PDA

View Full Version : Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?



CableKC
03-02-2009, 02:31 PM
Going through the 2009-2010 Draft thread....I was thinking that IF Brandon Jennings was the best Player available to draft and we decide to do draft him ( specifically a PG )......instead of resigning Jack....I was pondering whether it would be possible to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( at $7+ mil ) and then try to turn around and resign him at a cheaper rate....probably at the same rate that we would have likely tried to resign Jack at.....like $3.5-4 mil a year type deal.

I'm pretty sure that Marquis would likely get some suitors out there for his services....but looking at the way that he has played....I ( and probably many others here on PD ) would like to keep him.....we just don't ( nor can afford ) to keep him at his current Team Option price tag. I know that Jack has been clutch and even carried the Teams at times.....but is also kind turnover prone at time and if Jennings is the best player available and other players that could likely help us are off the board.....I could see drafting a PG ( to fill Jack's current role ) and then trying to resign Marquis ( at a cheaper price ) as a decent alternative.

In the past, has a Team decided not to pick up a Team Option on a Player then turned around and negotiated a new Contract with him?

I'm guessing that Marquis could turn around and choose not to go with the Pacers based off of some "You want me, but not at a higher cost" mentality....but if he can be had for a cheaper price, I would hope that he would consider staying.

Of course, my preferable option is to try to move Ford in the offseason for some rotational PF with a comprable contract ( which is highly unlikely ).....then try to resign both Jack ( to start ) and Marquis ( at a lower cost ) while drafting Jennings ( to fill the backup PG spot ).....but I doubt that happens.

pwee31
03-02-2009, 02:44 PM
I expect the Pacers to use the draft to try to get more athletic up front. I'm sure they'll take the best player available.... but I'm guessing they'll draft an athletic big

count55
03-02-2009, 02:47 PM
I suspect this is the FO strategy, but it really all depends on what kind of offers Daniels gets. I don't think we can afford to sign either Jack or Daniels for more than $4mm next year, so if he gets an offer much above that, then we're probably out.

Jonathan
03-02-2009, 02:48 PM
Yes your idea is an option. The only way it works is this scenario:

1. I see Q6 taking less $ is if he gets a longer contract. Would you rather have him @ 1 year a little over 7 million or 3 years @ 19 million?

count55
03-02-2009, 02:51 PM
Yes your idea is an option. The only way it works is this scenario:

1. I see Q6 taking less $ is if he gets a longer contract. Would you rather have him @ 1 year a little over 7 million or 3 years @ 19 million?

We can't afford either of those.

What we can afford is 3 yrs, $12-13.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 03:04 PM
I suspect this is the FO strategy, but it really all depends on what kind of offers Daniels gets. I don't think we can afford to sign either Jack or Daniels for more than $4mm next year, so if he gets an offer much above that, then we're probably out.
That's what I'm thinking.....if either ( but not both ) could be had for $4 mil a year ( preferable for 2 years but IMHO acceptable for 3 years ), I would be willing to try to resign either of them.

IF the Pacers wanted to improve their PG rotation, I think that the best case scenario would be my "Trade Ford for a Frontcourt Player, resign Jack and Marquis then draft Jennings" scenario. Simply based off of what I have read about Jennings, I am certainly more comfortable with Jack/Jennings/Diener handling the PG minutes ( with a Granger/Marquis/Dunleavy/BRush at the SG/SF rotation ) then to continue a Ford/Jack/Diener PG rotation ( with Jack continuing to get more then enough SG minutes that I am not comfortable with ).

CableKC
03-02-2009, 03:25 PM
We can't afford either of those.

What we can afford is 3 yrs, $12-13.
IF we can get Jennings and can't move Ford, assuming that Marquis would resign at a lower cost, I wouldn't be too adverse to choosing to resign him ( instead of Jack ) at a ~$4 mil a year contract for 3 seasons.

Although there is the very strong possibility that JO'B ( assuming that he's still our Coach in the 2009-2010 season...which is likely ) will continue to go SmallBall and have Ford and Jennings at the PG/SG rotation for far more minutes then I am comfortable with :mad: ....I would suspect that JO'B would go with Experience ( specifically playing Marquis or BRush at the SG spot with the PG ) then to continue running extensive minutes with a 2 headed PG/Ball Handler PG/SG rotation.

The main reason I bring this topic up is because I am not a very strong fan of JO'Bs preference to go with an experienced Small Ball lineup with the Thunder/Lightning Combo for extended periods of time. Although I suspect that part of the reason is due to lack of choice ( since Granger and Dunleavy are out and Marquis has been in/out of the lineup ), my reasoning is that the best way to minimize the use of Small Ball by JO'B is to simply limit his options to implementing such a lineup.

Before many of you jump to the conclusion that I don't want to resign Jack, I do think that he is a solid Combo PG/SG and wouldn't mind resigning him....since I think that JO'B would continue to use the Thunder/Lightning combo for extended periods of time...I just would prefer not do so IF JO'B is still our Coach.

aceace
03-02-2009, 03:37 PM
I think someone else will sign him at more than we can afford. He's a good player but, I think we can do better. I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.

shockedandchagrined
03-02-2009, 04:13 PM
I think someone else will sign him at more than we can afford. He's a good player but, I think we can do better. I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.

Do the Pacers have two second round picks this year? Their own and the one from Dallas?

As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.

Phree Refill
03-02-2009, 04:23 PM
Do the Pacers have two second round picks this year? Their own and the one from Dallas?

As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.

I thought we had 3 second round picks this year? Our own and then two from dallas. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 04:34 PM
I think someone else will sign him at more than we can afford.
As count55 suggested ( which I agree with ), I think that we can afford to sign a Guard ( whether it be Jack or Marquis ) for some $4 mil a year / $12 mil over 3 seasons contract. If a Team was willing to give him more then $4 mil a year....that I would be more then happy to let Marquis go. I just don't think that a Team would be willing to pay him more than the $4mil a year that we could afford to pay given today's Financial and SalaryCap Concerned environment.


He's a good player but, I think we can do better.
Looking at the 2009-2010 FA Market, who do you think that we can get that is better then Marquis or Jack at $3-4 mil a year that could fit into what JO'B and TPTB are trying to do?


I really expect the contracts that are expiring, nearly 20M will be gone except for Graham and McBob. We will sign our draft picks (3) and not much more.
We still would likely resign a Guard in the 2009-2010 Offseason. Although the logical choice would be to resign Jack, assuming that Jennings is available, I'm suggesting that resigning Jack is not the only option IF we don't pick up Marquis' Team option while was willing to accept a $4 mil a year / $12 mil contract over 3 season contract. In this scenario.....we let Marquis' current contract expire while choosing to resign him to a more reasonable contract. I really like Marquis as a rotational SG/SF and think that his skillset fits what we are trying to do....I just don't think that he's worth the $7mil Team Option that he is owed.

count55
03-02-2009, 04:39 PM
I thought we had 3 second round picks this year? Our own and then two from dallas. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.

We traded our own to Miami for the rights to Stanko Barac.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 04:43 PM
As Count has tirelessly pointed out, there really doesn't seem to be a workable solution for retaining Daniels, unless there is literally no market interest in him whatsoever. Then maybe something could get worked out. The only other hope would be that Dunleavy's situation quickly resolves itself via medical retirement (with his salary coming off the books) by July 1. Probably not likely either.

I also agree with the idea that the Pacers will be more interested in resigning Jack than Daniels anyway. All things being equal, you need look no further than injury history to decide which is the more palatable risk.
I'm not sure if you're misreading the intention of my post.....but I'm not suggesting that we pick up Marquis' Team option ( which I agree we can't afford ), I'm suggesting that IF we draft Jennings ( a PG ).....that instead of choosing to resign Jack ( our current backup PG )......we choose to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( essentially letting him expire ) but try to resign Marquis as a UFA under a cheaper ( more reasonable ) contract ( of course assuming that he's willing to stay with us ).

I was never under the illusion that we would try to resign Jack while picking up Marquis Team Option.....I was just suggesting another option to solving our PG situation if the draft doesn't work out the way that we hope ( as in getting an NBA-Ready Athletic Frontcourt player ).

Retaining Marquis is IMHO possible.....if we don't pick up his Team Option and he is willing to accept a long-term but smaller contract.

Will Galen
03-02-2009, 04:46 PM
I thought we had 3 second round picks this year? Our own and then two from dallas. Please correct me if i'm wrong though.

We have one according to RealGM.

http://www.realgm.com/src_future_draftpicks.php

http://www.realgm.com/images/nba/4.2/wiretap/logos/ind_wt.gif Indiana Pacers
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="title_bl">Credits</td></tr><tr><td class="body_bl">2009 second round draft pick from Dallas
Dallas' own 2009 2nd round pick to Indiana [Dallas - Indiana, 10/10/2008]2010 second round draft pick from Dallas

Dallas' own 2010 2nd round pick to Indiana, provided, however, that Dallas shall have the option to defer this pick until 2011 at which time Dallas would then send it's own 2011 2nd round pick to Indiana [Dallas - Indiana, 10/10/2008]

</td></tr><tr><td class="title_bl">Debits</td></tr><tr><td class="body_bl">2009 second round draft pick to Miami
Indiana's own 2009 2nd round pick to Miami [Indiana - Miami, 6/28/2007]</td></tr></tbody></table>

Naptown_Seth
03-02-2009, 04:49 PM
My problem with not keep Quis is this - who the heck else are they going to pay to play? I know their financials are in a tight spot, but they also need competent ball players on the court. I mean if they are justifying keeping Dun and Troy I think it would be smart to at least keep a fair paid guy like Quis.

The only reason Quis doesn't get paid in the $6m range IMO is if teams are jittery about the injury situation. Otherwise he's played much better than what I would expect from a $4m vet.

Young
03-02-2009, 05:02 PM
Marquis has been having a great year for this team.

However I think that it is impossible to re-sign him though.

We do have Mike Dunleavy. I don't know his injury situation but hopefully it is something he can come back from next year. That is something for Bird and co to decide.

Besides Dunleavy there is still Brandon Rush. He is not proven but I think he has what it takes to be one heck of a player. Bird drafted him high and I think you gotta show some faith in Brandon by not re-signing Marquis. Having confidence in Brandon that he is ready for a bigger and more consistant role.

Then you have to consider it from a financial standpoint. This team is going to be bad with or without Marquis. So the question becomes is he in the long term plans of this team? I don't know that he is.

Another thing to think about from a financial standpoint is the fact that this team has a shot at cleaning up the salary situation. Re-signing Marquis would hurt that.

I think that there will be a lot of interest in Marquis from the top teams in the league. New Orleans, San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland, probably others too. It would kinda suck to see Marquis go but you have to keep the big picture in mind.

shockedandchagrined
03-02-2009, 05:12 PM
I'm not sure if you're misreading the intention of my post.....but I'm not suggesting that we pick up Marquis' Team option ( which I agree we can't afford ), I'm suggesting that IF we draft Jennings ( a PG ).....that instead of choosing to resign Jack ( our current backup PG )......we choose to not pick up Marquis Team Option ( essentially letting him expire ) but try to resign Marquis as a UFA under a cheaper ( more reasonable ) contract ( of course assuming that he's willing to stay with us ).

I was never under the illusion that we would try to resign Jack while picking up Marquis Team Option.....I was just suggesting another option to solving our PG situation if the draft doesn't work out the way that we hope ( as in getting an NBA-Ready Athletic Frontcourt player ).

Retaining Marquis is IMHO possible.....if we don't pick up his Team Option and he is willing to accept a long-term but smaller contract.

I think I understand the intent of your post, as I've been considering the same thing. What are the alternatives for keeping Daniels absent of picking up his option, which we know is not going to happen given the present circumstances.

1) He either resigns for near the vet minimum because no one else offers him anything more than that. 2) a scenario like you suggested occurs, which makes the resigning of Jack arguably unnecessary. This would allow them to offer a little more to Daniels, i.e. something closer to what we are suggesting might be offered to Jack.

If Chard Ford is to be believed, your scenario might very well happen, as there may be better PG prospects at the top of this draft than bigs. However, my point is that even in this scenario, I still find it more likely that they look to retain Jack with the intent of moving Ford. At this juncture, I can only see Daniels being a Pacer next year because there is little to no interest in him in the marketplace and he can be signed for near the veteran minimum.

OakMoses
03-02-2009, 05:14 PM
The only reason Quis doesn't get paid in the $6m range IMO is if teams are jittery about the injury situation. Otherwise he's played much better than what I would expect from a $4m vet.

I really think that to calculate a contract for 'Quis you've got to take what he should be paid and then multiply it by 0.8. So if you think he's a $6 million dollar player, then you pay him about $4.8 million. You can't reasonably expect him to play more than 65 games.

I like 'Quis, but to keep him we're going to have to move one of these guys: Dunleavy, Murphy, Ford, Foster, Jack. That's the only way it's going to happen. I don't think any of those guys are that easy to move.

peasouptexan7
03-02-2009, 05:19 PM
I would resign Daniels if we could somehow trade Dunleavy, but I'm assuming his stock is going to be fairly low. That way we could start Rush and Granger and bring Daniels off the bench. The more likely scenario is that he walks and we resign Jack, which I'm not opposed to. Although I would like to see Jack get less minutes at SG and have Rush play more.

aceace
03-02-2009, 05:19 PM
My problem with not keep Quis is this - who the heck else are they going to pay to play?
If you think about all the teams trying to trade for expiring contracts, it will be hard on guys like Daniels and Jack this summer. It's not just about staying under the luxury tax, it's become about not losing money period. The owner of OKC has reportedly lost 1 billion in the stock market. This is (supposedly) why they rejected the trade with NO. I will walk to Kokomo if the Pacers do not lower their spending by somewhere around 6-8 million. Simons are stating very clearly they are losing money. Warren Buffet has lost half his net worth of about 50 billion. This is probably true for most investors. This off season will be about salaries coming down. If Dun doesn't play and ends up taking a medical. They will probably re-sign Daniels, that's the only option I see.

binarysolo
03-02-2009, 05:30 PM
I hope we keep Quis and Jack because I just realized that we can give them the nickname 'Jack Daniels' and all drink copious amounts of whiskey whenever they play well!

peasouptexan7
03-02-2009, 05:33 PM
I hope we keep Quis and Jack because I just realized that we can give them the nickname 'Jack Daniels' and all drink copious amounts of whiskey whenever they play well!

My roommate and I were just talking about that last night!

flox
03-02-2009, 05:38 PM
Would quis much rather go to a contender is my concern.

aceace
03-02-2009, 06:01 PM
Would quis much rather go to a contender is my concern.I predict highest offer for Quis. Rasho would go to a contender. We may not be able to sign Graham. He's had a better year than 800,000 salary. He might get 2M next year.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 06:04 PM
Would quis much rather go to a contender is my concern.
If Marquis gets a better offer from a Team or a lesser offer for a contender, I am more then happy for him and would let him go....he deserves it.

My hope is that we can find a way to retain him.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 06:14 PM
Anyone know if a Team has ever chosen to not exercise a Team Option for a Player but instead was signed to a new Contract under Free Agency with that same Team?

Justin Tyme
03-02-2009, 06:38 PM
We traded our own to Miami for the rights to Stanko Barac.


Did you really have to point that out? My blood pressure must go up 50 points everytime I think of Bird drafting him over others.

Will Galen
03-02-2009, 07:32 PM
If you think about all the teams trying to trade for expiring contracts, it will be hard on guys like Daniels and Jack this summer.

Agree!

A lot of teams are looking to be under the cap in two years for Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. Well, it's obvious there's not going to be enough of those type players to go around.

Jack could accept the qualifying offer, and Daniels could sign for a lessor amount for one year, knowing teams are going to have a lot of money to spend the next year, and their chance at a big payday would go way up.

MrSparko
03-02-2009, 08:17 PM
Did you really have to point that out? My blood pressure must go up 50 points everytime I think of Bird drafting him over others.

Stanko shall have the last laugh.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 08:17 PM
Agree!

A lot of teams are looking to be under the cap in two years for Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. Well, it's obvious there's not going to be enough of those type players to go around.

Jack could accept the qualifying offer, and Daniels could sign for a lessor amount for one year, knowing teams are going to have a lot of money to spend the next year, and their chance at a big payday would go way up.
Given the liklihood that JO'B will be around for another season.....I'd want to resign either Jack or Marquis....but I would not want to resign both. If JO'B has the choice to give minutes to Jack, Marquis or BRush minutes....I think that BRush would be the low-man on the Totem Pole when it comes to getting minutes. I'd fear that J'OB would always chooose to play either of them ahead of BRush in the rotation.

That's one of the reasons why I propose that we resign one or the other......it's to ensure that JO'B has no choice but to give BRush a solid 20+ mpg in the PG/SG/SF rotation in his Sophmore season.

switch
03-02-2009, 09:06 PM
I really hope we can find some way to keep Daniels. He is the best on the Pacers at finding a way to the rim when nobody else can make a play imo. At least two or three times a game I see him drive and score when the shot clock is about to expire and nobody else was able to get through the defense. He also has the ability to play point guard; he was often used at that position in Dallas.

I would bet that the Tinsley situation will effect what we do in the off-season too. If he isn't traded or bought out, does anybody think Bird would consider bringing him back? After sitting out an entire season it may be necessary to prove that he can still play. It would also allow TPTB to fill the void left by Jack and Daniels, without spending more money, in the event that they both leave. I highly doubt this would be considered, but stranger things have happened.

(I apologize if that suggestion makes anybody vomit in their mouth a little while reading it)

DrFife
03-02-2009, 09:07 PM
Perhaps Quis will demonstrate his future value to the team via a trade -- ideally, a draft-related one ... either to secure an additional first-rounder, or to trade up, or to trade (with our pick?) for a desirable veteran like Chicken Chandler.

CableKC
03-02-2009, 09:40 PM
Perhaps Quis will demonstrate his future value to the team via a trade -- ideally, a draft-related one ... either to secure an additional first-rounder, or to trade up, or to trade (with our pick?) for a desirable veteran like Chicken Chandler.
From my understanding, the only way to trade him in the offseason is to pick up his Team Option at $7 mil a season....which would mean that we would have to take back someone with at 2009-2010 salary between $5.83 mil to $9.19 mil...which would put us over the Luxury Tax threshold.

aceace
03-02-2009, 10:40 PM
From my understanding, the only way to trade him in the offseason is to pick up his Team Option at $7 mil a season....which would mean that we would have to take back someone with at 2009-2010 salary between $5.83 mil to $9.19 mil...which would put us over the Luxury Tax threshold.I read on ESPN that we could trade him and whoever we traded him to could refuse to p/u his option. I think we have to trade him before July 1st and then the team must waive his team option and cut him by July 1st. Its a sweet asset the Pacers have this summer.

count55
03-03-2009, 10:29 AM
I read on ESPN that we could trade him and whoever we traded him to could refuse to p/u his option. I think we have to trade him before July 1st and then the team must waive his team option and cut him by July 1st. Its a sweet asset the Pacers have this summer.

This is wrong. He can't be traded without picking up his option first.

OakMoses
03-03-2009, 12:14 PM
Count,

Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?

Perhaps we could find a team that's substantially under the cap and then pick up 'Quis option and send him (or some other higher paid player their way).

Also, how does it work trading for guys with unguaranteed or partially guaranteed contracts? We could just trade for them and cut them, right?

count55
03-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Count,

Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?

Perhaps we could find a team that's substantially under the cap and then pick up 'Quis option and send him (or some other higher paid player their way).

Yes, we could pick up his option, then trade him.

If we were to trade with someone currently over the cap, we'd have to take back about $5.9mm, unless that team had a trade exception of at least $7.4mm (which I can't think of any at the moment, except for maybe Denver).

If we were to trade with someone under the cap, at least under the cap far enough to take on the $7.4mm, we would not have to take back any salary.

However, I'm a little unclear if we could take back something in between. That is to say, could we trade Quis to someone under the tax, but only take back a guy making $2 or $3 million.

OakMoses
03-03-2009, 12:25 PM
Here's a list of teams that would have enough cap room to take on 'Quis or another $7 million contract:

Atlanta
Charlotte
Detroit
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Portland
Sacramento
Toronto

See any takers?

Speed
03-03-2009, 12:33 PM
I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.

CableKC
03-03-2009, 01:09 PM
I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.
The only way that I could see any team wanting to trade for Marquis' contract is if it was treated it as a 2009-2010 Expiring AFTER we decide to pick up the Team Option for ~$7mil. We would end up trading his 1 year Expiring / $7mil contract for some Multi-year / $7mil to $9.19mil per year Contract. We would take on the additional Salary. The only way that I would consider doing this is IF we got back a very solid Athetic Frontcourt Player that fits our needs Low-Post Scoring/Defense that has a Contract that expires AFTER the 2010-2011 season.

OakMoses
03-03-2009, 01:22 PM
I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.

Most of those teams could pick up Ford or Foster or even Dunleavy (I doubt anybody wants him).

Portland keeps saying they want an upgrade at PG. We could send Ford to the Blazers for Blake and save $4 million. Then we'd have enough to possibly keep 'Quis and Jack. Foster would be a pretty good back-up big for them as well.

I suppose Charlotte or Atlanta might be interested in 'Quis or Foster also.

I can't see Memphis, OKC, or Sacramento being interested.

Detroit's a possibility, but they're going to try to make a bigger splash than anything we can ofer.

pacergod2
03-03-2009, 05:16 PM
Here is my opinion on exactly what the Pacers FO is thinking for this off-season. I will make one caveat in this whole scenario, that moving Tinsley is our top priority. I am not going to consider his situation in our off-season, because I will assume we trade him for a player with two years and $14M left on their contract as well.

1. We will not pick up the team option on Daniels. We are exercising our ability to reduce salary. I love Daniels and his defense. Realistically, we need to reduce payroll and he is a definite casualty. He will get paid solid money by someone. If we were to decline his option and look to resign him, we would be looking at four years and about 16-19M, IMO. In order to get enough of a discount for us to want to sign him, he would need four years at least on that deal. I don't think the Pacers would even consider that. Plus, if we do sign him, he will count against our MLE to do so, and that would be most of our MLE. Not good.

2. We are going to sign the offer sheet for Jack's restriction. That is 2.9M for next year. We are praying that no one signs him to a contract. I think realistically we could get him for his restriction price. The better he plays down the stretch, the less likely we can sign him for his restriction price. We therefore will be keeping Jack unless he gets a big or lengthy offer from someone else. If I were a betting man I would say that Jack will be back. We can exercise our Bird Rights on him, and thus alleviate using the MLE.

3. Rasho will go elsewhere. He wasn't real happy to get traded here in the first place, and we don't have a need for him, unless he will take a low ball offer. At that point he could take less to play for a championship caliber team or command a heck of a lot more money in Europe.

4. Travis Deiner will take his team option.

5. Maceo will be playing in Europe.

6. Stephen Graham and Josh McRoberts I will put in the same boat. We want to resign these guys for a couple of years to see if they produce more. They will be happy to be in the NBA still I am sure, and both would probably look to stay with us. Graham has been given a chance to play by us, and McRoberts is from here. Both have an opportunity to actually fill a role with us. Both of these players are "Early Bird Free Agents", meaning that they have been in the league for two years and we can use the "Early Bird Exception" to sign them to contracts without using our MLE or BIA. I think this is mandatory that we resign them since they will be cheap and allow greater flexibility in signing other players (This is assuming that we re-sign them for more than the minimum contracts, that they would probably sign elsewhere). Also, we could use the Minimum player salary exception if either one of them would accept a minimum deal, which would be optimal.

7. We then have our MLE left to sign whoever we would like. This gives us the ability to take our team to the LT threshold. We have a lot of options. We can make use of a lot of these exceptions to re-sign our guys, which I think will be necessary for our flexibility. I can almost guarantee we will be re-signing most of our own players and not making any big splashes in free agency. I could see us not using our MLE at all in the pre-season. Possibly signing a free agent rookie to a minimum deal. That way, if necessary, we have our entire MLE to use during the year.

Let me know your thoughts. I know this is probably just a long-winded version of what many of us already know, but I figured I would put a bit more depth into the thoughts. If I am incorrect on anything I said, please feel free to correct me. I won't be offended if you just skip the post too. :D

aceace
03-03-2009, 05:40 PM
Pacergod2, most of what you said I agree with. #1 priority will be Tinsley, that will probably have the biggest effect on what we do next. Who we trade him for SG,PF or C will be key. Mostly guys that are making 6-7M have at one time been a pretty good player to get money like that. Hopefully they will be able to help, at the very least a 2nd string player. Another key will be "what is Duns situation". Will he play next season, probably won't know that until August at the earliest. I don't see us as having more than 65M in salaries at the most. That would be the two differences which might make some of your points, not happen.

count55
03-03-2009, 06:41 PM
Here is my opinion on exactly what the Pacers FO is thinking for this off-season. I will make one caveat in this whole scenario, that moving Tinsley is our top priority. I am not going to consider his situation in our off-season, because I will assume we trade him for a player with two years and $14M left on their contract as well.

1. We will not pick up the team option on Daniels. We are exercising our ability to reduce salary. I love Daniels and his defense. Realistically, we need to reduce payroll and he is a definite casualty. He will get paid solid money by someone. If we were to decline his option and look to resign him, we would be looking at four years and about 16-19M, IMO. In order to get enough of a discount for us to want to sign him, he would need four years at least on that deal. I don't think the Pacers would even consider that. Plus, if we do sign him, he will count against our MLE to do so, and that would be most of our MLE. Not good.

If we decline his options, I believe we still retain his Bird rights. Therefore, it would not strictly count against our MLE.

However, we would not be able to re-sign Daniels for any amount and still use any of our MLE. Therefore, it has the same net effect.


2. We are going to sign the offer sheet for Jack's restriction. That is 2.9M for next year. We are praying that no one signs him to a contract. I think realistically we could get him for his restriction price. The better he plays down the stretch, the less likely we can sign him for his restriction price. We therefore will be keeping Jack unless he gets a big or lengthy offer from someone else. If I were a betting man I would say that Jack will be back. We can exercise our Bird Rights on him, and thus alleviate using the MLE.

We'll certainly make the tender, and only two things would keep us from matching his offers: He gets something significantly higher than $4mm, or we get Daniels for $4mm or less.


3. Rasho will go elsewhere. He wasn't real happy to get traded here in the first place, and we don't have a need for him, unless he will take a low ball offer. At that point he could take less to play for a championship caliber team or command a heck of a lot more money in Europe.

4. Travis Deiner will take his team option.

5. Maceo will be playing in Europe.

Yup


6. Stephen Graham and Josh McRoberts I will put in the same boat. We want to resign these guys for a couple of years to see if they produce more. They will be happy to be in the NBA still I am sure, and both would probably look to stay with us. Graham has been given a chance to play by us, and McRoberts is from here. Both have an opportunity to actually fill a role with us. Both of these players are "Early Bird Free Agents", meaning that they have been in the league for two years and we can use the "Early Bird Exception" to sign them to contracts without using our MLE or BIA. I think this is mandatory that we resign them since they will be cheap and allow greater flexibility in signing other players (This is assuming that we re-sign them for more than the minimum contracts, that they would probably sign elsewhere). Also, we could use the Minimum player salary exception if either one of them would accept a minimum deal, which would be optimal.

I'm relatively sure McBob will be back...as to Graham, I'm less sure, but it will be him or some other min-level player filling out the roster


7. We then have our MLE left to sign whoever we would like. This gives us the ability to take our team to the LT threshold. We have a lot of options. We can make use of a lot of these exceptions to re-sign our guys, which I think will be necessary for our flexibility. I can almost guarantee we will be re-signing most of our own players and not making any big splashes in free agency. I could see us not using our MLE at all in the pre-season. Possibly signing a free agent rookie to a minimum deal. That way, if necessary, we have our entire MLE to use during the year.

We won't use our MLE, unless we lose both Daniels and Jack. We only have $11mm to sign 6 players. The 1st rounder and Daniels-or-Jack will chew up $7-8mm of that, leaving us 3-4 to sign the other four players...so you're looking at 2nd rounders and min level players.


Let me know your thoughts. I know this is probably just a long-winded version of what many of us already know, but I figured I would put a bit more depth into the thoughts. If I am incorrect on anything I said, please feel free to correct me. I won't be offended if you just skip the post too. :D

There's going to be a lot of speculation, but I think we're going to re-sign Jack, sign our first rounders, and fill out the roster with cheap guys. There simply aren't a lot of options.

d_c
03-03-2009, 06:52 PM
Here's a list of teams that would have enough cap room to take on 'Quis or another $7 million contract:

Atlanta
Charlotte
Detroit
Memphis
Oklahoma City
Portland
Sacramento
Toronto

See any takers?

I don't see anyone there who would want to pay $7M for Marquis Daniels to be on their roster next season. Not in this economic climate, no. If you're one of those teams interested in Daniels' services, you'll just wait for the Pacers to decline his option, then offer him a deal for probably less than half that.

Jon Theodore
03-03-2009, 06:55 PM
We are such a better team when Marquis plays STARTER minutes. Whenever we had Dunleavy we were not a better team. Dunleavy is a great player, but he is not a good fit on our team.

Really wish we could of somehow traded Dunleavy for an expiring/pick last year/this year so we could keep Quis. Many have said it, but Quis, Jack, Granger, Rush, Graham is not a real solid wing rotation.

pacergod2
03-05-2009, 03:01 PM
Count... thanks for the knowledge on the team option.... I didn't realize we retained his Bird rights. I would much rather sign him than Jack, but I do like both players and I think Jack will warrant less money than Daniels. So we might have Jack back by default.... plus I have a feeling who we like at our draft position might dictate which position we keep. If we go say PF, SG, we keep Jack. If we go PG (best available), PF, then I could see Daniels being our focus.

Also, I think we have WAY more options this year than we did last. Good job Morway... and Bird.

Naptown_Seth
03-05-2009, 06:11 PM
Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?
Possible? Happens all the time. How many trades actually perfectly match salary at both ends, over or under the cap?

Thus someone ends up with the right to fill the rest of that contract void they sent out - ala a trade exception. You send out 6 and get back 5 you have the right to absorb another 1 over the next year, but you forfeit the right to take back 6 + 25%. You only get to match what you sent out.

This is one reason people love teams that are under the cap and why KStat envisions this world where Detroit is holding all the cards. Personally I think he's buying too much into it, but he's not technically wrong.


we'd have to take back about $5.9mm,
To clarify this just a bit, no team is ever obligated to take back salary technically. The obligation is that no team CAN ADD more than 25% of the salary they send out if they are over the cap.

Thus when you get two teams that are over the cap and no one else involved, they both have to meet this requirement and those players have to go someplace, so you are "forced" to take back at least some salary.

But the salary cap rules don't technically limit how little you take back in a deal, only how much you take back in a deal. I think this is a better way to keep track, especially in multi-team deals where one team is way under the cap. As long as each team avoids going more than 25% over what they send out, then the deal is good.


* bear in mind that a players cap hit is affected by stuff like base year contract aspects, which isn't the same as the team's cap rule but can impact a trade due to how much value the deal applies to each team's cap (BYC aren't the same cap hit for both sides which makes them tougher to trade)

Naptown_Seth
03-05-2009, 06:37 PM
Portland keeps saying they want an upgrade at PG.
Paging Shade. When is there a warning sign that your draft pick isn't panning out? When they won't play him and are looking to upgrade the guys they are playing at his position.

Yikes. But no way they trade Blake for Ford. I don't think that's enough of an upgrade. Heck, I'd do that straight up right now due to Blake's approach to the position, more of a pure distributor I think.


TRADE PARTNERS
I think a team like Boston would like to add a guy like Quis. Teams have scaled it back, but some of the true title teams could still use his inside scoring combined with defense. It's like Posey but with crafty 2pt drives instead of 3pt bombs.

And with that you might have a comer like Miami looking for a boost to their overall depth, or even Utah. But in cases like these the top thing you are getting out of the deal is a late first round pick it would seem, and I wouldn't trade for one of those and especially not for this draft. Last year maybe, but too late now.

Naptown_Seth
03-05-2009, 06:48 PM
Pacergod2, most of what you said I agree with.
Yeah, me too unfortunately. At this point it almost has nothing to do with basketball and everything to do with the team's financial situation. And worse yet, just when the Pacers most need to get out of a cap problem AND when they had some really nice expiring deals, you run square into such a bad economy that it reduces the cap/tax limits and puts every team into skittish mode when it comes to acquiring overpaid players that can still help push you over the limit (Troy, Dun) or even willing to offer much for expiring deal this year enough to interest the Pacers.

Other years you would have certainly seen Jeff, Quis and Rasho all gone for 2 good picks, a decent younger guy and a not-so-great contract guy.

CableKC
03-05-2009, 06:49 PM
TRADE PARTNERS
I think a team like Boston would like to add a guy like Quis. Teams have scaled it back, but some of the true title teams could still use his inside scoring combined with defense. It's like Posey but with crafty 2pt drives instead of 3pt bombs.

And with that you might have a comer like Miami looking for a boost to their overall depth, or even Utah. But in cases like these the top thing you are getting out of the deal is a late first round pick it would seem, and I wouldn't trade for one of those and especially not for this draft. Last year maybe, but too late now.
How would we trade with Boston involving Marquis?

Wouldn't we have to take on his Team Option then trade him to the other Team?

In this case, I can see Marquis used essentially as an Expiring Contract.....but wouldn't we have to take back a Comprable contract?