anybody thought that the meeting between Bird and Croshere went something like this:

Bird- if you suck we will cut you. :devil:
Cro- i think i can still play :o
Bird- if you suck we will cut you. :devil:
Cro- if i DO get cut do you have other work for me? :-o
Bird- i can see about getting you a job as an assistant or in the front office somewhere buddy. :happydanc

i could see austin retiring from basketball (especially with a non-guaranteed contract) and being offered a job in the front office.

eddie jones will not play for the pacers.

baston is a shot blocking specialist. if we get hunter baston is expendable.

graham wont get cut

mcroberts wont get cut.

my votes are davis, jones, and cro to not be with the team. not because they all necessarily got cut.

and one big vote for tinsley not being here although that would change my thoughts depending on what happens.:D

count55
10-12-2008, 11:06 AM
Is there any way to get Eddie Jones to retire?

Yes, possibly.


Would we benefit from it?

No.

MillerTime
10-12-2008, 11:14 AM
No.

If he retires, not due to injuries, does that mean we still have to pay him?

count55
10-12-2008, 11:17 AM
If he retires, not due to injuries, does that mean we still have to pay him?

Yes.

MillerTime
10-12-2008, 11:22 AM
Yes.

Thanks for the clarification. I thought when a player retired, you dont have to fulfill their contract. Isnt that why NY wanted Jarome James to retire?

count55
10-12-2008, 11:30 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I thought when a player retired, you dont have to fulfill their contract. Isnt that why NY wanted Jarome James to retire?

It all depends on the terms of their contract, but retiring generally does not absolve the team from paying the contract. In fact, it also does not remove it from the cap, unless it is a medical retirement.

If it is a medical retirement, the salary would drop off the salary cap for the full season of the day one year from the time of the injury. It is also possible that insurance will pay or reimburse the contract.

However, if a guy just decides he wants to retire, then he will count against the cap until his contract expires, and his team is on the hook for any guaranteed portion of it.

MillerTime
10-12-2008, 11:38 AM
It all depends on the terms of their contract, but retiring generally does not absolve the team from paying the contract. In fact, it also does not remove it from the cap, unless it is a medical retirement.

If it is a medical retirement, the salary would drop off the salary cap for the full season of the day one year from the time of the injury. It is also possible that insurance will pay or reimburse the contract.

However, if a guy just decides he wants to retire, then he will count against the cap until his contract expires, and his team is on the hook for any guaranteed portion of it.

Thanks!!! Ive always wondered how that worked... :)

imawhat
10-12-2008, 12:14 PM
I think there are a couple of things that may influence the cut.


1) Does anything happen if Eddie Jones doesn't report today by 5 p.m.?

2) If the Denver trade goes through as originally planned, we'll have to cut an extra player (assuming we don't cut Atkins/Hunter).

3) Further to 1 & 2, we know Larry's beliefs on cutting a player with a guaranteed contract. I'm assuming it doesn't apply at some point (monetarily), but if not, I think we may not finished trading before training camp.

Anthem
10-12-2008, 12:23 PM
Ask and ye shall recieve!!!! That is assuming that it will allow me to add a poll.;)
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=789527

:wave:

Anthem
10-12-2008, 12:35 PM
Kemo, who'd you choose for "other?"

rexnom
10-12-2008, 01:09 PM
Woohoo! Merged!

Quis
10-12-2008, 02:19 PM
Went with Croshere, Davis, and Jones.

There's no reason to keep Croshere on this team outside of nostalgia. We already have Troy Murphy who's a much more talented and younger player. Davis is an NBDL lifer, and Jones is washed up and probably wont want to be here. Graham has looked good enough to warrant keeping around, as has McRoberts, and Baston brings some shot blocking.

Naptown_Seth
10-12-2008, 02:48 PM
Baston is just as old as AC and is topped out. Right now McRoberts offers more potential and AC gives you rebounding.

You either keep Graham or Jones and I'd keep Jones for vet leadership, especially after drafting Rush.

Davis goes without saying.

Infinite MAN_force
10-12-2008, 03:42 PM
Graham had a few nice outings last year and put up good numbers in short spurts. Plus they picked up his option... I don't think he will be cut.

People only want to keep Austin because of nostalgia, if he wasn't a former pacer he would be leading this poll. Austin and Davis's contracts are not garenteed, so they are the first to go... and Jones's deal is paid for. So from a financial perspective, I think that says it all.

Peck
10-12-2008, 03:48 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=789527

:wave:

Who's your Daddy?????

:dance::dance::dance:

Justin Tyme
10-12-2008, 04:29 PM
However, if a guy just decides he wants to retire, then he will count against the cap until his contract expires, and his team is on the hook for any guaranteed portion of it.

That just plain stinks!

rexnom
10-12-2008, 05:03 PM
Baston is just as old as AC and is topped out. Right now McRoberts offers more potential and AC gives you rebounding.

You either keep Graham or Jones and I'd keep Jones for vet leadership, especially after drafting Rush.

Davis goes without saying.
I'd be more than happy to keep Jones but will/can he play? Or is that wholly irrelevant?

count55
10-12-2008, 05:14 PM
That just plain stinks!

Reggie was an example of this, as he was owed one more year at $6mm when he retired. However, the Pacers used the one-time loophole under the new CBA to "cut" him, thus removing him from the tax figure, but not the cap figure. (I think that's right, but it might've been an "Over 36" contract...see below.)

Most of these types of retirements are either mutual decisions, or ones like with Reggie, where there is no overwhelming hard feelings from the team about how it happens.

There's also and "Over 36" rule, that accelerates the cap hit for these older players under the assumption that the contract will end after the player's career is over. It's long and complicated, and you can go to Larry Coon's FAQ if you want more.

The main thing to remember is that the moment the player signs the contract, any guaranteed money will be paid to him, almost completely regardless of what he does.

Will Galen
10-12-2008, 05:40 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I thought when a player retired, you dont have to fulfill their contract. Isnt that why NY wanted Jarome James to retire?


It all depends on the terms of their contract, but retiring generally does not absolve the team from paying the contract. In fact, it also does not remove it from the cap, unless it is a medical retirement.

If it is a medical retirement, the salary would drop off the salary cap for the full season of the day one year from the time of the injury. It is also possible that insurance will pay or reimburse the contract.

However, if a guy just decides he wants to retire, then he will count against the cap until his contract expires, and his team is on the hook for any guaranteed portion of it.

I want to add to this because of the Bobby Jones contract. As Count said it depends on a players contract.

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#53. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired. (Count says they have to pay guaranteed money when they retire. I don't know, I need an example.)

Regardless, my understanding is that means if Jones isn't guaranteed and he retires the Pacers won't have to pay him. And if he isn't being paid he doesn't count against the cap.

So maybe the Pacers will keep him hoping he will retire.

PS. It's also my understanding NY wanted Jarome James to take a medical retirement.

Anthem
10-12-2008, 06:02 PM
Regardless, my understanding is that means if Jones isn't guaranteed and he retires the Pacers won't have to pay him. And if he isn't being paid he doesn't count against the cap.
That would be true if he wasn't guaranteed, but I'm fairly sure he is.

Will Galen
10-12-2008, 06:22 PM
That would be true if he wasn't guaranteed, but I'm fairly sure he is.

It sounds right to me too. However, what would prevent a player from signing an $80m guaranteed six year contract and then retiring? I know that wouldn't float, so there has to be a rule that covers that.

For instant, what if Monte Ellis's contract is guaranteed and he suddenly decides to retire?

imawhat
10-12-2008, 06:30 PM
It sounds right to me too. However, what would prevent a player from signing an $80m guaranteed six year contract and then retiring? I know that wouldn't float, so there has to be a rule that covers that.

For instant, what if Monte Ellis's contract is guaranteed and he suddenly decides to retire?

What happened with Jason Williams, who signed with the Clippers and then retired?

Ownagedood
10-12-2008, 10:19 PM
I think we will drop Jones (He's being a douche), Davis and Baston.

We might keep Baston... But I was just taking a guess and saying he would be the odd man out.

Mcroberts is surprisingly earning it. Graham deserves it. Cro is a vet that could help AT LEAST in the locker room.

bellisimo
10-13-2008, 09:06 AM
this thread is sponsored by.....

http://www.raymore.com/vertical/Sites/%7B2646C5BF-71A1-4B10-AB49-A52F031311F6%7D/uploads/%7B396CC330-AC9D-4DAD-BEA7-E61FDC32BAEA%7D.JPG

and now back to your regular discussion regarding cuts...

Anthem
10-13-2008, 10:04 AM
Well it looks like E.Jones is a definite cut. Josh Davis is another safe one.

So the final cut comes down to McBob, Austin, Graham, and Baston.

I'd cut Austin and make him an assistant coach. But that's just me.

Shade
10-13-2008, 10:16 AM
Davis and Jones are no-brainers.

At the end of the day, I'd cut Cro because he'd hinder McRoberts's potential development. I think Graham or Baston will be the one to go, though.

count55
10-13-2008, 10:21 AM
Well it looks like E.Jones is a definite cut. Josh Davis is another safe one.

So the final cut comes down to McBob, Austin, Graham, and Baston.

I'd cut Austin and make him an assistant coach. But that's just me.

Yeah, based on what I saw the first two games, I'd probably let go of Austin simply because he's not guaranteed. However, it's early, and I can remember previous pre-seasons where guys like Omar Cook looked like locks to make the team after two games, but ended up being no-brainer cuts, so...

I think McBob is going to be safe. I'd put the odds of being cut (assuming no Denver trade), at 40% each for Austin and Graham, and 20% for Baston.

If the Denver deal were to go through, then I think it'd be Austin & Graham to go...possibly Baston & Graham.

pacerfreak
10-13-2008, 10:33 AM
I'll say it'll come down to $, which it makes it tough on AC and Davis. Graham would be next on the list I think. That's not who I voted for though.

'Freak...out.

Shade
10-13-2008, 10:36 AM
Is Graham's contract not guaranteed?

Anthem
10-13-2008, 10:37 AM
Is Graham's contract not guaranteed?
Ought to be... he's just been extended. Not sure I've heard of a non-guaranteed extension.

Shade
10-13-2008, 10:51 AM
Ought to be... he's just been extended. Not sure I've heard of a non-guaranteed extension.

That's what I thought, and is the one thing that makes me think we may retain him.

count55
10-13-2008, 11:10 AM
Is Graham's contract not guaranteed?


Ought to be... he's just been extended. Not sure I've heard of a non-guaranteed extension.


That's what I thought, and is the one thing that makes me think we may retain him.

Strictly speaking, we picked up the Team Option on his second year, which I believe automatically guaranteed his salary.

We may retain him because of that, but his salary is so low ($826) that it is not prohibitive to cut him. He is hurt by the sheer number of bodies in front of him (Granger, Dunleavy, Daniels, Rush, Jack).

Unclebuck
10-13-2008, 11:14 AM
I think I'm weird, because every preseason I'm amazed at how much interest there is in who is going to be the 15th player on the roster. I don't really care if it is Cro, Jones, Graham, Williams, Ellis, Smith.......

Shade
10-13-2008, 11:23 AM
Strictly speaking, we picked up the Team Option on his second year, which I believe automatically guaranteed his salary.

We may retain him because of that, but his salary is so low ($826) that it is not prohibitive to cut him. He is hurt by the sheer number of bodies in front of him (Granger, Dunleavy, Daniels, Rush, Jack).

Yeah, makes you wonder if trading Shawne helped make room for Stephen, or just made it more clear how expendable he is.

I think Graham is pretty decent, though. I've never seen him on the floor and thought "please, Jim, sit him down NOW."

BlueNGold
10-13-2008, 11:27 AM
Just a "feel good" thought.

If we cut Austin Croshere, we are not doing too bad as a team. He scored 34 points in a game just a year ago and it's unlikely he has lost all that much. Remember the days of Britton Johnson, Marcus Haislip and John Edwards...or David Harrison for that matter? They make Cro look like a HOF.

count55
10-13-2008, 11:46 AM
Yeah, makes you wonder if trading Shawne helped make room for Stephen, or just made it more clear how expendable he is.

I think Graham is pretty decent, though. I've never seen him on the floor and thought "please, Jim, sit him down NOW."

I kinda feel bad for the guy. I think he could contribute somewhere given the opportunity.

I'm still of the opinion that the Pacers were going to give him a decent look, prior to the draft. However when they added Rush & Jack on draft day, it was a different world.

pacerfreak
10-13-2008, 11:50 AM
I kinda feel bad for the guy. I think he could contribute somewhere given the opportunity.

I'm still of the opinion that the Pacers were going to give him a decent look, prior to the draft. However when they added Rush & Jack on draft day, it was a different world.


That sounds reasonable Count. I think this years draft changed alot more than Graham's future with the team.

'Freak...out.

kester99
10-13-2008, 10:58 PM
Baston has yet to be seen in the preseason...I think that's a good sign he'll be gone. Austin isn't showing much, either. Same old Austin. Let him go. With Eddie Jones, that's three.

Hicks
10-13-2008, 11:56 PM
He played a little bit last Wednesday.

pacerfreak
10-14-2008, 08:05 AM
Baston has yet to be seen in the preseason...I think that's a good sign he'll be gone. Austin isn't showing much, either. Same old Austin. Let him go. With Eddie Jones, that's three.

I wonder if Maceo is has an injury of some sort. I agree Austin needs to step it up, ...alot, if he wants to make this team.

Can we change our minds on the vote we already made. :D

'Freak...out.

Will Galen
10-14-2008, 09:08 AM
I'm a stat lover, but there's more to it than that. There's the fact that Cro is still starting over McBob and Maceo and Davis. So we know where he stands with O'B.

So, unless there is a trade or injury that force the Pacers to go a certain way I think both Cro and McBob will make the team.

idioteque
10-14-2008, 10:26 AM
Baston is barely even playing in the preseason. That makes me think he will be gone. Which is kind of disappointing because Baston played pretty well in his past go around here and I think he would thrive much more in a JOB offense than he did under RC. Baston was not a RC-type player AT ALL.

Jones and Davis are no brainers.

McRoberts deserves to make the team, AC is going to make the team for PR reasons, and Stephen Graham is a decent reserve.

Since86
10-14-2008, 10:58 AM
Yeah, makes you wonder if trading Shawne helped make room for Stephen, or just made it more clear how expendable he is.

I think Graham is pretty decent, though. I've never seen him on the floor and thought "please, Jim, sit him down NOW."

I say it every time he attempts to play defense and gets lost. I've never understood the love he gets around here.

He manages a few points in scrub time and it's like he went out and put on a spectacular offensive performance. He's a dime and dozen player in the league.

With that being said, I hope Cro gets cut before he does though. Watching Austin try to play is really disheartening. He's lost more than just one step, which he didn't have room to lose, and he can't shoot worth a lick. He's just a shell of his former self, and his level of play wasn't all that high when he left. It's just time for him to hang it up, and him starting is just....well, dumb.

avoidingtheclowns
10-14-2008, 04:28 PM
With that being said, I hope Cro gets cut before he does though. Watching Austin try to play is really disheartening. He's lost more than just one step, which he didn't have room to lose, and he can't shoot worth a lick. He's just a shell of his former self, and his level of play wasn't all that high when he left. It's just time for him to hang it up, and him starting is just....well, dumb.

i agree - outside of the contract situation, i think if it comes down to baston or cro, i'd probably keep baston. i've always been a huge fan of austin's since our basketball team was staying in the same hotel as the providence team in south bend and we got to meet and chat with cro and god shamgod (it is a travesty with such an amazing name he couldn't sustain a career in the NBA). but austin seems done. maceo still has most of the physical tools he needs to play in the league. austin doesn't seem to.

Anthem
10-18-2008, 09:08 AM
So at this point it seems pretty well set. We're cutting Maceo, Davis, and Jones.

Justin Tyme
10-18-2008, 09:36 AM
So at this point it seems pretty well set. We're cutting Maceo, Davis, and Jones.

I hope you are correct, but as salary concerned as the Pacers are I just hope they don't keep Baston b/c of having to pay him 2 mil if they cut him.

To me both Graham and McBob have done more and offer more than Baston. It would be a shame if one of them gets cut to keep Baston!

Anthem
10-18-2008, 10:25 AM
I hope you are correct, but as salary concerned as the Pacers are I just hope they don't keep Baston b/c of having to pay him 2 mil if they cut him.

To me both Graham and McBob have done more and offer more than Baston. It would be a shame if one of them gets cut to keep Baston!
I'd keep Baston and cut Croshere, but I get it that it won't happen.

Speed
10-18-2008, 10:48 PM
I'd keep Baston and cut Croshere, but I get it that it won't happen.

The way the preseason has went, Austin is just outside the regular rotation (11th man or 5th big man). I thought he was only playing because Murph was out, but Austin got minutes again tonight with Murphy back.

It's has to be a tough call for management, your losing 2 million in expiring contract to potentially trade and you have to pay Austin 1.3.

So basically, keeping Austin cost you 3.3 million and a trade bargaining chip. That's a fairly steep price for a guy who shouldn't play ahead of 10 guys in a healthy/regular rotation.

Although Austin had a nice game tonight.

5 pts, 8 boards, 4 assists, and a block in 17 mins.

Anthem
10-18-2008, 10:57 PM
So basically, keeping Austin cost you 3.3 million and a trade bargaining chip. That's a fairly steep price for a guy who shouldn't play ahead of 10 guys in a healthy/regular rotation.
But he will. He'll get minutes that should go to McBob or Hibbert.

Speed
10-19-2008, 12:52 AM
But he will. He'll get minutes that should go to McBob or Hibbert.

That's terribly short sighted.

rexnom
10-19-2008, 01:26 AM
Basically, in the long run, the fifteenth man won't matter. I'd rather take Austin and give a few extra good faith minutes here and there if it means an extra vet presence and an extra good guy in the lockeroom.

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 07:31 AM
So basically, keeping Austin cost you 3.3 million and a trade bargaining chip. That's a fairly steep price for a guy who shouldn't play ahead of 10 guys in a healthy/regular rotation.

That's incorrect. Cro's salary won't cost the Pacers 1.3 mil. The NBA picks up part of it.

count55
10-19-2008, 08:46 AM
But he will. He'll get minutes that should go to McBob or Hibbert.

Well, while I would be upset if AC got minutes instead of Hibbert, I would have to argue that there's no such thing as "minutes that should go to McBob." Last year's equivalent would've been saying "minutes that should go to Courtney Sims."

Speed
10-19-2008, 09:52 AM
That's incorrect. Cro's salary won't cost the Pacers 1.3 mil. The NBA picks up part of it.

So how much does he cost against the cap?

count55
10-19-2008, 10:09 AM
So how much does he cost against the cap?

796-ish

For a vet min 1-yr contract of any player with 3 years or more in the league, the NBA will pay the difference between the minimum for a two-year player and whatever that player's years of experience gets him. This year, the two year vet gets $796 (IIRC). The purpose is to prevent the higher salary for more experienced players from costing them jobs/opportunities.

Pacers
10-19-2008, 11:09 AM
What is the deadline for the cuts?

Anthem
10-19-2008, 01:09 PM
Well, while I would be upset if AC got minutes instead of Hibbert, I would have to argue that there's no such thing as "minutes that should go to McBob." Last year's equivalent would've been saying "minutes that should go to Courtney Sims."
McBob might eventually be a decent backup for us. He's looked better than Sims did last year.

Croshere's future with this franchise is as a front office guy, not a player.

Peck
10-19-2008, 01:33 PM
McBob might eventually be a decent backup for us. He's looked better than Sims did last year.

Croshere's future with this franchise is as a front office guy, not a player.

However, you've been saying that since about 2000. :)

Justin Tyme
10-19-2008, 01:42 PM
However, you've been saying that since about 2000. :)

That doesn't make him wrong.

Bball
10-19-2008, 01:49 PM
So what is the value of a guy like Croshere that will show by example how to be a pro and provide a 'been there done that' voice in the lockerroom to a bunch of guys who haven't been there and haven't done that?

-Bball

Anthem
10-19-2008, 02:08 PM
So what is the value of a guy like Croshere that will show by example how to be a pro and provide a 'been there done that' voice in the lockerroom to a bunch of guys who haven't been there and haven't done that?
The same Croshere who hasn't tried to get better in the last 8 years? Never added a post move, never increased his shooting percentage, never improved his ballhandling? The guy who got a multi-million dollar contract based on potential, which he never tried to live up to? This is the guy who you see a role model for our young guys?

Look, Croshere's a great human being, and I appreciate his level head and professional attitude. But attitude is all he's got left, and he can do that in a suit.

Bball
10-19-2008, 04:59 PM
The same Croshere who hasn't tried to get better in the last 8 years? Never added a post move, never increased his shooting percentage, never improved his ballhandling? The guy who got a multi-million dollar contract based on potential, which he never tried to live up to? This is the guy who you see a role model for our young guys?

Look, Croshere's a great human being, and I appreciate his level head and professional attitude. But attitude is all he's got left, and he can do that in a suit.

I think you're being a little hard on Croshere. He was overpaid. He was also bounced around in the system once we abandoned our plans and instead traded for JO plus hired a bad coach.

I'm not as sure as you that some of Croshere's failings were based more on limitations in his game, early misuse, and too high expectations. Then factor in that ever present stigma a player gets when he's overpaid and underperforming even if he's getting the max out of what he has and being a good teammate to boot.

So, I think Croshere has value to the team as a mentor and calming factor for the younger players. Someone to keep them grounded and understanding their roles. Someone that they can look up to as a professional (and I'll go ahead and say it because I believe it) unlike players such as JO and Tinsley.

-Bball

kester99
10-19-2008, 05:24 PM
If both Austin and McRoberts are on the roster during the regular season, we just have to trust that O'B calls the right number at the appropriate time.

The continuing goal of this organization -- to get back in the play-offs -- calls for a balance between player development and keeping someone on the floor that can contribute as needed 'right now.' That consideration is going to cause both Austin and Marquis to get significant minutes, for better or worse. Hopefully, it'll be for the best...keeping us competitive and developing the rookies at the same time.

Minutes will be had by all. Injuries happen. It's a long season. If a player has little to offer as the season goes on, he'll disappear from the rotation, as long as there's an alternative. I think O'B has shown he will do that.

idioteque
10-19-2008, 05:42 PM
Well, while I would be upset if AC got minutes instead of Hibbert, I would have to argue that there's no such thing as "minutes that should go to McBob." Last year's equivalent would've been saying "minutes that should go to Courtney Sims."

McBob is much better than Courtney Sims and, at the respective point in each one's career, is probably as good as Austin right now.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 06:59 PM
I think you're being a little hard on Croshere. He was overpaid. He was also bounced around in the system once we abandoned our plans and instead traded for JO plus hired a bad coach.

I'm not as sure as you that some of Croshere's failings were based more on limitations in his game, early misuse, and too high expectations. Then factor in that ever present stigma a player gets when he's overpaid and underperforming even if he's getting the max out of what he has and being a good teammate to boot.
Well, there's no doubt I stated that position pretty strongly... probably more strongly than I actually believe it. But Croshere's problems were his own. Every coach he had tried to get more out of him. You can't lay his failings on Zeke, since Zeke actually got more from him than Carlisle.

I don't think he ever maxed out (or even came close to maxing out) his abilities as a player. The dude's a power forward who never added a post move. He spent his summers in LA running on the beach and shooting jumpers in an empty gym. Jermaine got all kinds of grief (from Larry and from posters on this forum) for spending the offseason elsewhere, but Cro did it every year. I wouldn't have complained if he'd ever added one new move: a hook, a turnaround, drop-step, anything. But he never did. And unless your view is that he was so untalented that it was impossible for him to add any of those moves, then I can't see why he gets a pass from you on this. And if he really IS that untalented, what do you see him bringing on the court?


So, I think Croshere has value to the team as a mentor and calming factor for the younger players. Someone to keep them grounded and understanding their roles. Someone that they can look up to as a professional (and I'll go ahead and say it because I believe it) unlike players such as JO and Tinsley.
See, I'd be fine with that. I think mentoring's important, and several years ago I lobbied for picking up guys who were over the hill just to add some seasoning to the locker room. Carlisle shut that down, though, saying he was only interested in what guys bring to the court.

If we were saying Cro was coming in to ride the pine and mentor the younger guys, then I'd be fine with it. But from all indications TPTB are going to force-feed him minutes ahead of guys he's less productive than. And that's a problem, both immediately and (more importantly) in the future.

count55
10-19-2008, 07:29 PM
McBob is much better than Courtney Sims and, at the respective point in each one's career, is probably as good as Austin right now.

So...I don't think there's any such thing as "minutes that should go to Croshere" either.

It's the 15th man...no one among the following: Graham, McBob, Croshere, Baston; will amount to anything in the NBA going forward. Some collection of them will be here this year, a different collection will be here next year.

Does it matter who the 15th player is? If it's Austin, fine. If it's McBob, fine. The only thing less consequential to the future of this franchise, is...well, I'm sure there's something, but I just can't think of it now.

I'd cut Austin because his contract is not guaranteed. Other than that, I want to see Ford, Granger, Dunleavy, Hibbert, Foster, Rasho, Rush, Jack, Diener, & Murphy get minutes. I don't care if the other five ever play or not.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 09:15 PM
So...I don't think there's any such thing as "minutes that should go to Croshere" either.
If Cro makes the team, I'll wager he gets minutes in the majority of games he's available for.

Peck
10-19-2008, 10:48 PM
The same Croshere who hasn't tried to get better in the last 8 years? Never added a post move, never increased his shooting percentage, never improved his ballhandling? The guy who got a multi-million dollar contract based on potential, which he never tried to live up to? This is the guy who you see a role model for our young guys?

Look, Croshere's a great human being, and I appreciate his level head and professional attitude. But attitude is all he's got left, and he can do that in a suit.

So you will join me in complaining about Jeff Foster getting another extension? Or do you only hold your opinions for players you don't like?

Every single thing you have said about Austin Croshere can and should be applies to Jeff Foster. Yet I never seem to hear you complain about him.

I guess your argument will be that Jeff never got the kind of contract that Austin got. Yet I also seem to remeber you being the one defending Walsh and other for signing Croshere to that contract because he was being persued by other teams.

Croshere is no better and no worse than many other players who we have had on our team. He just happens to be a type of player that you don't like, much like Troy Murphy. However both of these players, much to both of our chagrins, are exactly the type of player that our current coach loves.

Now let me actually defend Croshere here a little.

While I agree with everything above you have typed I will make it a point to say this. He is a good rebounder, he plays decent body up defense and is a solid passer. His outside shooting can be hit or miss however when he does hit he can be a game changer.

Now having said all of the above I will stil hold to this. If it comes down to him or McRoberts I will choose McBob. However between him and Baston then I will go with Austin. I like Baston but if we are talking 15th man here, then I guess I would go with one who could bring in extra's, ie. locker room presence.

Anthem
10-19-2008, 11:36 PM
So you will join me in complaining about Jeff Foster getting another extension? Or do you only hold your opinions for players you don't like?

Every single thing you have said about Austin Croshere can and should be applies to Jeff Foster. Yet I never seem to hear you complain about him.

I guess your argument will be that Jeff never got the kind of contract that Austin got. Yet I also seem to remeber you being the one defending Walsh and other for signing Croshere to that contract because he was being persued by other teams.
Hmm. Tricky. I'm partly with you, but only partly.

The contract, I don't care about as such. If somebody offered Jeff a billion-dollar contract and he turned it down, then he's too stupid to play for my team. My issue with Austin's contract was twofold: that it hindered the team's ability to make needed moves and--more importantly--that it pressured TPTB to get him undeserved play time in an attempt to get something for the money they'd spent. If Austin had been a minimum-level player he'd have gotten a LOT less PT over the years, mostly to the team's benefit. I didn't have a problem with Austin's extension originally... I said at the time (and continued to say for years) that I thought Austin had a very good chance to earn his contract. But that was because I thought he was a gym rat and could improve. I never imagined that he'd hit his peak before signing his extension.

Now, as for the comparison to Jeff. Here's the difference for me. For the most part, Jeff doesn't have off nights. The stuff he gives you he pretty much brings every night. His best game is a little worse than Croshere's best game, but his average is much higher and his standard deviation is lower. I value consistence over streaky brilliance. Whether Austin is brilliant is up for debate, but he's certainly streaky. Given identical contracts, I'd take Jeff ten times out of ten. So would every GM in the NBA.


Croshere is no better and no worse than many other players who we have had on our team. He just happens to be a type of player that you don't like, much like Troy Murphy. However both of these players, much to both of our chagrins, are exactly the type of player that our current coach loves.
I can't disagree with that.


Now let me actually defend Croshere here a little.

While I agree with everything above you have typed I will make it a point to say this. He is a good rebounder, he plays decent body up defense and is a solid passer. His outside shooting can be hit or miss however when he does hit he can be a game changer.
I can't really agree that he's a good rebounder (unless you want to say that Jermaine was a great rebounder) but the other stuff you said I won't disagree with.


Now having said all of the above I will stil hold to this. If it comes down to him or McRoberts I will choose McBob. However between him and Baston then I will go with Austin. I like Baston but if we are talking 15th man here, then I guess I would go with one who could bring in extra's, ie. locker room presence.
See my previous post. If it's strictly about locker room presence then I'd be thrilled. But it's not. Austin's going to get burn, and he'll get it ahead of guys who need the minutes to develop.

Peck
10-20-2008, 01:03 AM
Hmm. Tricky. I'm partly with you, but only partly.

The contract, I don't care about as such. If somebody offered Jeff a billion-dollar contract and he turned it down, then he's too stupid to play for my team. My issue with Austin's contract was twofold: that it hindered the team's ability to make needed moves and--more importantly--that it pressured TPTB to get him undeserved play time in an attempt to get something for the money they'd spent. If Austin had been a minimum-level player he'd have gotten a LOT less PT over the years, mostly to the team's benefit. I didn't have a problem with Austin's extension originally... I said at the time (and continued to say for years) that I thought Austin had a very good chance to earn his contract. But that was because I thought he was a gym rat and could improve. I never imagined that he'd hit his peak before signing his extension.

Now, as for the comparison to Jeff. Here's the difference for me. For the most part, Jeff doesn't have off nights. The stuff he gives you he pretty much brings every night. His best game is a little worse than Croshere's best game, but his average is much higher and his standard deviation is lower. I value consistence over streaky brilliance. Whether Austin is brilliant is up for debate, but he's certainly streaky. Given identical contracts, I'd take Jeff ten times out of ten. So would every GM in the NBA.


I can't disagree with that.


I can't really agree that he's a good rebounder (unless you want to say that Jermaine was a great rebounder) but the other stuff you said I won't disagree with.


See my previous post. If it's strictly about locker room presence then I'd be thrilled. But it's not. Austin's going to get burn, and he'll get it ahead of guys who need the minutes to develop.


Fair answers, all.

However where you and I have always disagreed was over Austins use in the Isiah Thomas system.

True or false.

Austin got his playing time in the 2000 season playing at the four spot?

True. Rik Smits would hit the bench and Austin would come in thus playing besides Dale Davis. Unless you think Austin was playing Center (which if Jermaine were playing you can guess what Austin would have to be labeled).

Why is this important? Simple, Austins advantage at the time was that he was usually faster and more athletic than the other backup powerforwards who he was playing against and he would use that to his advantage.

When Thomas came on board he did start Austin, however he started Austin at the small forward spot. A spot to which he was not accustomed to playing and had to the best of my knowledge never played in the past.

Why is this important? Simple, Austins one advantage from playing backup powere forward was actually a weakness when playing the starting small forward spot. Usually the s.f. is the most athletic person on a team, Obviously McKey being a huge exception of this. Austin was neither faster nor more athletic than any of the small forwards in the league. In fact I would argue that Austin was probably the least of both of these as a starter for anyone in the league at the s.f. spot. Once Austin failed at this, which IMO was inevitable, he was benched. Not only was he benched but he was given DNP-CD after DNP-CD.

Most people in the field house thought that this was unfair, believe me. You want to hear a cheer in the fieldhouse? Announce Austins name. Now of course some smart @ss is going to say it is because the color of his skin. Sure, maybe, for some. However neither Jeff nor Rasho nor McBob or frankly anyone on our team gets the kind of ovation that Austin gets.

Look I get it, he is not your type of player. In truth he's not mine either. In fact if there is any one person I should be p!ssed about over the year because of Dale being moved it is Austin Croshere. I know for fact that his contract extension is what sent Kevin (Dale's brother) over the edge forcing Dale to make his demand.

But for whatever reason I just can't hate the guy. I think I fall into the same trap that a lot of other fans at the fieldhouse do with him. You have to almost like the guy because he always gives his all, never complains and at times can do some real good.

Either way thank God for Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Brandon Rush, T.J. Ford & Jarret Jack. The season looks sooooooooooooooooooo much better than last season no matter who the 15th man is.:cool:

duke dynamite
10-20-2008, 01:16 AM
I have to agree. Austin may not put up the numbers we need, but there is a leadership factor brought into play. You are right. He never complains, and he plays like the game is on the line minute after minute. If anyone out of Davis and Croshere makes the team, it should be Austin.

Infinite MAN_force
10-20-2008, 02:03 AM
If TBTP are willing to pay off Baston to sign Cro, cool. but If that happens I think cro should be sitting squarly on the end of the bench. Mcbob, while no stat stuffer, showed a lot of potential as a glue guy at the 4 spot in the two games I watched... and probably played the best D at that spot of anyone besides Jeff, which should be important. I personally don't want to see a poor man's troy murphy backing up troy murphy.

ugh, i just feel like the only real reason Austin is getting so much attention is because of nostalgia, and the fact that his one good year was the year the pacers were good and in the finals. His play in preseason has been mostly terrible. has no one else noticed this? I don't want him playing in front of young guys.

I think Jeff Foster provides pretty damn good vet leadership, Croshere is not needed.

Anthem
10-20-2008, 05:53 PM
However where you and I have always disagreed was over Austins use in the Isiah Thomas system.
Yeah, and it's kind of funny. At this point it's more of a muscle memory than anything else... we've fought this thing out too many times for it to have much heat any more. I'll restate my position for anybody new, knowing that it didn't convince you then and won't convince you now.

The general perception of Austin from fans, from the media, from the front office, and from Austin himself was that he was a SF playing out of position at PF. I've dug up old quotes from him, from scouting reports, etc. Those links are all gone now... it's 8 years ago. But while I agree that Zeke made the wrong move trying to play Austin at SF, it wasn't regarded as a wrong move by Austin himself or almost anyone else at the time.

Also, while Austin started the season at SF, he didn't spend all of his time there. Zeke went to ridiculous lengths trying to find a way where Austin could be productive. He played him at both forward spots, both starting and coming off the bench, looking for some place Austin could consistently do well. He never found them, and no coach really has since then. That's because an undersized 4 without the footspeed to drive is really a one-trick guy and easily solved. Austin was solved before he signed his extension.


Most people in the field house thought that this was unfair, believe me. You want to hear a cheer in the fieldhouse? Announce Austins name. Now of course some smart @ss is going to say it is because the color of his skin. Sure, maybe, for some. However neither Jeff nor Rasho nor McBob or frankly anyone on our team gets the kind of ovation that Austin gets.
It's because he's the team's last connection to the glory days and because Indy fans--perhaps more than any in the league--really love the long ball. And because he's a really easy guy to like, on a personal level.


I think I fall into the same trap that a lot of other fans at the fieldhouse do with him. You have to almost like the guy because he always gives his all, never complains and at times can do some real good.
I can't disagree with this. Even though I've been advocating cutting him, I really like Austin and (call me nostalgic) will enjoy seeing him in the blue and gold for old time's sake. Hopefully though we don't see him too much.


Either way thank God for Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert, Brandon Rush, T.J. Ford & Jarret Jack. The season looks sooooooooooooooooooo much better than last season no matter who the 15th man is.:cool:
Amen to that. :buddies:

MyFavMartin
10-21-2008, 01:35 PM
Anyone thinking that Austin will be a coach until Tinsley is traded?

I think it comes down to Baston/Cro/McRoberts. Baston and Cro are the same age, but Cro brings experience and leadership. McRoberts has youth and potential on his side and its interesting that Baston hasn't been playing during the preseason.

Cutting Baston to sign Cro doesn't make financial sense and I don't want to see the P's cut Graham or McRoberts. Hence, I think the P's will let Cro know he'll be given Tins' roster spot once he gets traded.