PDA

View Full Version : Rasho Buyout?



OakMoses
02-20-2009, 01:31 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=PERDiem-090219

by John Hollinger

Rasho Nesterovic (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=598), Indiana: Another 7-footer who can make shots and has a championship ring; he's familiar with San Antonio's system from his time down there and would make a nice addition to the size-starved Spurs for their playoff run.

----------------------------------------------------------------

This comes from an article on players who may become available after buyouts. I also saw this mentioned in another article, but that may have been by Hollinger also.

Thoughts?

Los Angeles
02-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Rasho's contract is expiring this year. There's no reason to buy him out.

Major Cold
02-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Rasho's contract is expiring this year. There's no reason to buy him out.
Unless the buyout saves the Simons a million or so dollars.

count55
02-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Rasho's contract is expiring this year. There's no reason to buy him out.

They can save a little money, if he'll take less than what he's owed.

CableKC
02-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Rasho's contract is expiring this year. There's no reason to buy him out.
I think that if we buy him out......we pay less this season for him....this ( of course ) assumes that we don't use him anymore.

Even if buy him out with a 10-15% discount, then we save a million or so.

Anthem
02-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Yeah, actually there's a lot of reason to buy him out. Gets him out of the rotation, forces Jim to give PT to Hibby and McBob, saves some cash, and allows Rasho to go to a contender. It's the classic no-lose situation.

If he wanted it, I'd do the same with Quis, honestly. Give those minutes to Graham and Rush.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 01:37 PM
If he would accept a buyout for a million or more less than he is owed they should pull the trigger. It would be a benefit to both the Pacers and Rasho.

Jonathan
02-20-2009, 01:46 PM
I do not want to be the team that ends his playoff streak. This may also lead to the audition for a D-League Player for the Blue N Gold. This could also give future free agents a more favorable view of the organization.

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 01:50 PM
If he wanted it, I'd do the same with Quis, honestly. Give those minutes to Graham and Rush.

Chad Ford had some interesting comments about 'Quis. He said that he'll be a very valuable asset around draft time because a team could trade for him and then not pick up his option. It sounds like he'd basically give a team that's looking to shed salary a 2nd chance at an expiring contract.

Speed
02-20-2009, 01:52 PM
Yeah, actually there's a lot of reason to buy him out. Gets him out of the rotation, forces Jim to give PT to Hibby and McBob, saves some cash, and allows Rasho to go to a contender. It's the classic no-lose situation.

If he wanted it, I'd do the same with Quis, honestly. Give those minutes to Graham and Rush.

Quis wouldn't work I don't think, unless they say look we are going to opt you out anyway, so take less from what is owed for the rest of this year.

Also, how much of Rasho's contract is left unpaid at this point? A third probably. He makes 8.2, just going off the top of my head, here, so they owe him 2.7 million. If he would take 80%, it could save them 500k.

I'd do it, Free Roy, free McBob.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 01:54 PM
I don't think a buyout for Quis is a real option. Not with Dunleavy done for the year and Granger down for an extended period.

Especially seeing as how Graham seems to have fallen way out of favor.

Jonathan
02-20-2009, 01:59 PM
I think the organization should strongly consider keeping Marquis Daniels for next season. A lot of teams are saving up for money for the summer of 2010 he could be a great bargaining chip come next trade deadline. Keep in mind Chandler will have a year less on his contract and maybe just maybe we can package Quis, Murphy/Dunleavy, Youth for a superstar to go with Danny Granger.

I also want to see more of Rush before we just dump Quis for nothing.

Speed
02-20-2009, 02:01 PM
Chad Ford had some interesting comments about 'Quis. He said that he'll be a very valuable asset around draft time because a team could trade for him and then not pick up his option. It sounds like he'd basically give a team that's looking to shed salary a 2nd chance at an expiring contract.

I wonder what date you have to declare whether or not you are going to pick up the last year of his contract??

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 02:04 PM
I wonder what date you have to declare whether or not you are going to pick up the last year of his contract??

July 1. Draft is June 25.

Speed
02-20-2009, 02:05 PM
I don't think a buyout for Quis is a real option. Not with Dunleavy done for the year and Granger down for an extended period.

Especially seeing as how Graham seems to have fallen way out of favor.

I don't think putting the best possible line up on the floor the last 26 games should even be a consideration at this point.

Everything you do now is with eyes directly toward next season and after.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 02:07 PM
I don't think putting the best possible line up on the floor the last 26 games should even be a consideration at this point.

Everything you do now is with eyes directly toward next season and after.

I agree. I've had that point of view since mid to late December. But Quis will be a valuable bargaining chip come late April.

Speed
02-20-2009, 02:07 PM
July 1. Draft is June 25.

Thanks, that is perfect!! Marquis could be crazy valuable then.

If a team needs cap clearance, you could get a steal, like maybe picks and/or a rotation player.

I hadn't even considered this. It seems like a really really valuable chip, then.

Major Cold
02-20-2009, 02:27 PM
Thanks, that is perfect!! Marquis could be crazy valuable then.

If a team needs cap clearance, you could get a steal, like maybe picks and/or a rotation player.

I hadn't even considered this. It seems like a really really valuable chip, then.
If this were to happen..Say goodbye to Jack.

count55
02-20-2009, 02:31 PM
I think the organization should strongly consider keeping Marquis Daniels for next season. A lot of teams are saving up for money for the summer of 2010 he could be a great bargaining chip come next trade deadline. Keep in mind Chandler will have a year less on his contract and maybe just maybe we can package Quis, Murphy/Dunleavy, Youth for a superstar to go with Danny Granger.

I also want to see more of Rush before we just dump Quis for nothing.

Quis's contract of $7,354 would be particularly onerous to the Pacers next season. So much so, that it is impractical for them to pick it up for the purpose of keeping.

Essentially, it would put their guaranteed contracts at $65,132, leaving only about $4,200 to sign five more players. At least half of this would be chewed up by our first round pick, and if we won the lottery, it would take it all.

We may entertain picking it up to deal it, but we would probably be looking at trying to minimize the payroll we have to take back. A team under the cap wouldn't find the expiring contract that attractive, and we'd probably be looking for a $6.0mm or less contract, hopefully partially unguaranteed. However, it is very unlikely to find such a package for a player we'd really covet.

Honestly, it is very unpractical to even consider Daniels coming back, at this point.

A very strong argument could be made for buying out both Rasho and Daniels, centered around both saving money and removing obstacles for Hibbert and Rush.

We owe Rasho about $2.6mm and Daniels about $2.1mm for the balance of the year. Buying out both of them for a combined $3.5-4.0mm could be a very sensible thing to do.

I, however, think it's unlikely that either will be bought out, given Tinsley's dead roster spot, and the somewhat open-ended injuries to Dunleavy and Granger.

indygeezer
02-20-2009, 02:35 PM
Yep, clear em all out and just announce to the league that we are officially tanking the season. Maybe they'll just let us forfeit the season.

LG33
02-20-2009, 02:37 PM
If this were to happen..Say goodbye to Jack.

Goodbye.

beast23
02-20-2009, 02:37 PM
I wouldn't just buy-out players at this point to benefit other teams. At least not without some sort of return... and the trading deadline is passed.

At the very least, if we knew that Rasho (for example) was wanted by another team, then make an arrangement to complete a meaningless trade at a later dates that also involves receiving a 2nd round pick.

For example, if we have some obscure player invited to training camp next fall and the other team has a similar player, swap our obscure player for their obscure player plus a 2nd round draft choice in the 2010 draft.

Don't know whether this is legal or not, but I wouldn't just give up a rotational player for nothing, even if it does mean saving a few dollars. In this economy, draft choices and expiring contracts are very valuable assets. If you are giving up one, make certain that you are either receiving the other or a player that can help you out.

count55
02-20-2009, 02:38 PM
If this were to happen..Say goodbye to Jack.

I'm sure this factored into the thinking on any deadline deals. They knew that any deal (like Chandler's) that brought on a significant chunk of salary would result in the inability to re-sign Jack. I'm not saying that was a deal breaker, but in all of the calculations, they needed to add a parenthetical (and Jack) to what they had to give up.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Don't know whether this is legal or not, but I wouldn't just give up a rotational player for nothing, even if it does mean saving a few dollars. In this economy, draft choices and expiring contracts are very valuable assets. If you are giving up one, make certain that you are either receiving the other or a player that can help you out.

I don't think it's legal. But I really think you're underestimating how important the money would be to the franchise.

count55
02-20-2009, 02:41 PM
Yep, clear em all out and just announce to the league that we are officially tanking the season. Maybe they'll just let us forfeit the season.

Well, that's a stunningly simplistic way to put the considerations, but, hey, if that's what you need, have at it.

indygeezer
02-20-2009, 02:51 PM
Well, that's a stunningly simplistic way to put the considerations, but, hey, if that's what you need, have at it.

I was responding to what I consider rash speculation.

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:57 PM
Maybe re-signing Foster was a bad idea.

Again.

Justin Tyme
02-20-2009, 03:17 PM
A ? that hasn't been brought up. How much can the Spurs pay Rasho to sign him?

What I'm thinking is if Rasho is owed 2.6 mil in salary and the Spurs can pay 2 mil to sign Rasho then have Rasho take a boyout at .6 mil and get a salary of 2 mil from the Spurs. Rasho won't lose any money, goes to a championship contender, and the Simons save 2 mil. Just a thought.

Justin Tyme
02-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Maybe re-signing Foster was a bad idea.

Again.



I've been saying that for what seems forever. I rank it up there with trading Cro's expiring for Daniels.

grace
02-20-2009, 03:22 PM
Thoughts?

My thought is if they buy out Rasho before they handle the Tinsley situation it gives Jamaal more ammo during arbitration.

idioteque
02-20-2009, 03:26 PM
I've been saying that for what seems forever. I rank it up there with trading Cro's expiring for Daniels.

Yup.

avoidingtheclowns
02-20-2009, 03:29 PM
Maybe re-signing Foster was a bad idea.

Again.


absolutely 1000% right. with that new contract it completely killed any chance we had at trading him. it's not like there were any teams interested in him with that new contract at the deadline or anything. completely unwanted and untradable.

count55
02-20-2009, 03:38 PM
Maybe re-signing Foster was a bad idea.

Again.

I've gone back and forth on this. The killer is the economy and the decline in the LT threshold. When they inked Jeff's extension, they were expecting the LT threshold to be about $5-6mm higher. Had the economy tanked three months earlier, Jeff doesn't get his extension...(but then, maybe Danny doesn't, either.)


A ? that hasn't been brought up. How much can the Spurs pay Rasho to sign him?

What I'm thinking is if Rasho is owed 2.6 mil in salary and the Spurs can pay 2 mil to sign Rasho then have Rasho take a boyout at .6 mil and get a salary of 2 mil from the Spurs. Rasho won't lose any money, goes to a championship contender, and the Simons save 2 mil. Just a thought.


The Spurs can only offer him the vet min pro-rated, which is about $15k per game for someone of his experience, or roughly $0.4mm.

Plus, that might be considered collusion.

count55
02-20-2009, 03:39 PM
My thought is if they buy out Rasho before they handle the Tinsley situation it gives Jamaal more ammo during arbitration.

good point.

BRushWithDeath
02-20-2009, 04:02 PM
Maybe re-signing Foster was a bad idea.

Again.

That was clear the day he put ink to paper.

DrFife
02-20-2009, 04:20 PM
Quis's contract of $7,354 would be particularly onerous to the Pacers next season. So much so, that it is impractical for them to pick it up for the purpose of keeping.

Essentially, it would put their guaranteed contracts at $65,132, leaving only about $4,200 to sign five more players. At least half of this would be chewed up by our first round pick, and if we won the lottery, it would take it all.

We may entertain picking it up to deal it, but we would probably be looking at trying to minimize the payroll we have to take back. A team under the cap wouldn't find the expiring contract that attractive, and we'd probably be looking for a $6.0mm or less contract, hopefully partially unguaranteed. However, it is very unlikely to find such a package for a player we'd really covet.

Honestly, it is very unpractical to even consider Daniels coming back, at this point.

While driving, I wondered about signing Quis's option and packaging him with Tinsley, ideally for someone(s) of lesser value with one year remaining (after this year, of course). Now home, I find one desirable (?) name, a PF, from a team in need of cap relief: Carlos Boozer. (Brad Miller was the runner-up, but I can't imagine Chicago trading him again so soon after re-acquiring him.) I'd prefer to acquire one or two lesser players and a late first-round draft pick, but might a Quis+Tinsley (or Quis+anyone with years remaining) scenario be plausible?

Speed
02-20-2009, 04:25 PM
With Foster, I just didn't understand why they did it then when they didn't have to. I mean couldn't have thought he was going to command more in Free Agency. It basically, just took away his expiring contract because I'm pretty sure they could have given him the same deal this summer, if they wanted.

count55
02-20-2009, 04:28 PM
With Foster, I just didn't understand why they did it then when they didn't have to. I mean couldn't have thought he was going to command more in Free Agency. It basically, just took away his expiring contract because I'm pretty sure they could have given him the same deal this summer, if they wanted.

I suspect that it's nothing more complicated than the fact that they liked him and wanted to keep him (more than most of us would.)

Anthem
02-20-2009, 05:37 PM
Chad Ford had some interesting comments about 'Quis. He said that he'll be a very valuable asset around draft time because a team could trade for him and then not pick up his option. It sounds like he'd basically give a team that's looking to shed salary a 2nd chance at an expiring contract.
Now that's an interesting thought. But can he be traded before June 1 or do we have to wait 2 months for the deal to go through?

Justin Tyme
02-20-2009, 05:54 PM
With Foster, I just didn't understand why they did it then when they didn't have to. I mean couldn't have thought he was going to command more in Free Agency. It basically, just took away his expiring contract because I'm pretty sure they could have given him the same deal this summer, if they wanted.


Bingo! I never understood that either b/c after the season started while he was still a FA it was asked of him if he was going to leave the Pacers for another team as a FA. His answer was he wasn't leaving unless the Pacers didn't want him. IIRC, it was in an interview with Stacey P. So when the Pacers gave him an extension then instead of waiting after the season I was just totally shocked.

Shade
02-20-2009, 05:58 PM
While driving, I wondered about signing Quis's option and packaging him with Tinsley, ideally for someone(s) of lesser value with one year remaining (after this year, of course). Now home, I find one desirable (?) name, a PF, from a team in need of cap relief: Carlos Boozer. (Brad Miller was the runner-up, but I can't imagine Chicago trading him again so soon after re-acquiring him.) I'd prefer to acquire one or two lesser players and a late first-round draft pick, but might a Quis+Tinsley (or Quis+anyone with years remaining) scenario be plausible?

Boozer expires after this season. I proposed a Rasho & Quis for Boozer swap a few weeks ago.

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 06:13 PM
Now that's an interesting thought. But can he be traded before June 1 or do we have to wait 2 months for the deal to go through?

My understanding of the situation is that we have until July 1st to exercise the team option. We can make trades again as soon as we play our last game of the season. So pretty much we'd have from the middle of April until the 1st of July to trade him.

pacergod2
02-20-2009, 07:05 PM
Yeah Daniels is going to be a player that ALOT of teams call about. Think NO and Washington as Melli and I have discussed in the trade forum. Teams that are already over the cap for next year.

Daniels we should hold on to so we can package him with Tinsley somewhere so Tins has the whole off-season for a team to take a risk with him.

Rasho SHOULD be bought out. No doubt in my mind. After tonight's game the team will have played 65 games, including pre-season. Their salaries are based on 110 games. Therfore, 65/110 of $8,400,000 is $4,963,636. He has $3,436,364 owed to him for the remainder of the year. He could go to another team for a veteran's minimum deal that is prorated for 45 games. For a 10 year veteran, the minimum is $1,262,275. Prorated at 45 games (41%) he would have to sign for $516,270. We could easily save that amount in a buyout. I think we could save even more than that so he can go chase one more ring. He would DEFINITELY get signed by someone. Either Boston or San Antonio. If we were to get that extra money off our cap number, we would have more flexibility in getting rid of Daniels at or before the draft.

pacergod2
02-20-2009, 07:09 PM
The Jazz wouldn't be able to trade Boozer, because he has an early termination option. The only way they could trade him is if they are in control of his rights for next year or he is already guaranteed. Boozer is not tradeable unless he opts to remain in his contract before the trade and I am not so sure he would do that. Especially to get traded to a "Non-contender" in his mind. But the Jazz Front Office would have a HUGE interest in trading him, so they don't lose out on Milsap's career for one more year of Boozer.

tonythetiger
02-20-2009, 07:28 PM
The Spurs can only offer him the vet min pro-rated, which is about $15k per game for someone of his experience, or roughly $0.4mm.


Spurs have at least part of the LLE or MLE left.

JayRedd
02-21-2009, 04:01 PM
Quis's contract of $7,354 would be particularly onerous to the Pacers next season. So much so, that it is impractical for them to pick it up for the purpose of keeping.

Essentially, it would put their guaranteed contracts at $65,132, leaving only about $4,200 to sign five more players. At least half of this would be chewed up by our first round pick, and if we won the lottery, it would take it all.

We may entertain picking it up to deal it, but we would probably be looking at trying to minimize the payroll we have to take back. A team under the cap wouldn't find the expiring contract that attractive, and we'd probably be looking for a $6.0mm or less contract, hopefully partially unguaranteed. However, it is very unlikely to find such a package for a player we'd really covet.

Honestly, it is very unpractical to even consider Daniels coming back, at this point.

And in this economy...There's no way an owner is spending a possible $7 in hopes some great deal hopefully comes along. There's no way Daniels' option is picked up.


Boozer expires after this season. I proposed a Rasho & Quis for Boozer swap a few weeks ago.

Yes. And I recall laughing at you a few weeks ago for said proposal.

OakMoses
02-22-2009, 12:10 AM
And in this economy...There's no way an owner is spending a possible $7 in hopes some great deal hopefully comes along. There's no way Daniels' option is picked up.

I agree that there's no way that 'Quis will be a Pacer next season, but I could see a team trading for him and picking up his option. It's important to keep in mind that he's going to average 20+ ppg until Granger comes back. Plus, if you trade for him and pick up his option, that's a $7 million expiring in the 2010 offseason. Then there's also the idea that a team could trade for him and not pick up his option to save money for next season.

Shade
02-22-2009, 12:19 AM
And in this economy...There's no way an owner is spending a possible $7 in hopes some great deal hopefully comes along. There's no way Daniels' option is picked up.



Yes. And I recall laughing at you a few weeks ago for said proposal.

And why, exactly? The Jazz aren't going to re-sign Boozer, so why not try out a couple of other players at the same pay for the same length of time (with the option of retaining Quis, if they want)? No-risk situation for both teams.

count55
02-22-2009, 12:47 AM
I agree that there's no way that 'Quis will be a Pacer next season, but I could see a team trading for him and picking up his option. It's important to keep in mind that he's going to average 20+ ppg until Granger comes back. Plus, if you trade for him and pick up his option, that's a $7 million expiring in the 2010 offseason. Then there's also the idea that a team could trade for him and not pick up his option to save money for next season.

Daniels cannot be traded unless we pick up his option:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85


When the trading deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO.

However, if we picked up his option to trade him, we would have to take most if not all of that salary in the form of another player.

There is a slim chance that something could happen here, but it is very slim. The Pacers may leave it open until the last minute, to see what happens in the draft, etc. but I would say the chances of Marquis' last game in a Pacer uniform being April 15th or sooner are at almost certain, and the possibility of us picking up his option, even if just to trade it, is infinitessimal, as to be non-existent.

d_c
02-22-2009, 04:22 AM
Daniels cannot be traded unless we pick up his option:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q85



However, if we picked up his option to trade him, we would have to take most if not all of that salary in the form of another player.

There is a slim chance that something could happen here, but it is very slim. The Pacers may leave it open until the last minute, to see what happens in the draft, etc. but I would say the chances of Marquis' last game in a Pacer uniform being April 15th or sooner are at almost certain, and the possibility of us picking up his option, even if just to trade it, is infinitessimal, as to be non-existent.


Good call. I remember seeing that rule in action before somewhere, but couldn't manage to find it in Coon's Salary Cap FAQ, but you did.

Daniels in all likelihood is not going to have his option picked up, and therefore probably won't be traded. Pacers are probably going to let him walk unless he agrees to come back at a much discounted rate.

The Pacers basically decided to use Daniels and Rashos' expiring contracts (which without a doubt were coveted items around the league) for themselves.

Hicks
02-22-2009, 11:46 AM
I agree it's unlikely, but if the Pacers really wanted to, what would stop them from having a trade agreed upon on say, draft night, where said trade couldn't actually happen until the paperwork was filed or whatever has to be done to pick up the option?

Last draft's trades didn't involve picking up an option (AFAIK), but neither deal was official that night for one reason or another. Meaning the NBA seems to smile upon making trades that night that may not technically be do-able until a small time later.

In other words, I don't see why the Pacers couldn't explore trades involving Marquis up to the draft, and then make a deal if they can. If they can't, then they simply don't pick up the option. If they can, they agree to the trade, the press announces it, but the NBA doesn't officially recognize it until all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed on a near future date.

Anthem
02-22-2009, 04:07 PM
I would say the chances of Marquis' last game in a Pacer uniform being April 15th or sooner are at almost certain
Last day on that contract, maybe. I could see the Pacers re-signing him, since I really think he's not going to command much next year.