PDA

View Full Version : Explain why we'd try to sign somebody for a 1-year contract



Anthem
07-04-2010, 08:50 PM
'Cause I just don't get it.

I'm specifically thinking about young PGs, here. Supposedly we're offering several 1-year deals to developing players with potential. That seems stupid.

A 3-year, ~$10mil deal gives us Bird rights. It lets us hold on to a player if we think they're going to be solid.

If they play well on a 1-year deal, they'll raise their stock and we won't be able to keep them. If they're not good we're not on the hook for their future salary, but it's not like ~3mil is a major drain on our cap anyway, and those guys wouldn't be hard to trade.

More importantly, a 3-year deal says to a guy "We think you've got potential to be part of what we're building here" while a 1-year deal says the opposite. Even if the money is the same (or better), most players would rather take the affirmation of being considered part of the core.

Thoughts?

Doug
07-04-2010, 08:55 PM
'cause we need a body for a year (and both parties are OK with it).

Ozwalt72
07-04-2010, 09:06 PM
Because they don't think anyone's a good long term fit?

joew8302
07-04-2010, 09:07 PM
It is all about buying time until we find the answer. We Longer deals have killed us with Ford and Tinsley at PG, and rightly or wrongly the thought of locking up someone who may flame out like that scares the front office.

That said, do you really see anyone out there that could potentially be worth a three year 10 million dollar deal? To be worth that or more they would have to have real potential to be the long term answer at the position.

Smoothdave1
07-04-2010, 09:37 PM
Pacers simply are not looking to tie up money for long-term as they want to utilize cap space next summer.

Pacers will let the dominos fall with Wade, LBJ, Amare, Bosh, etc. and will look to sign a player for fairly cheap as a patch/band-aid for one year until Murph, Dunleavy, Tinsley, Ford, Foster, etc. all come off the cap.

Does it send out a message to a player that they may not be a part of the Pacers' long-term future? Absolutely, but for some players, when faced with the choice of playing for the Pacers, going overseas or not playing at all, will usually opt to play for the blue and gold.

vnzla81
07-04-2010, 09:41 PM
I think is because they feel that neither one of the free agent point guards are the answer, Felton, Farmar and Livingston are not the answer long term.

Anthem
07-04-2010, 09:51 PM
Pacers simply are not looking to tie up money for long-term as they want to utilize cap space next summer.
Yeah, I was waiting for somebody to say that.

By "utilize cap space" do you mean "pursue free agents" or "make lopsided trades?"

Kraft
07-04-2010, 09:56 PM
It's easier to sell the team with less payroll.

McKeyFan
07-04-2010, 10:31 PM
It's easier to sell the team with less payroll.

Haven't seen you around forever and you come up with that one liner. I say nominate him for most efficient Darksider.

MrSparko
07-04-2010, 10:31 PM
If a player shows great potential the Pacers could afford a max contract if need be next offseason. There's no worry about not being able to keep them financially. Although, it may get more expensive than it should.

McKeyFan
07-04-2010, 10:32 PM
A one or two year contract with a team option might make things a little better.

ninercolt
07-04-2010, 11:30 PM
A one or two year contract with a team option might make things a little better.

That makes some sense. A one year contract with no team option is just plain stupid. If the player turns out to be special, you've just set yourself up for a big time, long term contract. If not, you can let him go. The team should control any options here.

I can't believe the Pacers would allow themselves to be put in such a situation. If you sign a player like Farmar, get the best deal for the team you can. He wants to be a starter; you give him the chance, but he's got to give the team an option as the price. One year, two year contract with an option. Its the only way they should go.

Eleazar
07-05-2010, 12:11 AM
There are 15 million and 1 reasons. The $15 million to run the Fieldhouse, and the new CBA. Really at this point if you are going to seriously be competing for the championship in the next year or 2 and/or aren't a big market team it is idiotic to sign a FA to more than a 1 year deal. Most teams are losing money like it is their job, and with the new CBA they will most likely be able to get high end FA for less in the future so they don't want to tie up money with players who most likely aren't a long term fix.

I agree a 2 year contracts with the second being a team option makes since, but at the same time the team may include those kind of contracts within the 1 year contract and just didn't say it properly.

pwee31
07-05-2010, 12:29 AM
Yeah I think it's quite dumb as well. Of course you want cap flexibility, but you have to be a team someone wants to play for... in both aspects. No one wants insecurity and a 1 year deal unless it's a playoff type team. And as shown this summer, players want to get paid, AND win. The only time that's not the case is if they get MAX contracts from the teams they've been with.

Who wants to play for a team that has missed the playoffs 4 straight years? You've struck out in the PG filled draft last year (though I still love the Hansbrough pick) You struck out at the trade deadline last year. You struck with draft trade scenarios this year. (I like Paul George selection) and then you have a young PG with not only playoff experience but championship experience who actually would like to play for you and prove he's a starting PG and you low ball offer him?

It must be b/c the FA class next year is stacked with PGs

I mean you can offer an almost journeyman backup defensive minded wing player 4 years 11 million dollar contract. A journeyman backup PG a 1 year 2.8 million dollar contract, hell even end of the bench Solomon Jones got a multi-year deal.

But you can't offer a guy like Farmar 2-3 years at 2-3 million per? Give me a break.

I really hope Bird and Morway know what they're doing

count55
07-05-2010, 12:32 AM
More importantly, a 3-year deal says to a guy "We think you've got potential to be part of what we're building here"

Because they don't want to say that to the guys they're offering 1-year deals.

CableKC
07-05-2010, 12:53 AM
Yeah, I was waiting for somebody to say that.

By "utilize cap space" do you mean "pursue free agents" or "make lopsided trades?"
IMHO....both. Having Capspace allows you to have more opportunities to improve the Team.

As for all this 1 year deal stuff......I said it before....but get ready for another year of signing some Watson-like PG....specifically a cheap veteran PG that can get us through another season of okay play.

jeffg-body
07-05-2010, 02:28 AM
I kind of look at it as test driving a car over the weekend from a nice dealership. You get a chance to put the car through a little bit before you decide if you want to make a long term commitment that you will be paying for the next 4-5 years. It also gives the player the time to get to know the organization a little bit and city to see if this is a nice place to be for them and their families. If things go tremendously well, sign him for an extension before the year is done. If not, you're off of the hook at the end of the year.

Anthem
07-05-2010, 06:39 AM
Because they don't want to say that to the guys they're offering 1-year deals.
I don't know if Farmar could work in a Kobe-less system. But if I'm the Pacers, a 3-year, $10mil contract (heck, throw a team option in there) is not an unreasonable price to find out. That contract won't handicap our ability to do anything on the FA market, and it probably HELPS us on the trade market (since good guys at reasonable contracts are helpful trade pieces).

Anthem
07-05-2010, 06:43 AM
IMHO....both. Having Capspace allows you to have more opportunities to improve the Team.
Next season we'll have $25mil on the books. You think having $28mil on the books instead would be a problem?


As for all this 1 year deal stuff......I said it before....but get ready for another year of signing some Watson-like PG....specifically a cheap veteran PG that can get us through another season of okay play.
If we're looking for a journeyman, then fine. But if we're going after guys coming off their rookie contracts, a cheap multi-year contract is better for them and better for us.

Putnam
07-05-2010, 07:55 AM
It's risk aversion.

The Pacers are going short because the next collective bargaining agreement will change players' salaries. Nobody knows how much or in what ways, but the Pacers don't want commitments during that time of uncertainty. Again, nobody knows what the changes will be, but it is likely to cut salaries and there is likely to be a lockout.

pizza guy
07-05-2010, 07:57 AM
I just posted something along these lines in a different thread, I think the big one on Farmar, but you've managed to state it more clearly and thoroughly here, Anthem. Signing a one-year deal is simply not a good plan when you're talking about Farmar.

--pizza

xBulletproof
07-05-2010, 07:59 AM
Pacers simply are not looking to tie up money for long-term as they want to utilize cap space next summer.

Pacers will let the dominos fall with Wade, LBJ, Amare, Bosh, etc. and will look to sign a player for fairly cheap as a patch/band-aid for one year until Murph, Dunleavy, Tinsley, Ford, Foster, etc. all come off the cap.

Does it send out a message to a player that they may not be a part of the Pacers' long-term future? Absolutely, but for some players, when faced with the choice of playing for the Pacers, going overseas or not playing at all, will usually opt to play for the blue and gold.

Topic could have just been closed after this answer. This is the correct answer. Whether you believe it's a good decision or not, is another story, but if you're simply asking "why", this is it.

Anthem
07-05-2010, 08:39 AM
Topic could have just been closed after this answer. This is the correct answer. Whether you believe it's a good decision or not, is another story, but if you're simply asking "why", this is it.
Nope, it's not. The first line is at least partly wrong.

I get that the Pacers aren't looking to tie up money long-term, but ~3mil/year will not compromise their ability to utilize cap space for next summer.

I realize that's the easy answer, but it doesn't survive a quick check of the numbers.

Hillman's 'Fro'
07-05-2010, 09:28 AM
I'm with Anthem. Wether Farmar is the specific kid to take the
shot at in this instance or not is an open question (why not; he's
been a fish outta water in the Triangle who might well get
along 'swimingly' (<g>) in JOB's.... cough...'system'). But the looming
CBA negatiations shouldn't be an issue.

Say the new CBA sqeezes everything by 15%. Having a PG with a
deal at $3mil per year that's suddenly only worth $2.5 mil per isn't
gonna blow up the Pacers cap flexibility.

xBulletproof
07-05-2010, 09:53 AM
Nope, it's not. The first line is at least partly wrong.

I get that the Pacers aren't looking to tie up money long-term, but ~3mil/year will not compromise their ability to utilize cap space for next summer.

I realize that's the easy answer, but it doesn't survive a quick check of the numbers.

Actually, you're wrong. You just don't like it. Like I said.

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2010/07/dont_get_nervou.html


The Pacers are offering one-year deals at around $3.5 million to free agents so they can have as much salary-cap flexibility as possible in the future, according to sources.

BillS
07-05-2010, 10:20 AM
$3+mil can make a huge difference, otherwise folks better quit whining about the Foster extension...

Seriously, why would you tie the team to a multi-year contract (which would be guaranteed or said FA will likely not sign it)? If he turns out to be fantastic you have the cap space to keep him, and if he doesn't you aren't stuck with him while you go for someone else.

Justin Tyme
07-05-2010, 10:47 AM
Haven't seen you around forever and you come up with that one liner. I say nominate him for most efficient Darksider.




I see nothing wrong or out of place with the Kraft's post. I've said numerous times I could see where after the 011 season Simon puts the Pacers up for sale, b/c the team will be in a good position financially cap wise, Bird and Jimmy's contracts are up, etc. Kraft posted what others feel and have said previously. It's a reasonable possibility whether you choose to agree or not.

Justin Tyme
07-05-2010, 11:14 AM
You offer a 4 year contract with

1st year guaranteed

2nd year partially guaranteed

3rd year Team Option

4th year Player Option


If the player works out, you have him locked in for 3 years for sure. If the player doesn't workout, you only owe him the 1st year salary and a partial salary the 2nd year. I put forth earlier the 3 year type of this scenario for Shaun Livingston at a lot less than 3-3.5 mil salary.

As previously said, maybe the Pacers are offering more than a 1 year contract with another year or 2 unguaranteed or only partially guaranteed.

When Miami gave James Jones a contract for 4 years, it was an extremely unusual contract where each of the last 3 years were only partially guaranteed. Jones didn't have a problem signing the contract. B/c of how the contract was structured it was easy to buyout Jones for more cap for this summer, which is what they did.

count55
07-05-2010, 11:20 AM
You offer a 4 year contract with

1st year guaranteed

2nd year partially guaranteed

3rd year Team Option

4th year Player Option


If the player works out, you have him locked in for 3 years for sure. If the player doesn't workout, you only owe him the 1st year salary and a partial salary the 2nd year. I put forth earlier the 3 year type of this scenario for Shaun Livingston at a lot less than 3-3.5 mil salary.

As previously said, maybe the Pacers are offering more than a 1 year contract with another year or 2 unguaranteed or only partially guaranteed.

When Miami gave James Jones a contract for 4 years, it was an extremely unusual contract where each of the last 3 years were only partially guaranteed. Jones didn't have a problem signing the contract. B/c of how the contract was structured it was easy to buyout Jones for more cap for this summer, which is what they did.

A contract may only contain a Team Option for one year.

Contracts, however, can be structured with multiple partially or wholly unguaranteed years.

McKeyFan
07-05-2010, 11:22 AM
I see nothing wrong or out of place with the Kraft's post.

Who did?

Anthem
07-05-2010, 11:53 AM
Actually, you're wrong. You just don't like it. Like I said.

http://blogs.indystar.com/pacersinsider/archives/2010/07/dont_get_nervou.html

.
Dude, I've read it. I'm saying I just don't buy it.

I don't really care about Farmar one way or the other. I'm saying the strategy is jacked. We've got way more salary cap flexibility next year than we're going to need or be able to use. Picking up a young player on a competitive contract will be good for us next year, not bad for us.

There's no reason not to offer (small) contracts for more than a year. I mean, we're talking Dante Jones money here.

Give me a scenario where it would hurt us to have ~3mil/year tied up in a young point guard with potential. Seriously, dude, run the numbers.

xBulletproof
07-05-2010, 11:58 AM
OK .... if you're not buying that, then what's one other logical, and possible reason for it?

That's right, there isn't one. That's why you're even asking the question, because you can't come up with an explanation. There could be a very good reason for it ... because there isn't another explanation.

Sometimes the simplest and most obvious answer is the correct one. Not everything is a conspiracy to deceive and fool you. You just don't buy the answer, because you don't like it. Again, the simple answer is the most likely one to be correct. Case in point.

Brad8888
07-05-2010, 12:15 PM
For the same reason that there is no longer a Starbucks at Conseco / CNO / To Be Determined Fieldhouse. Why offer contracts that extend beyond the known with certainty existence of the franchise, especially when quality pg's wouldn't want anything to do with the shoot first, ask questions later offense of O'B where pg's go to have their careers die a slow death unless they are strong enough to get shots up and actually make them in traffic? And, why, as a player, would you sign a contract when the franchise you would be signing with is facing more uncertainty than probably any other in the NBA at this point?

There is so much uncertainty surrounding both the franchise and the NBA as a whole from a financial standpoint that there is no point offering anything more, because the players and their agents are totally aware of both the financial and coaching aspects of this franchise. Only fringe guys looking to try to stay in the league like Earl Watson last year would have any interest whatsoever in coming here, whether it be on a one year deal or not (and no, I doubt that Earl would subject himself to O'B again, so he will end up elsewhere at a cheap price).

Anthem
07-05-2010, 12:50 PM
Sometimes the simplest and most obvious answer is the correct one. Not everything is a conspiracy to deceive and fool you. You just don't buy the answer, because you don't like it. Again, the simple answer is the most likely one to be correct. Case in point.
Great gravy, man, you're misunderstanding me entirely. I don't think TPTB have an evil plot. I'm just saying I think they're wrong. I don't think Bird's three-year-plan is a front for something else, I just think it's an underpants gnome scheme (http://dealbreaker.com/_old/2009/09/03/underpants%20gnomes.jpg).

"Have lots of cap space in the summer of 2011" is a great general idea, but it's not the goal. The goal is fielding a winning basketball team. The cap space is only valuable if it helps us make lopsided trades or sign free agents. What I'm saying is that nobody has yet shown a way where signing Farmar for 3mil/year impacts that in any way.

Show me some numbers, man.

wintermute
07-05-2010, 01:12 PM
"Have lots of cap space in the summer of 2011" is a great general idea, but it's not the goal. The goal is fielding a winning basketball team. The cap space is only valuable if it helps us make lopsided trades or sign free agents. What I'm saying is that nobody has yet shown a way where signing Farmar for 3mil/year impacts that in any way.

Show me some numbers, man.

$3m cap number could be quite significant - in the current context, it could be the difference between a bench player ($6m) and a starter ($9m).

more importantly, as lots of people have already posted, the cba is going to change. what will the salary cap number be in 2011? what will the maximum salary slot be? what will the midlevel be, or would it be eliminated? with all these unknown, how can you predict what effect $3m will have on our cap. about the only thing everyone agrees on is that all those numbers will go down. for all we know, $3m might be the best offer a guy like mario chalmers will get at that time.

these (to me) are excellent financial reasons for not offering a long contract, but even more crucial is the simple fact that the pg crop this year is very poor. this was true in the draft and true in free agency as well. honestly, farmar looks good only in comparison to the other turds out there.

Bball
07-05-2010, 01:34 PM
For a team that's 'not for sale' we're sure acting a lot like a team that's for sale.

Hicks
07-05-2010, 01:35 PM
:tinfoil:

Hicks
07-05-2010, 01:36 PM
And just what would acting like they are not for sale look like as of July 5th 2010 given our financial/salary/roster circumstances?

Anthem
07-05-2010, 01:51 PM
$3m cap number could be quite significant - in the current context, it could be the difference between a bench player ($6m) and a starter ($9m).
True. It's also the difference between $1mil and $4mil, or $4mil and $7mil, et
No. Our cap obligations in 2011 will be roughly $25mil. The difference between a $25 and $28 is not significant in the current CBA and very unlikely to be significant in the next one.


more importantly, as lots of people have already posted, the cba is going to change. what will the salary cap number be in 2011? what will the maximum salary slot be?
No idea. That's my entire point in this thread. Show me a scenario where a $3mil salary for a talented young player is going to hurt us.


the pg crop this year is very poor. this was true in the draft and true in free agency as well. honestly, farmar looks good only in comparison to the other turds out there.
I've not seen anyone besides you that thinks this.

wintermute
07-05-2010, 02:08 PM
True. It's also the difference between $1mil and $4mil, or $4mil and $7mil, et
No. Our cap obligations in 2011 will be roughly $25mil. The difference between a $25 and $28 is not significant in the current CBA and very unlikely to be significant in the next one.


what? the difference between $28m and $25m *is* significant in the current CBA in specific cases - for example, it's 2 max players vs 1 max and 1 non-max. that's pretty significant, and that's why you see chicago and miami dumping players left and right. will the pacers end up in a situation requiring every last bit of cap space? who knows right now, but better safe than sorry hey?

furthermore, where are you getting the $28m number from? what makes you certain of what the salary cap number will be in 2011? let's say the cap goes down by $10m - would you still say $18m vs $15m isn't significant?



No idea. That's my entire point in this thread. Show me a scenario where a $3mil salary for a talented young player is going to hurt us.


it would hurt us if better players are available for the same $3m price in 2011.



I've not seen anyone besides you that thinks this.

really?

Kraft
07-05-2010, 02:19 PM
Who did?

I didn't take it the way he thought I might have, so no worries.

Anthem
07-05-2010, 02:23 PM
what? the difference between $28m and $25m *is* significant in the current CBA in specific cases - for example, it's 2 max players vs 1 max and 1 non-max.
Ok, I'll bite. Here's the list.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-10-11

Find two guys you'd like the Pacers to offer a max contract in 2011.


that's pretty significant, and that's why you see chicago and miami dumping players left and right.
Both teams are trying to get two out of three of Bosh/LeBron/Wade. Who are the big free agents you want us to pursue in 2011?


furthermore, where are you getting the $28m number from? what makes you certain of what the salary cap number will be in 2011? let's say the cap goes down by $10m - would you still say $18m vs $15m isn't significant?
We have 25mil in obligations next year. If we picked up Farmar at ~3mil, we'd have $28mil. The salary cap is currently 57.7mil... call it $58mil. Drop the cap by 10mil and we'll have $48mil, which (when you subtract $28mil) means we'd have $20mil in cap space.

A $3mil contract would not negatively impact our ability to sign free agents.

MLB007
07-05-2010, 02:35 PM
For the same reason that there is no longer a Starbucks at Conseco / CNO / To Be Determined Fieldhouse. Why offer contracts that extend beyond the known with certainty existence of the franchise, especially when quality pg's wouldn't want anything to do with the shoot first, ask questions later offense of O'B where pg's go to have their careers die a slow death unless they are strong enough to get shots up and actually make them in traffic? And, why, as a player, would you sign a contract when the franchise you would be signing with is facing more uncertainty than probably any other in the NBA at this point?

There is so much uncertainty surrounding both the franchise and the NBA as a whole from a financial standpoint that there is no point offering anything more, because the players and their agents are totally aware of both the financial and coaching aspects of this franchise. Only fringe guys looking to try to stay in the league like Earl Watson last year would have any interest whatsoever in coming here, whether it be on a one year deal or not (and no, I doubt that Earl would subject himself to O'B again, so he will end up elsewhere at a cheap price).


Says who??
Fact is a LOT of guys are just struggling to stay in the league THIS year. EVERY year.
It's a tough gig.
I think you're kidding yourself if you think players in other parts of the country think about the pacers like the dark siders here do. :devil:

Bball
07-05-2010, 02:49 PM
And just what would acting like they are not for sale look like as of July 5th 2010 given our financial/salary/roster circumstances?

If this was any other team in the league the general consensus would be the team is lining itself up for a sale.

If that isn't the plan then there's going to be one apathetic fanbase and city at the end of this season that will sure make TPTB wonder why they don't sell.

People just don't want to believe it because it's the hometown team.

It should be clear by now that the 3 year plan is nothing but a salary dump. And a salary dump to win-starved fans isn't going to ignite the passion that's lacking more and more each day. And the end of the 3 year plan doesn't include 3 years of high draft picks to go along with the salary flexibility (and fans don't root for salary flexibility).

I just hope the sale is to people with local ties or a business plan that includes making the team viable in Indpls/Indiana again. ...Because I have little doubt a sale is coming sooner rather than later. If the 3 year plan hasn't actually been a plan to make the team viable for sale, then it's been a passion killing plan that will leave the fanbase so blase' that a sale will be the only answer left that will make sense to TPTB.

If Herb Simon was in his 50's I might not be so certain of this... but that's not the case and it's soon going to be clear, if it's not already, that there isn't a reasonable expectation of turning this around in a reasonable timeframe (especially with the path we're on...).

xBulletproof
07-05-2010, 02:54 PM
It's pretty simple. If after the new CBA we may have enough cap space to sign 2 max players ..... say, Parker and Hortford. That's great.

If signing Farmar to a multi year deal suddenly puts you short of that capability, it's a silly decision. Nobody knows the answer to if that will be the case, but suffice it to say it's close enough that it's plausible.

I'd rather be on the safe side of that, and I would presume that's the same thing Bird is thinking.

No idea why that's so difficult.

Anthem
07-05-2010, 03:02 PM
It's pretty simple. If after the new CBA we may have enough cap space to sign 2 max players ..... say, Parker and Hortford. That's great.
Man, if we give those two guys max contracts we will be in a world of hurt 3 years later.

Hicks
07-05-2010, 03:06 PM
If this was any other team in the league the general consensus would be the team is lining itself up for a sale.

If that isn't the plan then there's going to be one apathetic fanbase and city at the end of this season that will sure make TPTB wonder why they don't sell.

People just don't want to believe it because it's the hometown team.

It should be clear by now that the 3 year plan is nothing but a salary dump. And a salary dump to win-starved fans isn't going to ignite the passion that's lacking more and more each day. And the end of the 3 year plan doesn't include 3 years of high draft picks to go along with the salary flexibility (and fans don't root for salary flexibility).

I just hope the sale is to people with local ties or a business plan that includes making the team viable in Indpls/Indiana again. ...Because I have little doubt a sale is coming sooner rather than later. If the 3 year plan hasn't actually been a plan to make the team viable for sale, then it's been a passion killing plan that will leave the fanbase so blase' that a sale will be the only answer left that will make sense to TPTB.

If Herb Simon was in his 50's I might not be so certain of this... but that's not the case and it's soon going to be clear, if it's not already, that there isn't a reasonable expectation of turning this around in a reasonable timeframe (especially with the path we're on...).

I don't think any of this actually answered my question at all. You just told me all over again that you think we're selling.

McKeyFan
07-05-2010, 03:10 PM
I didn't take it the way he thought I might have, so no worries.

Thanks. It was actually high praise, in a perverted, dark sort of way.

xBulletproof
07-05-2010, 03:13 PM
Man, if we give those two guys max contracts we will be in a world of hurt 3 years later.

Actually under the new CBA, in 3 years those contracts are possibly expired ....

wintermute
07-05-2010, 03:21 PM
Find two guys you'd like the Pacers to offer a max contract in 2011.


the only max guy in 2011 is probably melo. my point though, is that i keep finding scenarios for which $3m in cap could be significant - counter to your assertion that it never would.



We have 25mil in obligations next year. If we picked up Farmar at ~3mil, we'd have $28mil. The salary cap is currently 57.7mil... call it $58mil. Drop the cap by 10mil and we'll have $48mil, which (when you subtract $28mil) means we'd have $20mil in cap space.

A $3mil contract would not negatively impact our ability to sign free agents.

urggh.. you keep stating this, but you don't explain why. i could toss your demand for numbers back at you.

ok, let's assume we'll have $20m in cap space for 2011 if we don't add any more salaries. might we not target parker and horford (good suggestions) for $10m each? then the $3m cap tied up in a backup pg would definitely hurt.

alternatively, let's say we get horford at $10m and instead of parker, we get brooks at $7m instead. then let's say chalmers gets squeezed out in miami because of the max contracts they signed that suddenly look overpaid. wouldn't you go after him with the remaining money? sure beats out signing min guys to fill out the roster.

i can go on and on, but at the end of the day $20m cap > $17m cap. i can't see why this is even a question.

Bball
07-05-2010, 03:27 PM
I don't think any of this actually answered my question at all. You just told me all over again that you think we're selling.

Well, if we're going to be players in the FA market shouldn't we be using the contracts now in hopes of scoring a sign and trade? And offering a 1 year contract? Why even bother? Remember when we were told we didn't offer BMiller anything because it would've been an insult... well... what's an offer of a 1 year contract?

Meanwhile, with it now clear we're in salary dump mode and not willing to take on any salary it makes eeking out some meaningless wins the past few years even look sillier.

O'Brien still here?

We lack a PT Barnum to to ignite any passion...

Cheap assistant coaching hires...

Front office thinning...

cordobes
07-05-2010, 07:34 PM
And just what would acting like they are not for sale look like as of July 5th 2010 given our financial/salary/roster circumstances?

Yeah, good question. I think about the same in terms of roster decisions. The FO/coaching/scouting personnel ones are a bit more indicative they may want to sell.

-----

Anthem, $3 millions may be the difference between signing a FA/making the trade they want or not (or, probably, giving away something, like the right to swap picks, to unload that contract). If they aren't convinced that the PGs who demand multiple year contracts offer much more than the guys who they have the chance to sign to a 1 year deal, why run the risk?

Hicks
07-06-2010, 12:48 AM
Well, if we're going to be players in the FA market shouldn't we be using the contracts now in hopes of scoring a sign and trade?

While I don't understand why you specify a sign-and-trade (it could be someone who still has years left on their current deal as opposed to a 2010 free agent), who says we won't trade our expiring contracts?

If I only listened to you, I would think this was July 6th 2011, not 2010.....


And offering a 1 year contract? Why even bother? Remember when we were told we didn't offer BMiller anything because it would've been an insult... well... what's an offer of a 1 year contract?

It might be insulting to some, but definitely not all, players. A young guy looking to prove himself who isn't currently worth a lot of $$$ is probably interested in a situation where they come in as a need (in our case, a PG), show their stuff, and if they look good, they aren't stuck on a small contract for another 2-3 years, but can instead cash in right away (either with us since we'll have the cap space, or someone else).

McKeyFan
07-06-2010, 08:13 AM
Bird doesn't seem the kind of person who would do the dirty work to help an owner sell a team.

The only way this theory might work is if Bird is part of the buying group.

Justin Tyme
07-06-2010, 10:00 AM
Bird doesn't seem the kind of person who would do the dirty work to help an owner sell a team.

The only way this theory might work is if Bird is part of the buying group.



Do you truly think ownership tells Bird everything they are considering? If Herb is smart and no doubt Herb Simon is, he is playing it close to to the vest about any possible intentions of selling the Pacers. He doesn't need any "anonymous sources" leaking his intentions. What would happen to the CIB negoiations if it got out that Herb was intending on selling the Pacers after the 011 season? After the 011 season, the Pacers look better more appealing to sell than in a decade. I personally feel Herb is considering it due to his age, no family interest to run the Pacers in the future, and no reason to burden his family with a yearly multi million dollar losing business that really is his hobby. Those are 3 very valid reasons in my estimation.

No one wants to hear the idea that the Pacers might be sold, but you can't stick your head in the sand about the possibility either. Many are looking thru the eyes of just being a true fan. How many of you have seen a stable life line community business who plays a large important part in the community be sold or closed, b/c of poor business, health of owners, no family interest, etc. Bball and myself have been saying it is a realistic possibility now for quite awhile that the Pacers could be sold. I hope we are wrong, but I just see too many indicators it could happen to just ignore the possiblity. JMOAA


IIRC, about 4-5 years ago a poster on this board, with supposed inside connections, stated there was an agreement in place for Bird to buy the Pacers when ownership was ready to sell.

pwee31
07-06-2010, 10:05 AM
Duhon got 4 years. That's 2 PGs who's gotten 4 years in Blake and Duhon (I posted in the FA signing thread).

I wish Bird the best of luck getting one for 1 year... unless it's Iverson.... sigh

ChicagoJ
07-06-2010, 11:50 AM
Pacers simply are not looking to tie up money for long-term as they want to utilize cap space next summer.

The three-year plan is not an on-court plan, its a financial plan. I think our management team knows that they can't really improve the quality of the roster until they have flexibilty, but they can accumlate the right #3 through #9 guys in the rotation via the draft and strategic smaller moves. We're still 12 months away from the first opportunity for major improvement.

Why muck that up with a long-term signing now? Isn't the Dhantay Jones 4-year deal bad enough? I know the dollars aren't large but still... FLEXIBILITY!

Putnam
07-06-2010, 12:03 PM
Do you truly think ownership tells Bird everything they are considering?


That's asking the question backwards. It should be: Do you truly think ownership would put the Pacers (or any of their operations) in the hands of people they couldn't tell everything to?

The answer is, "No."


Like so many people do, Justintyme makes the mistake here of thinking that the relationship between TPTB and the Simons is distant, like our relationship to them is. That's wrong.

Bird talks to Herb Simon face to face probably every week, if not every day. They trust each others. They like each other. They want each other to succeed, and they want to help bring about that success.




.

Justin Tyme
07-08-2010, 10:43 AM
A contract may only contain a Team Option for one year.


When I read that, I thought that was odd, b/c I've seen contracts having 2 Team Options in them. I went to Hoopshype & Shamsports to check if my memory was correct. They both showed the same players having 2 team options in their contracts. After more indepth viewing, I ascertained they were rookie contracts with the 1st 2 years guaranteed and the 3rd & 4th years as Team Options.

Curry..... TO years 11-12 & 12-13

Evans..... " " " "

Cassopi.... " " " "

Griffin....... " " " "

Flynn........ " " " "

Ellington.... " " " "

Numerous others as well. Even this years

Babbitt.... TO in years 12-13 & 13-14

So apparently rookie contracts can have a Team Option for 2 years, and all other contracts can only have a Team Option in it for only 1 year as you stated. If this clarification is incorrect, please feel free to correct it.

count55
07-08-2010, 11:19 AM
When I read that, I thought that was odd, b/c I've seen contracts having 2 Team Options in them. I went to Hoopshype & Shamsports to check if my memory was correct. They both showed the same players having 2 team options in their contracts. After more indepth viewing, I ascertained they were rookie contracts with the 1st 2 years guaranteed and the 3rd & 4th years as Team Options.

Curry..... TO years 11-12 & 12-13

Evans..... " " " "

Cassopi.... " " " "

Griffin....... " " " "

Flynn........ " " " "

Ellington.... " " " "

Numerous others as well. Even this years

Babbitt.... TO in years 12-13 & 13-14

So apparently rookie contracts can have a Team Option for 2 years, and all other contracts can only have a Team Option in it for only 1 year as you stated. If this clarification is incorrect, please feel free to correct it.

Yes. The rookie contracts are the only ones to have team options for more than one year.