PDA

View Full Version : Pacers resign George Hill - 5 year deal



Sandman21
07-02-2012, 12:32 PM
Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA

The Pacers have agreed to a 5 year deal with George HIll, according to a source.

vnzla81
07-02-2012, 12:33 PM
Mike Wells ‏@MikeWellsNBA
The Pacers have agreed to a 5 year deal with George HIll, according to a source.

BPump33
07-02-2012, 12:34 PM
Interested to see the numbers.

stephen
07-02-2012, 12:34 PM
great news

vnzla81
07-02-2012, 12:34 PM
I wonder how much they agreed on?

PritchSlap
07-02-2012, 12:34 PM
Looks like I didn't waste my money on a throwback Hill jersey after all.

PacerPenguins
07-02-2012, 12:35 PM
welcome back GH3!! :)

BringJackBack
07-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Great news, but is that about all of our cap space now? Or does the 10 day rule still apply? A verbal agreement?

Interesting for me to say the least. I thought that Hill was going to be the one who was going to be a turd to bring back, taking the highest offer. He got off of vacation and just signed with us.

Heisenberg
07-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Soooo...lotta cap space gone?

BringJackBack
07-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Yeah, if we just lost over half of our cap space, why the hell didn't we just wait?

PacerPenguins
07-02-2012, 12:38 PM
if we got 5 years 30-35 mil i will be happy

Smits Happens
07-02-2012, 12:38 PM
For those asking about cap space, maybe part of the agreement is that he won't actually sign the deal until the Pacers have finished going after other free agents. Hand-shake agreement. And nothing can be signed until July 11 at the earliest anyway.

dustinpettit
07-02-2012, 12:38 PM
My guess is 7 mil avg.

Heisenberg
07-02-2012, 12:39 PM
He still can't officially sign until the 11th. So maybe it's just he agreed to an extension and he'll still wait until the 14th to actually sign it.

BringJackBack
07-02-2012, 12:39 PM
For those asking about cap space, maybe part of the agreement is that he won't actually sign the deal until the Pacers have finished going after other free agents. Hand-shake agreement.

Exactly.. We need to know asap.

CableKC
07-02-2012, 12:40 PM
My guess is that this means that we will likely send DC out and either look for a PG that is okay with playing backup PG minutes or ( preferably ) a Starting PG that would push GH to the "1st Guard" off the bench role.

I don't see DC starting over GH at the Starting PG spot nor that he'd be willing to take a backup PG role for the rest of his career. His contract is up next season and he'll become a RFA....so I can see the Pacers trading him while his value is somewhat high.

PacerPenguins
07-02-2012, 12:41 PM
now time to resign Hib and sign Brandon Bass and i will be a happy camper.... nash lovers sorry but he's not coming here now

graphic-er
07-02-2012, 12:42 PM
Well if Batum is worth 12 per year then Certainly George Hill is worth 6-7.

tadscout
07-02-2012, 12:42 PM
My guess is that this means that we will likely send DC out and either look for a PG that is okay with playing backup PG minutes or ( preferably ) a Starting PG that would push GH to the "1st Guard" off the bench role.

Wells reported like last week Collison wanted to be back, and would accept playing off the bench...

PacerPenguins
07-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Wells reported like last week Collison wanted to be back, and would accept playing off the bench...

and we likely wouldn't find a better backup than DC.... glad he wants to stay

Pace Maker
07-02-2012, 12:44 PM
Does this mean we're more than likely not going to have a new Point Guard acquisition this offseason?

Day-V
07-02-2012, 12:47 PM
He still can't officially sign until the 11th. So maybe it's just he agreed to an extension and he'll still wait until the 14th to actually sign it.

I believe that's exactly what will happen, yes sir.

Speed
07-02-2012, 12:47 PM
I know this is ridiculous and premature and well ridiculous, but can you go small ball? Not jack up shots 5 seconds in with no rebounders in position, but small ball in that West plays Center and Danny the 4?

DC
GHill
PG
DG
West

I know ridiculous. Just trying to work out the Roy deal in my mind.

Jukeb0xHero
07-02-2012, 12:47 PM
Hopefully this is in the 28-33 mil range and not the 35-45 mil range.

PacerPenguins
07-02-2012, 12:47 PM
Does this mean we're more than likely not going to have a new Point Guard acquisition this offseason?

unless we trade DC (last week he said he is fine with the backup role) then we wouldn't need one.... and to tell u the truth... I'm happy about it and love the point guards we have

J7F
07-02-2012, 12:49 PM
Not necessarily... For example We could still sign and trade for a point offering DC and Tyler...

LoneGranger33
07-02-2012, 12:50 PM
Wells reported like last week Collison wanted to be back, and would accept playing off the bench...

I don't know that he said he would accept playing off the bench. He just said he would like to return. He's going to be gunning for that starting spot when training camp begins.

imawhat
07-02-2012, 12:52 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?

yoadknux
07-02-2012, 12:54 PM
Any news about the $$$?

Ratking
07-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Im not worried about what we paid him. I used to be skeptical about G. Hill, but Ive come to believe that you cant put a price tag on a player with his combination of character, skill, and most importantly, love for Indiana. Not when you are a small market team like the Pacers. Its why we want Eric Gordon so bad...but G. Hill remains healthy and keeps getting better...this is great news.

Aw Heck
07-02-2012, 12:56 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?
Maybe that's what it took for Hill to accept a lower salary per year.

I don't know who else the Pacers would give a 5-year deal to. They'll probably just end up matching Portland's offer (4 years) for Hibbert and they can't give any other team's free agents 5 years, I believe. As for our own future free agents, I'm sure they'll handle the Paul George restricted free agency much like Hibbert's. I don't think anyone else will get 5 years.

PR07
07-02-2012, 01:01 PM
Interesting. I'm curious to see what the annual figures are much like everyone else. Hopefully, it's around 6-7 million.

Slick Pinkham
07-02-2012, 01:03 PM
I hope with a training camp and more practice time GH gets more used to learning where everyone likes the ball and learns how to get it there.

The pacers staying 29th in the league in team assists is not going to help us get better, considering we don't have a excess of players that score on their own consistently.

CableKC
07-02-2012, 01:04 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?
Is the Team only able to give one 5 year deal under the new CBA?

Are we not able to give a 5 year deal to Hibbert as well?

J7F
07-02-2012, 01:05 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?

One and only? Is this a new provision in the CBA?

Pacerfan
07-02-2012, 01:06 PM
It's good George Hill wants to be back. If we really are trying to compete for the championship these next few years you want to stockpile as much talent as you can and the easiest way you can do that is sign your own players to come back. He will most likely wait to sign the extension for a little while for the Pacers to sign free agents. I don't think Herb cares if we cross the salary cap as long as we are not in the luxury tax. Basically sign the most talented free agents you can get because you can always package them and deal them for someone else if there's a change needed later on. This is going to be our last chance to acquire new talent in the near future that's not from the draft. We might as well stockpile as much of it as we can and worry how it fits later.

I would still like to see us get a PG. DC can then either be the backup point or be traded. GHill can backup shooting guard and if DC leaves, backup PG. PG of course can backup Danny when Danny rests. Signing Nash would be perfect (even though it is not very likely). Resign Roy. We can then sign a backup big with the mid level (hopefully someone sees that this team is pretty close to championship contention and wants to join). We go in with this roster and make tweaks via trades as needed.

This of course would be my dream scenario. But this is why resigning George Hill is advantageous to us even if he is not the most talented player we can get out there.

tadscout
07-02-2012, 01:06 PM
Is the Team only able to give one 5 year deal under the new CBA?

Are we not able to give a 5 year deal to Hibbert as well?

I'm not 100% sure... but I think the one 5 year contract rule only applies to Max contracts... I may be wrong.

Speed
07-02-2012, 01:08 PM
I like GHill defense as a starting Point, I think he has room to grow as a Point, for sure. Worse case, I like him as a basketball player, so if he doesn't work out as a starting point, you can still play him as the back up 1 AND 2. It doesn't rule out picking up a starting Point, it gives you the flexiblity to see, imho.

BillS
07-02-2012, 01:10 PM
I don't know that he said he would accept playing off the bench. He just said he would like to return. He's going to be gunning for that starting spot when training camp begins.

Excellent. I have no problem at all with two teammates competing for the starting spot rather than thinking they are entitled to it somehow.

Pacer Fan
07-02-2012, 01:10 PM
Awesome, I just hope it's like 5yrs. 30 - 35 mil.. Now, if Big Roy will do 5 yrs. - 60 mil., so we can bring in another great talent.

Heisenberg
07-02-2012, 01:12 PM
Excellent. I have no problem at all with two teammates competing for the starting spot rather than thinking they are entitled to it somehow.
Indeed. Provided he doesn't get all pouty should he lose out, and DC doesn't seem like that kinda guy.

Really?
07-02-2012, 01:15 PM
Awesome, I just hope it's like 5yrs. 30 - 35 mil.. Now, if Big Roy will do 5 yrs. - 60 mil., so we can bring in another great talent.

No way Roy does 5 for 60, that is 12 mill a year, he would at least need 13.5, and I think that is a minimum... that ends up being something closet to 5 for 67 mill, and in all likelyhood it will end up being more than that.

Pacer Fan
07-02-2012, 01:20 PM
You really had to go there? Really? :)

graphic-er
07-02-2012, 01:21 PM
So does this mean that Hill's agent was not getting favorable offers from other teams?

BringJackBack
07-02-2012, 01:22 PM
Love DC as a backup point, but I think he and Hansbrough are going to get traded as a package with a pick or two for a player soon. Maybe Kyle Lowry, or a very longshot of Tyreke Evans. Just spitballing as usual.

Pacerfan
07-02-2012, 01:27 PM
So does this mean that Hill's agent was not getting favorable offers from other teams?

Either that or

1) Pacers paid him what he wanted.
2) He really wants to stay in Indy.

aaronb
07-02-2012, 01:37 PM
Need to match the offer on Hibbert now. Cap space is going to be way too tight to do anything in the way of an upgrade at this point.

wintermute
07-02-2012, 01:39 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?

No. The one and only 5 year rule is only for extensions, which are normally limited to 4 years.

We can hand out as many 5 year deals as we have free agents with Bird rights. So Hibbert can get a 5 year deal, and theoretically so can Barbosa (not that we're interested in giving him a 5 year deal).

Anyway, this is good news. Hill is a guy I wanted us to keep. Assuming the money isn't horrible anyway. Hope it is indeed in the $30-35m range.

wintermute
07-02-2012, 01:42 PM
So does this mean that Hill's agent was not getting favorable offers from other teams?

Need to look at the money first before we can make a reasonable guess.


yes you can only give one player off his rookie deal a 5 year deal known as your designated player I am shocked we choose to use it on G3.

Now we cant give Roy 5 or Paul George or any other rookie until his deal expires. Not a huge deal but no doubt Hibbert fells disrespected by this move.

No, that's not right. The designated player rule only applies to extensions. We CAN still give Roy a 5 year deal, and George, etc

Dr. Hibbert
07-02-2012, 01:46 PM
Eh, don't think it's a bad move by any means, but not as floored as some by it. I figured Hill would be the one they let walk of their FA crop just because he had increased his value last year and would demand too much $$$...and thought he would demand far more than he was worth. So I hope this deal is reasonable. Good bball player, doubt anyone refutes that, but re-signing Hibbert is the far bigger priority, and I'm also worried about the Pacers just standing pat with the same roster as last year even if they do (though I realize the financials make it more or less impossible to do anything else). That roster had quite a few flaws that were especially magnified at the playoff level.

diamonddave00
07-02-2012, 01:47 PM
Why sign Roy for 5 years 78 mil his Pacer max when you can sign him for 4 years 58 million match offer sheet from Blazers?
Its obvious Big Roy wants the max he can get. After 4 years will Hibbert be worth another max extension?

Naptown_Seth
07-02-2012, 01:54 PM
if we got 5 years 30-35 mil i will be happy
Well a rumor had been a $33m number but for less years which seemed crazy. Maybe it was always 5/$33m which seems like a fair deal to me. I could see Hill looking for 7-8 from someone, so less than 7 feels reasonable.

But that's my guess based on a rumor.

Ace E.Anderson
07-02-2012, 01:57 PM
Need to match the offer on Hibbert now. Cap space is going to be way too tight to do anything in the way of an upgrade at this point.

This doesn't affect our cap space at all. He hasn't signed anything yet, just came to an agreement. If anything this helps b/c we still know exactly how much cap space we still have available, which will narrow our focus into obtaining realistic options to upgrade the roster.

wintermute
07-02-2012, 01:57 PM
Why sign Roy for 5 years 78 mil his Pacer max when you can sign him for 4 years 58 million match offer sheet from Blazers?
Its obvious Big Roy wants the max he can get. After 4 years will Hibbert be worth another max extension?

Of course Pacers aren't going to offer 5 years/$78m. But what if Pacers offer say 5 years/$65m? If you're Hibbert, you can choose the package with higher annual salary (4 years/$58m) or the package with greater security (5 years/$65m). Factor in injuries etc and that second deal doesn't look so bad.

wintermute
07-02-2012, 02:07 PM
IIRC, I think we can ONLY MATCH what the Blazers are offering. We can't up the number of years in order to lower the salary hit per year. I could be wrong, but I think I'm spot on.

If Hibbert actually signs the Blazers' offer sheet, yes.

The earliest he can sign is July 11 though.

So far we haven't heard that Hibbert has made a verbal commitment to the Blazers, only that he is "leaning" that way. Sounds to me that Pacers and Hibbert are still negotiating. Which is why I'm not worried about the lack of a deal. 9 more days to negotiate.

Really?
07-02-2012, 02:08 PM
IIRC, I think we can ONLY MATCH what the Blazers are offering. We can't up the number of years in order to lower the salary hit per year. I could be wrong, but I think I'm spot on.

Something like that, it all depends on if Roy signs their offer sheet or not, he does not have to, but I see no reason why he would not.

I say the only way he does not is if we offer him a contract paying the same amount per year but for 5 years and give him a player option for the last, that is probably our best case scenario

Sparhawk
07-02-2012, 02:09 PM
I like how this is a thread for Hill, yet we seem to be talking about Hibbs.

Congrats to Hill. Glad he's staying long term.

aaronb
07-02-2012, 02:09 PM
This doesn't affect our cap space at all. He hasn't signed anything yet, just came to an agreement. If anything this helps b/c we still know exactly how much cap space we still have available, which will narrow our focus into obtaining realistic options to upgrade the roster.

It looks like we are looking at MLE types of potential upgrades. If the projected cap is indeed 58.7 Million. Re-signing Hill and Hibbert at approx 20 million puts us right back up to the cap. Before we even sign out First rounder.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/indiana-pacers-team-salary

rexnom
07-02-2012, 02:10 PM
So glad to see this. Not reading into it except that we're keeping Hill, who was my favorite Pacer last year. Exciting.

aaronb
07-02-2012, 02:12 PM
It looks like we are looking at MLE types of potential upgrades. If the projected cap is indeed 58.7 Million. Re-signing Hill and Hibbert at approx 20 million puts us right back up to the cap. Before we even sign out First rounder.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/indiana-pacers-team-salary

Scratch that. After Plumlee signs we should still be about 5-6 million under the cap. Maybe we can work something for OJ Mayo?

troyc11a
07-02-2012, 02:16 PM
IIRC, I think we can ONLY MATCH what the Blazers are offering. We can't up the number of years in order to lower the salary hit per year. I could be wrong, but I think I'm spot on.

As long as he has not signed the Portland deal you are correct. He could choose which one he wants to sign. But after he signs the Portland offer sheet I believe all we can do is match it.

RamBo_Lamar
07-02-2012, 02:52 PM
I like how this is a thread for Hill, yet we seem to be talking about Hibbs.

Congrats to Hill. Glad he's staying long term.

This :buddies:



Hill is a stone cold baller and made a great addition to the team.

Exactly the kind of player the Pacers want and need.

Am glad the Pacers will have him for years to come....this is great news! :happydanc

TMJ31
07-02-2012, 03:16 PM
Very happy to have George Hill staying here.

Of course, when the financials of the deal are revealed, we may alter our opinions of whether it was a good move or not from a money standpoint.

But from an on-the-court perspective, GH really does fit our team tremendously, and I love having him here.

ilive4sports
07-02-2012, 03:33 PM
Glad GH will be playing in his hometown for a long time. He was a very important player for us this year and will continue to be. He has work to do, but I expect him to be very good for us for a good while.

Hicks
07-02-2012, 03:34 PM
Very happy to have George Hill staying here.

Of course, when the financials of the deal are revealed, we may alter our opinions of whether it was a good move or not from a money standpoint.

But from an on-the-court perspective, GH really does fit our team tremendously, and I love having him here.

Yep.

My guess is he got between 35 and 40, but hopefully I'm wrong in a good way.

ballism
07-02-2012, 03:38 PM
Yep.

My guess is he got between 35 and 40, but hopefully I'm wrong in a good way.

that would be my guess too, a 35 mil deal would start at 6 mil. It makes sense for both sides.

gummy
07-02-2012, 03:50 PM
For those asking about cap space, maybe part of the agreement is that he won't actually sign the deal until the Pacers have finished going after other free agents. Hand-shake agreement. And nothing can be signed until July 11 at the earliest anyway.

That would be ideal!

gummy
07-02-2012, 03:52 PM
Wells reported like last week Collison wanted to be back, and would accept playing off the bench...

He did? I remember reading Wells say that Collison said he wanted to return during his exit interview. I don't recall him saying DC would accept playing off the bench. Do you happen to have a link for that or remember where he said it (on the Indystar or in a radio interview, or...?).

If true, it's great news. I think he makes an excellent scoring backup point guard (though I want him to compete to be the starter!).

Really?
07-02-2012, 04:10 PM
that would be my guess too, a 35 mil deal would start at 6 mil. It makes sense for both sides.

People have not been doing math right lately that is starting at 7 mill

NapTonius Monk
07-02-2012, 04:20 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?
One and only? :confused:

Blackhawk4
07-02-2012, 04:22 PM
We gave our one and only five year deal to Hill?

Whoa...what you talkin bout Willis? Not sure if serious...

Hicks
07-02-2012, 04:22 PM
People have not been doing math right lately that is starting at 7 mill

Only if he is going to get paid the same amount, $7,000,000, every single year. Odds are it will be like 95% of NBA contracts, starting at a number in the 6mm's and then building up to something approaching the 8mm's by 2017.

wintermute
07-02-2012, 04:23 PM
People have not been doing math right lately that is starting at 7 mill

Uh... 5 years/$35m is averaging $7m. It probably does start at around $6m, and goes up to around $8m with raises.


One and only? :confused:

No, that's for extensions. People got confused.

aamcguy
07-02-2012, 04:23 PM
Only if it's a flat rate per year. But if it is 35 mil it is probably starting around 6 million and increasing by 5% each year.

ie: 6*1.05 + 6*1.05^2 + 6*1.05^3 + 6*1.05^4 + 6*1.05^5

Reginald
07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
The important thing to note here is that I don't have to give away another youth jersey to Goodwill. Between David Thornton, Cato June, Marvin Harrison and Peyton Manning, my kids have been the kiss of death for local pro athletes.

ballism
07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
People have not been doing math right lately that is starting at 7 mill

a 35 mil/5 year deal would usually start at 6 mil, but obviously we could choose otherwise

Shade
07-02-2012, 04:27 PM
I'm not sure how to feel about this yet. While I like Hill and am glad that he's back, does this mean there is no chance now at upgrading the point? Are we just going to re-sign Hill and (hopefully) Hibbert and basically return the same team that wasn't good enough this year? Or, even worse, not re-sign Hibbert and bring back a worse team than last year?

BigAndy
07-02-2012, 04:49 PM
I'm not sure how to feel about this yet. While I like Hill and am glad that he's back, does this mean there is no chance now at upgrading the point? Are we just going to re-sign Hill and (hopefully) Hibbert and basically return the same team that wasn't good enough this year? Or, even worse, not re-sign Hibbert and bring back a worse team than last year?

This is what I'm worried about too. I hoping that we would re-sign Hibbert and let Hill go, allowing us to make some upgrades. I don't know what will happen now. I thought that Hill seemed pretty average last year. He was consistent though, which is good. He just doesn't really provide what we need at the point.

maragin
07-02-2012, 05:00 PM
Dear Pacers,

I'll do what I can to help you pay for his salary by purchasing a Hill jersey. I was unsure if he'd be back, and didn't want to feel foolish overpaying for clothing that would look silly a year from now.

Thanks,

Maragin

P.S. If you somehow sign/ trade for a superstar this summer, I'll buy two jerseys.

Really?
07-02-2012, 05:08 PM
a 35 mil/5 year deal would usually start at 6 mil, but obviously we could choose otherwise

Got you, I missed what you are saying, like a escalated contract, I thought you were talking about average, or just a flat contract like Stuckey got.

PaceBalls
07-02-2012, 05:14 PM
I am happy with GHill as our PG going forward. Short of bringing in DWilliams or Nash, we couldn't get a much better player, I think he is better than Lowry or Dragic, plus he is the local kid and wants to play here. He will also get better at running the team as he is solidified as the starting PG and is playing most of his minutes there.

TheDon
07-02-2012, 05:20 PM
I'm getting so tired of mediocrity at the point guard position and i'm pretty sure this pretty much screws over the whole possibility of Nash coming here. I'll admit it was an outside shot and I probably got a little ahead of myself with the possiblity of having Nash, but just another kick to the balls for those of us who really wanted to see us upgrade that position....5 years?!?...really?

ballism
07-02-2012, 05:25 PM
I'm getting so tired of mediocrity at the point guard position and i'm pretty sure this pretty much screws over the whole possibility of Nash coming here.

i don't know that it does. we can still reach an agreement with Nash. Nothing has changed until we finalize Hill deal which will be July 11th at the earliest. We could still have them both.

Steagles
07-02-2012, 05:32 PM
now time to resign Hib and sign Brandon Bass and i will be a happy camper.... nash lovers sorry but he's not coming here now

I couldn't have said it better myself. I LOVE what Nash could provide for this team, but we won't come here. If we can get Bass for DC or Tyler we'd be golden. If we ship out DC, we still have Lance who I think will have a breakout year.

Eleazar
07-02-2012, 05:36 PM
I hate how this board has such an inferiority complex. We can't go one page without someone saying some FA won't come here, just because it is Indiana.

PacerDude
07-02-2012, 06:06 PM
..................... we still have Lance who I think will have a breakout year.PLEASE ....... let's not hang any hopes on this kid. IF he winds up having a great year - cherry on the sundae. But to go into a season depending on him to fill a role other than 13th, 14th, 15th on the team ............. I certainly wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about that.

Eleazar
07-02-2012, 06:09 PM
PLEASE ....... let's not hang any hopes on this kid. IF he winds up having a great year - cherry on the sundae. But to go into a season depending on him to fill a role other than 13th, 14th, 15th on the team ............. I certainly wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about that.

Defiantly, right now I would have more faith in him than Orlando simply because of experience, but neither should be trusted to provide anything. Like you said if either of them brings anything more than end of the bench fodder it is just the cherry on top.

Mourning
07-02-2012, 06:10 PM
I like that we've reached an aggreement with Hill. I wasn't too certain on what would happen on this front. I hope my "happinness" remains when more details start to surface with regards to the highed and structuring of his contract.

Now I would LOVE for us to go after, either via FA or via a trade, a PG who has sharper passing skills and is atleast a decent defender and doesn't have some BS overpaid contract. Hill gives us the flexibility we need at our backcourt positions. Making it possible to switch and change depending on tactics/gameplan and opponent.

I would like to make a trade to get Lowry. Why? Because that gives us potentially 3 guys at PG (Hill, Lowry and IF Stephenson progresses the way I hope he will), at what a lot of people consider to be the most important position in the game at this point, who can defend those strong PG's. We can throw these guys at them without losing much if anything in effort and defensive pressure on those opposing star PG, Stephenson would have to improve significantly at D this offense, but I think he can go a long way especially seeying how much better he got defensively last summer.

They can all also play decent to good offensive and when our reserve backcourt faces pretty much anyother backcourt I don't think we'll miss a beat and we should capitalize on the opposing teams reserves.

With the rest of FA get a decent backup F who potentially can fill in a bit at C when needed aswell. But, I doubt that will be possible to achieve. Bass, Landry and Thompson might very well be our best opportunities here. Though I have to admit I'm intrigued by Green (Boston) aswell as put forward by Ballism. That could be a game changer for us.

Steagles
07-02-2012, 06:17 PM
PLEASE ....... let's not hang any hopes on this kid. IF he winds up having a great year - cherry on the sundae. But to go into a season depending on him to fill a role other than 13th, 14th, 15th on the team ............. I certainly wouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about that.

IF we shipped DC, which I also don't see happening. I hope he has (and think he will) a breakout year but I am by no means expecting him to play backup point, we still have DC.

Jrod Jones
07-02-2012, 06:50 PM
I think the most important part of this being done quickly is that we now have flexibility to use DC in a S+T if the opportunity presents itself. If negotiations with Hill lasted too long we wouldn't be able to use DC as trade bait without giving all negotiating leverage to Hill.

Now that Hill has an agreed upon contract we can get creative with offering DC to teams looking to flip restricted FAs that they can't afford.

OlBlu
07-02-2012, 07:01 PM
I'm not sure how to feel about this yet. While I like Hill and am glad that he's back, does this mean there is no chance now at upgrading the point? Are we just going to re-sign Hill and (hopefully) Hibbert and basically return the same team that wasn't good enough this year? Or, even worse, not re-sign Hibbert and bring back a worse team than last year?

The FO never thought there was anything wrong at the point......:cool:

CableKC
07-02-2012, 07:06 PM
i don't know that it does. we can still reach an agreement with Nash. Nothing has changed until we finalize Hill deal which will be July 11th at the earliest. We could still have them both.
I didn't think that it would be possible ( at least money and salary-wise ) to match both GH and Hibbert while making a $12 mil per season offer to Nash. :shrug:

Pacerized
07-02-2012, 07:23 PM
Isn't each team only allowed 1 player on a 5 year deal or are we allowed to offer all our free agents 5 years. If it's only 1 then giving to Hill is nuts.
This had better be an offer that waits on our signing a top free agent first. It's just plain stupid to use all our cap space keeping our own free agents when we have the opportunity to bring in someone first and still keep Hibbert and Hill.
Standing pat should not be an option this summer.

rabid
07-02-2012, 07:24 PM
I didn't think that it would be possible ( at least money and salary-wise ) to match both GH and Hibbert while making a $12 mil per season offer to Nash. :shrug:

My understanding is it's all about timing. We could, for example, sign Nash on the 11th, then Hill, and then we could match Hibbert on the 13th (since we have his Bird rights we can go over the cap to re-sign him). But if we sign Hibbert + Hill right away, we would no longer have enough $$ left under the cap to sign Nash.

Unless I'm missing something, or unless Hill and/or Hibbert are willing to stall/wait before signing with us (doubtful, at least for Hibbert), it seems like any move we'd make for Nash or anoyone else that puts us over the cap, will have to happen between the 11th and 13th, right at the beginning of free agency.

ballism
07-02-2012, 07:25 PM
I didn't think that it would be possible ( at least money and salary-wise ) to match both GH and Hibbert while making a $12 mil per season offer to Nash. :shrug:

it's not possible without clearing a bit (under 2 mil) of cap. but letting Hill go is one of the more painful ways to clear it.

ballism
07-02-2012, 07:27 PM
Isn't each team only allowed 1 player on a 5 year deal or are we allowed to offer all our free agents 5 years. If it's only 1 then giving to Hill is nuts.
This had better be an offer that waits on our signing a top free agent first. It's just plain stupid to use all our cap space keeping our own free agents when we have the opportunity to bring in someone first and still keep Hibbert and Hill.
Standing pat should not be an option this summer.
Bird free agents can get 5 year deals. the "1 designated player / 5 years" rule applies to rookie extensions only. e.g. Westbrook got such deal.

CableKC
07-02-2012, 07:31 PM
My understanding is it's all about timing. We could, for example, sign Nash on the 11th, then Hill, and then we could match Hibbert on the 13th (since we have his Bird rights we can go over the cap to re-sign him). But if we sign Hibbert + Hill right away, we would no longer have enough $$ left under the cap to sign Nash.

Unless I'm missing something, or unless Hill and/or Hibbert are willing to stall/wait before signing with us (doubtful, at least for Hibbert), it seems like any move we'd make for Nash or anoyone else that puts us over the cap, will have to happen between the 11th and 13th, right at the beginning of free agency.
Kind of like what the Blazers are waiting for when it comes to Batum and Hibbert.

I assume that KP and DW are smart enough to force the Blazers to wait as long as they have to before matching the contract.

CableKC
07-02-2012, 07:35 PM
it's not possible without clearing a bit (under 2 mil) of cap. but letting Hill go is one of the more painful ways to clear it.
So, just jettison DC or Hansbrough out the nearest airlock while getting back 2nd round pick or TPE?

ballism
07-02-2012, 07:37 PM
So, just jettison DC or Hansbrough out the nearest airlock while getting back 2nd round pick or TPE?

indeed, or Dahntay.

hoosierguy
07-02-2012, 08:25 PM
It's pretty obvious neither Nash or Deron are interested in the Pacers. George Hill is not a bad consolation prize. He is only 25 and should continue to improve as he gets more comfortable in Vogel's system.

yoadknux
07-02-2012, 08:31 PM
By the way, there may be something interesting here - I'm usually not on the Gordon2Indy Wagon, but George Hill really isn't good fit next to Paul George/Granger. Two guys who can't dribble play with a guard who isn't known for his dishing abilities. So, do you guys think that maybe we're planning on moving Granger or George for a SG that can dribble, like Gordon, Monta, etc?

flox
07-02-2012, 08:42 PM
Only if he is going to get paid the same amount, $7,000,000, every single year. Odds are it will be like 95% of NBA contracts, starting at a number in the 6mm's and then building up to something approaching the 8mm's by 2017.

His rookie contract wasn't always increasing, iirc it was 120/120/80/120. Not sure if he'll do something similar here, but it seems him/his agent is open to not doing normal type contracts.

pizza guy
07-02-2012, 09:21 PM
By the way, there may be something interesting here - I'm usually not on the Gordon2Indy Wagon, but George Hill really isn't good fit next to Paul George/Granger. Two guys who can't dribble play with a guard who isn't known for his dishing abilities. So, do you guys think that maybe we're planning on moving Granger or George for a SG that can dribble, like Gordon, Monta, etc?

This thought crossed my mind as well. Perhaps the front office doesn't want Nash's old bones so they lock up Hill and are free to make a deal with DC+PG to New Orleans for Gordon. If that happens, I would probably be happy. I know most folks don't want to lose PG, and I really like DC, but the Hill/Gordon/Granger/West/Hibbert lineup would definitely work.

PacerPenguins
07-03-2012, 01:16 PM
Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA
So hearing George Hill got a nice deal from the Pacers... said to be five years and better than the $6 mil offered in January.

hopefully not too much

Really?
07-03-2012, 01:21 PM
It's pretty obvious neither Nash or Deron are interested in the Pacers. George Hill is not a bad consolation prize. He is only 25 and should continue to improve as he gets more comfortable in Vogel's system.

Yeah, I mean the guy did not even have a off season running the point, I expect better things coming up this year...

Nuntius
07-03-2012, 02:22 PM
I'm happy that GH3 is back but I don't know what this mean about Roy and our other off-season moves.

ECKrueger
07-03-2012, 02:28 PM
Alex Kennedy ‏@AlexKennedyNBA

George Hill is on vacation. Don't expect an official announcement or terms of his new deal with Indiana to be disclosed until he returns.

Ace E.Anderson
07-03-2012, 02:35 PM
Yeah, I mean the guy did not even have a off season running the point, I expect better things coming up this year...

He averaged: 13.9 points and 5.3 assists as a starter in the regular season and 13.5 and 3 assists in the playoffs. All on a good fg% and 3pt%. Once he gets an offseason of concentrating purely on being a PG, I could easily see 12-15ppg and 5 assists. Not All-Star numbers, but good numbers nonetheless.

Really?
07-03-2012, 03:06 PM
He averaged: 13.9 points and 5.3 assists as a starter in the regular season and 13.5 and 3 assists in the playoffs. All on a good fg% and 3pt%. Once he gets an offseason of concentrating purely on being a PG, I could easily see 12-15ppg and 5 assists. Not All-Star numbers, but good numbers nonetheless.

Yup, I could actually see better than that, I have high expectations for him as well as the rest of the young guys on the team, well besides Lance, I really don't expect him to ever do much...

Steagles
07-03-2012, 03:15 PM
I doubt its much more than about 7.5M/year. I sure hope.

edc
07-03-2012, 03:21 PM
This player really mattered to us especially after dc got injured. We won many games because of him.

But i hope we didnt overpay.

cdash
07-03-2012, 06:54 PM
I have got to be honest: I really don't see the infatuation with George Hill. He's a solid sixth man type and an average starter, but I have a very blasť feeling about resigning him for five years.

Heisenberg
07-03-2012, 06:58 PM
I assume (read: hope) the last year's a team option at least

Smoothdave1
07-03-2012, 10:34 PM
I spoke to an NBA contact today I know who told me it was between 38-40 million over 5 years. I guess we'll see when this finally comes out.

imawhat
07-03-2012, 10:46 PM
Unbelievable.

Hypnotiq
07-03-2012, 10:48 PM
I spoke to an NBA contact today I know who told me it was between 38-40 million over 5 years. I guess we'll see when this finally comes out.

7.8 mil a year roughly i dont like it

PR07
07-03-2012, 10:49 PM
I spoke to an NBA contact today I know who told me it was between 38-40 million over 5 years. I guess we'll see when this finally comes out.

YIKES.

imawhat
07-03-2012, 11:02 PM
I really don't understand this, if true. The market hadn't even dictated a price yet. Some other team may have offered him a $7M/year deal.

This thing just smells of Donnie Walsh.

Pacerized
07-03-2012, 11:33 PM
7.8 mil a year roughly i dont like it

If that's true, I'm disgusted. Hill would have never received more then an MLE offer from another team.
We didn't read a single thing about another team even looking at him in the past few days.

Hicks
07-03-2012, 11:57 PM
I spoke to an NBA contact today I know who told me it was between 38-40 million over 5 years. I guess we'll see when this finally comes out.

That's about what I figured. A little high, but nothing outrageous. I was hoping for 35, so I won't cry because it crept up to 38 or 40. It's not like we lost our minds and gave him 50 or anything wild.

Anyone who thinks overpaying him by 1 or 1.5 a year is going to somehow break our team is crazy.

Hicks
07-03-2012, 11:58 PM
If that's true, I'm disgusted. Hill would have never received more then an MLE offer from another team.
We didn't read a single thing about another team even looking at him in the past few days.

In a world where guys like Asik and Fields are getting the offers they're getting, nothing would have shocked me. One team with money falls in love, next thing you know you're forced to match or let him go for 45 or 50. This league is a bit crazy.

Sandman21
07-04-2012, 12:03 AM
Anyone who thinks overpaying him by 1 or 1.5 a year is going to somehow break our team is crazy.
Check the Cult of Eric Gordon.....

graphic-er
07-04-2012, 12:06 AM
Most likely the the FO panicked at the thought of having to let Hibbert walk and they decided to snag George up right away before anything bad could happen. Probably the approach that they now know exact how much they have to work with to match Hibbert and bring in another player.

croz24
07-04-2012, 12:17 AM
If true, awful contract for the most easily filled position on a basketball team... combo guard.

LoneGranger33
07-04-2012, 12:38 AM
That's about what I figured. A little high, but nothing outrageous. I was hoping for 35, so I won't cry because it crept up to 38 or 40. It's not like we lost our minds and gave him 50 or anything wild.

Anyone who thinks overpaying him by 1 or 1.5 a year is going to somehow break our team is crazy.

I'll cry if we overpay Hill and let Hibbert walk because we don't want to overpay him. That's ****ed up. DC can take Hill's spot with very little (if any) drop-off, no one can take Hibbert's.

vnzla81
07-04-2012, 12:45 AM
I'll cry if we overpay Hill and let Hibbert walk because we don't want to overpay him. That's ****ed up. DC can take Hill's spot with very little (if any) drop-off, no one can take Hibbert's.

I guess you forgot about Plumlee and Pendergraph ....

wintermute
07-04-2012, 02:54 AM
I spoke to an NBA contact today I know who told me it was between 38-40 million over 5 years. I guess we'll see when this finally comes out.

Definitely higher than I expected and if true it's no doubt why George Hill agreed to terms so quickly.

I don't understand why we don't play hardball with him the way we do with Hibbert.

ilive4sports
07-04-2012, 03:51 AM
Definitely higher than I expected and if true it's no doubt why George Hill agreed to terms so quickly.

I don't understand why we don't play hardball with him the way we do with Hibbert.
$20 million dollars for one.

I do think the FO is playing hardball with Roy because it has a better chance to work with Roy than Hill. Yeah Hill is from Indy, but everything we've seen from him makes it seem like he doesn't have a problem with playing somewhere else. Roy on the other hand, its pretty clear that he really loves playing here. He loves this team, loves this coach, area 55 and so on.

Its also possible that the Hill deal was what the FO wanted it to be. We might think its overpaying, but the FO may think otherwise. So the deal was quick. Clearly they are hesitant to pay Roy the max (rightfully so imo) so they are posturing and looking at other options. They didn't need to do that with GH.

Do I think their posturing will work? Hell no. Sure Roy loves Indiana, but he will love Portland too, especially if they are paying him more than we would have.

rm1369
07-04-2012, 08:41 AM
I don't understand why the team didn't let the market set the value for Hill. If the numbers are correct, they over payed. I also don't like the idea of locking up a combo guard for 5 years. He isn't good enough to be a long term solution at PG or SG. Decent player, but not a difference maker of any kind. Pacers are off to a bad start to the offseason, IMO.

xBulletproof
07-04-2012, 08:57 AM
Why is everyone assuming the market DIDN'T set the price for Hill? Everything that happens in free agency doesn't become public knowledge. They don't formally announce every offer in a press conference or something.

Just because you don't know if the market set the price for Hill doesn't mean it didn't happen.

OlBlu
07-04-2012, 09:00 AM
Why is everyone assuming the market DIDN'T set the price for Hill? Everything that happens in free agency doesn't become public knowledge. They don't formally announce every offer in a press conference or something.

Just because you don't know if the market set the price for Hill doesn't mean it didn't happen.

That is a very good point and I am sure it happens all of the time......:cool:

rm1369
07-04-2012, 09:06 AM
Why is everyone assuming the market DIDN'T set the price for Hill? Everything that happens in free agency doesn't become public knowledge. They don't formally announce every offer in a press conference or something.

Just because you don't know if the market set the price for Hill doesn't mean it didn't happen.

In large part because he signed for 5 years. So either the Pacers exceeded the market (at least in overall value) or the market was never set.

wintermute
07-04-2012, 09:13 AM
Why is everyone assuming the market DIDN'T set the price for Hill? Everything that happens in free agency doesn't become public knowledge. They don't formally announce every offer in a press conference or something.

Just because you don't know if the market set the price for Hill doesn't mean it didn't happen.

As a general rule, FAs who come to terms in the first week of free agency are overpaid. This is the time after all when teams go after their priority targets and thus the money flies fast and furious. As the money dries up, that's when we start seeing bargains in FA.

This isn't a hard and fast rule obviously. A possible alternative explanation for Hill in fact is that he wants to stay in Indy so much that he didn't feel the need to test the market. Of the 2 explanations though, I find the former to be more likely. But as you say, we shouldn't conclude anything as yet without seeing the actual numbers.

ballism
07-04-2012, 09:16 AM
In large part because he signed for 5 years. So either the Pacers exceeded the market (at least in overall value) or the market was never set.

or they added a year so they could sign him for less per-year.

ballism
07-04-2012, 09:22 AM
As a general rule, FAs who come to terms in the first week of free agency are overpaid. This is the time after all when teams go after their priority targets and thus the money flies fast and furious. As the money dries up, that's when we start seeing bargains in FA.


among the players who got deals this week were: Landry Fields, Mirza Teletovic, Omer Asik.
Not every "priority target" is a superstar. There are many teams with some room, and only a handful of bigger names, and not everyone is going after them.

rm1369
07-04-2012, 09:36 AM
or they added a year so they could sign him for less per-year.

Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.

rm1369
07-04-2012, 09:40 AM
For the record, I'm not suggesting they should have signed him at a higher number. If he was truly offered more than 8 mil per year, as you suggest, then they should have helped him pack his bags and wished him good luck with whatever franchise was dumb enough to make such an offer.

ballism
07-04-2012, 09:40 AM
Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.
reducing annual salary is one of the ways to maintain flexibility.

xIndyFan
07-04-2012, 09:49 AM
Then, as I said, they exceeded the overall value of what he was offered. I have as much of an issue with the 5 years as I do with the per year number. Locking up a role player for 5 years is bad business, IMO. Lock in your core guys and maintain flexibility around them. That is what SAS have done for years and why they were smart enough to let Hill go. And if Hill is part of our core then this team is in big trouble, IMO. Hill should be a complimentary role player. No more.

i tend to agree with your thinking on the value of Hill. He is a good combo guard. not really a PG but able to play the point.

But maybe the Front Office sees him differently. Maybe they see him as a guy that can start on a good team. Maybe he is part of the core. If so, locking him up for 5 yrs is a smart idea. He is the ideal player in everything except skill. Works hard, plays hard every night, doesn't care if he starts or not, good in the community, all those intangible things.

I agree that the silence about the total amount is a sign the amount is higher than we think. or maybe they just don't want anyone else offering an extra $5M or so between now and the 11th. :whoknows:

rm1369
07-04-2012, 09:55 AM
reducing annual salary is one of the ways to maintain flexibility.

I guess we just disagree. I would have thought the Murphleaevy years would have taught the franchise that an extra year matters. IMO it matters more than an extra mil per year savings. You can't seriously believe someone offered GH more than that can you? Oh well, congrats to the Pacers - they've solved there backup PG position for the next 5 years. Now if only they could find a starter......

ballism
07-04-2012, 10:00 AM
I guess we just disagree. I would have thought the Murphleaevy years would have taught the franchise that an extra year matters. IMO it matters more than an extra mil per year savings. You can't seriously believe someone offered GH more than that can you? Oh well, congrats to the Pacers - they've solved there backup PG position for the next 5 years. Now if only they could find a starter......
is it a good or a bad deal for Hill as a player, that's an entirely different topic. now is Hill as a player worth 5/~38? i don't know. anyway, I think it's way too early to go there yet. we don't even know if the 5th year is guaranteed.

what i disagree with, it's this post, where you said that the 5th year somehow shows they overpaid compared to the market, or didn't do their research:

In large part because he signed for 5 years. So either the Pacers exceeded the market (at least in overall value) or the market was never set.

it's entirely possible some team called and inquired about 4/32.
heck, maybe even 3/27. If you are the Cavs or the Bobcats, why wouldn't you do that? You need exactly someone like Hill, your rookies are locked up for another 3 years, you don't need your cap yet, if you can slightly overpay him now and acquire his Bird rights in 3 years, it makes perfect sense.

if we had to match that, we'd be screwed. Goodbye midlevels in the near future.

rm1369
07-04-2012, 10:14 AM
is it a good or a bad deal for Hill as a player, that's an entirely different topic.

i disagree with this post, where you said that the 5th year somehow means they overpayed compared to the market, or didn't research it.:

I said then they exceeded the overall value of the contract - unless you believe someone offered GH 4 /40, then the statements accurate. Per year numbers are only part of a consideration for a contract. People keep wanting to offer as many years as possible to try to lower the per year cap hit for Roy and GH. That's a very good way to get into cap hell IMO. Unless the cap savings are significant (they rarely are), IMO, the shorter contract is better. Regardless, I don't believe GH is worth 8 mil per year for 4 or 5 years.

ballism
07-04-2012, 10:18 AM
I said then they exceeded the overall value of the contract - unless you believe someone offered GH 4 /40, then the statements accurate.

it is accurate in the sense that an extra year = more overall money. but you present it as incompetence by the Pacers, which it does not necessarily mean.

rm1369
07-04-2012, 10:32 AM
it is accurate in the sense that an extra year = more overall money. but you present it as incompetence by the Pacers, which it does not necessarily mean.

Look, i disagree with paying GH that much money for that long. And that is regardless of whether or not he received a max offer, no offer, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that he was offered anything at this point and I certainly can't prove a negative, so whatever. If disagreeing with the FO is equal to stating they are incompetent, then fine. I state my opinion because when we are dying to trade his overpaid *** in 2 years, people can't start telling me it's hindsight when I criticize the deal. And if he earns his money, then i have no problem stating Im wrong. If you want justify the deal because maybe someone could have possibly offered him that much, we just don't know - go ahead.

DrFife
07-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Guesses seem to indicate a '12-'13 salary of around $6.75M, which IMO is not at all unreasonable. He's got everything going for him (young, healthy, versatile, classy)--especially here in Indiana--except star quality, so we want him to be a part of our core whether he's a starter or a 6th man. I think locking him up is a sound decision.

LucasRL13
07-04-2012, 11:01 AM
among the players who got deals this week were: Landry Fields, Mirza Teletovic, Omer Asik.
Not every "priority target" is a superstar. There are many with some room, and only a handful of bigger names, and not everyone is going after them.

Teletovic will be the new "Dirk Nowitzki" believe in me, Teletovic has been the best player in Europe more than once, and the best scorer, and is the best 3pt shooter i've seen in Europe

ballism
07-04-2012, 11:02 AM
Look, i disagree with paying GH that much money for that long.
i just disagree with your initial statement, which is very different from your current statement.
maybe you didn't read into xBulletproof post before you opposed it, i don't know, but I thought it was a fair point so i replied. what you are saying now ("Hill is not good enough") is unrelated to that discussion.

now is he good enough, is it a good deal or not, i don't know.
and i would say neither of us does. there are many variables:

- do we still want to use all cap this summer?
if yes, then we can't sign Hill at 8 mil starting salary, it would put us over tax. 6-7 mil, that gives us breathing room.

- does he stay healthy? he should still be in his prime in 5 years, but who knows.

- what about resigning Tyler, DC, West or using next year's midlevel? Even if we don't use the cap, 1-2 mil could mean significant flexibility for us.

That's what FO has to plan for. It's not as simple as "Dunleavy had a long deal, it was bad, lets not give anyone else a long deal".

wintermute
07-04-2012, 11:06 AM
among the players who got deals this week were: Landry Fields, Mirza Teletovic, Omer Asik.
Not every "priority target" is a superstar. There are many teams with some room, and only a handful of bigger names, and not everyone is going after them.

I didn't say only superstars get signed. I said just about everyone is getting overpaid this week.

Now, I don't know anything about Teletovic, but you don't think an average of $6.7m for Fields and $8.3m for Asik isn't overpaying?

ballism
07-04-2012, 11:11 AM
Teletovic will be the new "Dirk Nowitzki" believe in me, Teletovic has been the best player in Europe more than once, and the best scorer, and is the best 3pt shooter i've seen in Europe

more likely a smaller, lower motor version of Ryan Anderson. i wonder who and why made that decision. he'd be nice next to Dwight, but he seems like a horrific fit next to Lopez.

ballism
07-04-2012, 11:13 AM
I didn't say only superstars get signed. I said just about everyone is getting overpaid this week.

Now, I don't know anything about Teletovic, but you don't think an average of $6.7m for Fields and $8.3m for Asik isn't overpaying?

sure. my point was --- who's to say that George Hill wasn't someone's "priority target".

rm1369
07-04-2012, 11:39 AM
is it a good or a bad deal for Hill as a player, that's an entirely different topic. now is Hill as a player worth 5/~38? i don't know. anyway, I think it's way too early to go there yet. we don't even know if the 5th year is guaranteed.

what i disagree with, it's this post, where you said that the 5th year somehow shows they overpaid compared to the market, or didn't do their research:


it's entirely possible some team called and inquired about 4/32.
heck, maybe even 3/27. If you are the Cavs or the Bobcats, why wouldn't you do that? You need exactly someone like Hill, your rookies are locked up for another 3 years, you don't need your cap yet, if you can years, it makes perfect sense.

if we had to match that, we'd be screwed. Goodbye midlevels in the near future.

I didn't see this post prior to my previous reply. Let me clarify my position. I assumed they set there own contract because no one else can offer a 5 th year. Ultimately you are correct that it is possible they added a 5th year to lower the annual cap number of someone elses shorter offer. We have heard nothing to indicate that, but it is possible. Either way I believe it to be a mistake - either setting there own price or extending to 5 years to slightly lower the overall cap hit. I don't believe it wise to be locked in for 5 years to a backup PG - however we got here. This is of course assuming the contract is 5/40 as is being suggested.

vnzla81
07-04-2012, 12:43 PM
@AlexKennedyNBA: George Hill's five-year deal with the Indiana Pacers is worth $40 million, according to league source.


8 mil a year damn.

Il Ragionier Ugo Fantozzi
07-04-2012, 12:45 PM
Too much.

Psyren
07-04-2012, 12:48 PM
Waaaay too much

vnzla81
07-04-2012, 12:59 PM
I think this means that he is our starting point guard next year, you don't pay that kind of money for a backup.

Sparhawk
07-04-2012, 01:00 PM
I think I'd rather offer Dragic that contract.

Oh well.

LoneGranger33
07-04-2012, 01:03 PM
Put me on the list of people who think this is a mistake. Too much, too long.

aamcguy
07-04-2012, 01:05 PM
Barring us surprising the world and signing Steve Nash, I believe you are correct. And unless we sign a really good backup 3 or a starting caliber 2, I think Hill will get full starters minutes and DC will spend about half of his time at the SG spot playing with Hill.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 01:08 PM
That's about what I figured. A little high, but nothing outrageous. I was hoping for 35, so I won't cry because it crept up to 38 or 40. It's not like we lost our minds and gave him 50 or anything wild.

Anyone who thinks overpaying him by 1 or 1.5 a year is going to somehow break our team is crazy.


I don't feel it will break the team, but I feel it's ridiculous to overpay Hill not to mention give him a 5 year contract. I've said this all along that Hill isn't the answer at PG, nor will the Pacers win a championship with him at PG. I wouldn't have paid that type of money to Dragic, who I really wanted. As far as I'm concerned, there are too many people in love with Hill, b/c he's a Pacer. I've said it b4 and I'll say it again that if Hill was as great as so many feel then Pop and Buford would have figured out how to come up with the money to re-sign Hill. They let him go and never missed a beat with players like Neal, not drafted, and Green, 46th pick. Not to mention getting a starter in Kawhi Leonard. They had to fall out of their chairs rolling in laughter when they heard the deal the Pacers gave Hill.

I'm not surprised in the least with Hill's "5 year" contract with Walsh in control. What's next give Hibbert a 5 year max contract instead of matching Portland's offer?

LoneGranger33
07-04-2012, 01:12 PM
This will look much worse if Darren Collison retakes the starting spot during training camp, or when George Hill misses a game to injury and DC arbitrarily becomes the permanent starter.

aamcguy
07-04-2012, 01:14 PM
I don't feel it will break the team, but I feel it's ridiculous to overpay Hill not to mention give him a 5 year contract. I've said this all along that Hill isn't the answer at PG, nor will the Pacers win a championship with him at PG. I wouldn't have paid that type of money to Dragic, who I really wanted. As far as I'm concerned, there are too many people in love with Hill, b/c he's a Pacer. I've said it b4 and I'll say it again that if Hill was as great as so many feel then Pop and Buford would have figured out how to come up with the money to re-sign Hill. They let him go and never missed a beat with players like Neal, not drafted, and Green, 46th pick. Not to mention getting a starter in Kawhi Leonard. They had to fall out of their chairs rolling in laughter when they heard the deal the Pacers gave Hill.

I'm not surprised in the least with Hill's "5 year" contract with Walsh in control. What's next give Hibbert a 5 year max contract instead of matching Portland's offer?


I would argue that there are very few players who have gone to San Antonio in the Tim Duncan era and not played some of the best basketball of their lives. They have had a stellar coach, system, and superstars in place for 15 years now.

imawhat
07-04-2012, 01:18 PM
Anyone who thinks overpaying him by 1 or 1.5 a year is going to somehow break our team is crazy.

It's more about the 1.5 going to another player than it is about overpaying for Hill.

$8M is a lot to pay unless Hill is our future at PG, and even then it's a pretty penny. That's more than the Grizzlies gave Conley. Maybe the market would've dictated that price, but you have to at least see how it plays out (and yes, that's an assumption on the market).

Kraft
07-04-2012, 01:27 PM
$8M is a lot to pay unless Hill is our future at PG, and even then it's a pretty penny. That's more than the Grizzlies gave Conley.

It actually looks like exactly what Conley got if you look at the total contract.

aamcguy
07-04-2012, 01:29 PM
It is more than I would have liked to pay.

However, you have to think that they have a guy still out there in the FA market they really want to bring in. They know that paying Hill 8 mil a year (and perhaps it's possible it's a bit heavier backloaded as a concession to the high price) will still allow them to get their target. It also gets them a quite definite amount to work with without having to worry about losing a guy who they obviously like.

They know they can sign Hibbert + Hill and have X millions to work with.
Or they know they can work with Hibbert's contract + MLE to sign a replacement center and their target.

They are saying Hill will be a major plan with this rendition of the Pacers, and I am okay with that.

xIndyFan
07-04-2012, 01:30 PM
@AlexKennedyNBA: George Hill's five-year deal with the Indiana Pacers is worth $40 million, according to league source.


8 mil a year damn.

if your source is correct, the yearly numbers would be

1st - 7.0M [6.95]
2nd - 7.5M
3rd - 8M
4th - 8.5M
5th - 9.0M [9.04]

It is my understanding the last year is team option. Is that correct? if so it makes the guarantee less than 8. Even lower if the last 2 yrs are team option.

Speed
07-04-2012, 01:33 PM
if your source is correct, the yearly numbers would be

1st - 7.0M [6.95]
2nd - 7.5M
3rd - 8M
4th - 8.5M
5th - 9.0M [9.04]

It is my understanding the last year is team option. Is that correct? if so it makes the guarantee less than 8. Even lower if the last 2 yrs are team option.

I actually think this is fair.

wintermute
07-04-2012, 01:36 PM
It's more about the 1.5 going to another player than it is about overpaying for Hill.

$8M is a lot to pay unless Hill is our future at PG, and even then it's a pretty penny. That's more than the Grizzlies gave Conley. Maybe the market would've dictated that price, but you have to at least see how it plays out (and yes, that's an assumption on the market).

Yeah, I'm more worried that the Pacers FO seems to think Hill should be our starter at PG. He could work there, but only with the right backcourt partner I think. And I don't think Paul G is going to develop into that guy.

Anyway, let's wait for more reputable reports. Mike Wells tweeted earlier that he heard different numbers on GH's contract so he wasn't going to speculate. Hard to think that a Hoopsworld writer would scoop him.

Shade
07-04-2012, 01:38 PM
****ing Donnie Walsh does it again.

vnzla81
07-04-2012, 01:42 PM
Look I love George Hill and wanted him to start and all but damn 8mil is really high for him, why not try to trade for a guy who I think is similar in Jarret Jack that makes less money and call it a day? I don't understand what's this team doing :confused:

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 01:51 PM
Lowry isn't going to be a b/u in Houston. Linsanity isn't coming at the salary Houston offer to be a b/u. Lowry will be traded. He has a 5 mil contract, and he's a better PG than Hill. Houston is intersted in picks and cap. Hmmm, how about offering the 013 20 something pick and 5 mil cap? Throw in Stanko or Stephenson if necessary. No reason to have immediately offered Hill a ridiculous 5 year contract. If Hill doesn't cut it, how many teams are interest in trading for a 5 year contract? It becomes an albatross to try and trade when Hill isn't that good.

Ace E.Anderson
07-04-2012, 01:58 PM
Look I love George Hill and wanted him to start and all but damn 8mil is really high for him, why not try to trade for a guy who I think is similar in Jarret Jack that makes less money and call it a day? I don't understand what's this team doing :confused:


I still say we don't know FOR SURE what Hill was paid. (unless i missed the report) We have to look at the overall contract to figure out if he was overpaid. I forgot our exact record when he played as opposed to when he didnt, but there was a significant difference. Guys like Jeremy Lin are getting 8 mil a yr, Dragix lookin for 10 mil a yr. I don't think they're better than G.Hill. They may bring different things to the table, but they're not better. Definitely not significantly better. So if he made between 7.6 and 8 mil a yr, did we really overpay?

All in all let's wait for the exact details of the contract be released first, then dissect it. (and if the numbers have already been reported, I'm sorry--i didn't see it)

wintermute
07-04-2012, 02:06 PM
All in all let's wait for the exact details of the contract be released first, then dissect it. (and if the numbers have already been reported, I'm sorry--i didn't see it)

vnzla81 posted a report from Hoopsworld a few posts up. Supposedly 5 years/$40m. I'll wait for Mike Wells to confirm it though before going ape **** :)

ballism
07-04-2012, 02:08 PM
Lowry

Hmmm, how about offering the 013 20 something pick and 5 mil cap? Throw in Stanko or Stephenson if necessary.
if you catch Morey on a day he wants to get fired...

OlBlu
07-04-2012, 02:09 PM
vnzla81 posted a report from Hoopsworld a few posts up. Supposedly 5 years/$40m. I'll wait for Mike Wells to confirm it though before going ape **** :)

Why wait? Someone made Hill an offer and he went to the Pacers with it. They made it a little better and signed him. They decided they wanted to keep him and I thought all along it would take about $8 million per year to keep him......:cool:

docpaul
07-04-2012, 02:13 PM
Starting at 7 million even and giving routine 7.5% yearly raises, you get to 40 million over 5 years.

http://pgb.me/pacercap

Sounds about right. A little rich for the player, but it's the middle ground of what he was offered during the trade deadline (deal starting at 6m/year), and what he asked for (deal starting at 8m/year).

Nothing too surprising. I'm not convinced he's our long term answer at the 1, but I could easily see him as a long term answer as a starting 2.

I seriously think that this re-signing means that Granger's time as a Pacer is coming to a close, whether that's either following his current contract or sooner. Paul George will most certainly move to the 3.

1: ??? / Stephenson
2: Hill / Johnson
3: George / ???
4: ??? / Hansbrough / Pendergraph
5: Hibbert / Plumlee

Ace E.Anderson
07-04-2012, 02:29 PM
vnzla81 posted a report from Hoopsworld a few posts up. Supposedly 5 years/$40m. I'll wait for Mike Wells to confirm it though before going ape **** :)

Recent contract comparisons:

Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

Dragic expects 10mil/yr
Lin expects 8mil/yr

Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.

CableKC
07-04-2012, 02:32 PM
I think I'd rather offer Dragic that contract.

Oh well.
Dragic turned that offer down from the Rockets. He's asking for $10 mil a year.

CableKC
07-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Okay....assuming that GH is our Starting PG....then is DC best suited to be our Backup PG for the long-term?

or

Should we look to trade him ( his contract is up after this season ) and look for something else?

aamcguy
07-04-2012, 02:34 PM
Before he played really well last year, Mike Conley's 8 mil a year deal seemed like an overpay. We will see what we think of Hill after the year :)

OlBlu
07-04-2012, 02:34 PM
Sign him, he is an adequate backup who could start if injuries require it......:cool:

Kuq_e_Zi91
07-04-2012, 02:40 PM
I'm okay with this deal. But that might just be all the years of paying Murphleavy skewing my judgment.

I'd rather have Hill than Dragic (who wants 10 mil) or Lowry (whose defense is terrible) and Lin's Rockets offer sheet was 4/40 (with the final two years at $15 mil per). Plus none of these players can slide over and play the two if necessary. Also, it doesn't matter who starts between him and Collison, because Hill's playing at least 30 minutes regardless. We'll probably see Frank ride the hot hand or the better matchup to finish the game, as he did the past season.

I don't see why this affects Granger or George at the 3. PG slides over to spell Granger at the 3. Collison can play the one and Hill can play the two. Or Hill can play the one and the guard we bring in (Mayo, for example) can play the two. And finally, you can play Collison and Mayo with PG at the 3.

You're paying $8 mil for a versatile player; a good three point shooter, a good perimeter defender, a hard worker, a competitor, and someone good in the community. If you find the player you like, who also fits what you're looking for and provides your coach with flexibility in regard to lineups and matchups, why not lock him up? Worst case scenario, it's not like his contract is not tradeable.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 02:42 PM
Recent contract comparisons:

Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

Dragic expects 10mil/yr
Lin expects 8mil/yr

Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.


YES! Conley is a better PG.

Hinrich OVERPAID!

Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?

wintermute
07-04-2012, 02:53 PM
Recent contract comparisons:

Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

Dragic expects 10mil/yr
Lin expects 8mil/yr

Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of GH. I guess my problem with the contract is that I see Hill as a super sub/sixth man type rather than as a starting PG. That to me is worth a little less.

Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.

At the end of the day though, I'm happy we're keeping Hill. I just don't think we played the situation right if we're paying 5/$40m - that's almost certainly an overpay, even if it's just slightly as you argued.

Ace E.Anderson
07-04-2012, 02:56 PM
YES! Conley is a better PG.

Hinrich OVERPAID!

Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?

Hill is a better shooter, scorer, defender, and is more versatile. Conley is a better passer, and may be better at running the team, but the Griz aren't a very efficient offensive team, so idk how much better at that he is.

But positions aside, is he a better PLAYER? No he is not

Ace E.Anderson
07-04-2012, 02:59 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of GH. I guess my problem with the contract is that I see Hill as a super sub/sixth man type rather than as a starting PG. That to me is worth a little less.

Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.

At the end of the day though, I'm happy we're keeping Hill. I just don't think we played the situation right if we're paying 5/$40m - that's almost certainly an overpay, even if it's just slightly as you argued.

I'd agree with everything you said. Unfortunately we don't have any better options, so Hill is going to have to improve and become a good starting PG of we're going to be successful. He's fairly young still at only 24, so he's not even close to his prime just yet.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:08 PM
Too much.

I agree here...


Waaaay too much

... but not here. I think 7 would have been fair. This isn't that far off. If he improves at all it becomes fair. If not, oh well. I'm not going to lose sleep over 1m per year on our starting PG.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:12 PM
This will look much worse if Darren Collison retakes the starting spot during training camp, or when George Hill misses a game to injury and DC arbitrarily becomes the permanent starter.

I'll believe it when I see it.

ballism
07-04-2012, 03:14 PM
Another problem I have is why we rushed out to sign a slightly overvalued contract when we have RFA matching rights as leverage. If another team is making an offer then we can just be patient and let them sweat for a while, as with Hibbert.

what if another team offers a similar deal, but front-loads it? Lets say, it starts at 9 mil a year and goes down. that hurts us pretty badly. we wouldn't be able to use some of our cap.

what if some team decides to offer a bigger but shorter deal? He's not overpaid that much now; so what if someone really overpays? Do we just let him go? That clears 4 mil cap, so I guess we could add Steve Blake.

with Hibbert it's easy. he won't take anything under the max, we wait for him to get the max, we match it. With Hill it's more difficult.
We overpaid a little bit, but who's to say we wouldn't have been screwed otherwise on July 11th.

If Pritchard didn't do his due diligence here, that's one thing. But I don't know how we can assume that. If anything, so far he's been maniacal when it comes to probing and researching the market.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:16 PM
It's more about the 1.5 going to another player than it is about overpaying for Hill.

$8M is a lot to pay unless Hill is our future at PG, and even then it's a pretty penny. That's more than the Grizzlies gave Conley. Maybe the market would've dictated that price, but you have to at least see how it plays out (and yes, that's an assumption on the market).

The odds of this small bump biting us in the *** are so small I just don't care, personally. If in some bizarre scenario we just HAD to shed 1.5m off the books, there are ways of doing that with end of bench players; a very small sacrifice to have to make. This is especially non-threatening now that we are operating in the era of the stretch provision, which is a pseudo get-out-of-jail-free card:

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/nba-stretch-provision-may-mean-more-bad-contracts/

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:18 PM
Look I love George Hill and wanted him to start and all but damn 8mil is really high for him, why not try to trade for a guy who I think is similar in Jarret Jack that makes less money and call it a day? I don't understand what's this team doing :confused:

Hill is better than Jack. More range on his jumper, can play the SG more legitimately than Jack ever could, longer wingspan, more athletic, can play with or without the ball.

Pacersalltheway10
07-04-2012, 03:19 PM
This will most likely be the biggest move the Pacers make this offseason.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:20 PM
Lowry isn't going to be a b/u in Houston. Linsanity isn't coming at the salary Houston offer to be a b/u. Lowry will be traded. He has a 5 mil contract, and he's a better PG than Hill. Houston is intersted in picks and cap. Hmmm, how about offering the 013 20 something pick and 5 mil cap? Throw in Stanko or Stephenson if necessary. No reason to have immediately offered Hill a ridiculous 5 year contract. If Hill doesn't cut it, how many teams are interest in trading for a 5 year contract? It becomes an albatross to try and trade when Hill isn't that good.

Yeesh, you make it sound like we just signed Dunleavy to his old contract. Better player, better contract, more important position he plays.

Gamble1
07-04-2012, 03:21 PM
The odds of this small bump biting us in the *** are so small I just don't care, personally. If in some bizarre scenario we just HAD to shed 1.5m off the books, there are ways of doing that with end of bench players; a very small sacrifice to have to make. This is especially non-threatening now that we are operating in the era of the stretch provision, which is a pseudo get-out-of-jail-free card:

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/11/28/nba-stretch-provision-may-mean-more-bad-contracts/

Here is my problem... We TRADED FOR HILL so lets just add that in there to his cost as well. He is a average pg in this league and there is nothing wrong with that but again we shouldnt' get in the habit in overpaying for guys. Collectively that does bite you in the hind end.

From a FO postion we could have signed Mayo or HIll and still had a lotto player in Leonard. I guess there is a reason why the spurs are the spurs and the Pacers are the Pacers.

Doddage
07-04-2012, 03:22 PM
YES! Conley is a better PG.

Hinrich OVERPAID!

Who gave Felton that contract? Was it Walsh when Felton was in NY?
Yeah, Walsh signed him. Wasn't a bad signing considering Felton's level of play in NY (obviously D'Antoni was a factor here).

Chuck Chillout
07-04-2012, 03:22 PM
Hill has excellent length, is a good shooter, a decent scorer, a strong defender, has decent court vision, is a good passer, has an excellent pedigree, has some swagger to his game, is mature, can play 2 positions, and is just about to enter his prime. It appears we got him for market value. I'm glad we're going to lock him up for 5 years.

He's not an elite PG, but no one's giving those up. If we've solidified our PG position for the foreseeable future, I'm happy. Now we can go out and improve the rest of the roster.

idioteque
07-04-2012, 03:23 PM
This is by no means an overpay, much less a significant one. If we ever trade Danny/Paul for any kind of substantial upgrade, Hill is also capable of starting at the 2, don't forget that.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:25 PM
You can't just erase last season; we traded because we wanted him immediately, not to be without him last year and then hope to sign him now, which is not a given we could have done (for one thing, we couldn't have offered 5 years, for another, whatever team he played for would have him as a restricted free agent, and if that weren't enough, who knows how different his comfort level with playing for Indy was before/after he spent a season with us).

Gamble1
07-04-2012, 03:32 PM
You can't just erase last season; we traded because we wanted him immediately, not to be without him last year and then hope to sign him now, which is not a given we could have done (for one thing, we couldn't have offered 5 years, for another, whatever team he played for would have him as a restricted free agent, and if that weren't enough, who knows how different his comfort level with playing for Indy was before/after he spent a season with us).

You honestly believe another team would have forked over 8 million for him and he would have chose them over INDY.

I mean look at the teams the Pacers are competing against for a pg. ITs hard for me to beleive that another Pacer type team in need of a pg would look at HIll's production and want to spend 8 million on him. HE IS AVERAGE AT BEST AS A STARTING PG.

BringJackBack
07-04-2012, 03:32 PM
There are multiple factors about George Hill that makes the 'overpay' not so sour. First of all, he is comfortable in any role and does his work with no complaints.

Second of all, he can fill multiple roles. He can be the sixth man, backup wing, backup point guard, or starting point guard. On top of that, he's a very good defender and good shooter, very good two way player. He's different than TJ Ford, Mike Conley, Devin Harris-type contracts because he is very versatile.

Say we want to get Brandon Roy this offseason. Hill can be the starting one. Get a point guard at the deadline. Hill is now the backup point. If Roy has to re-retire due to knee issues, Hill is now the sixth man once again. We go out and get a veteran pass first point guard to fill the backup one spot. Now Hill has his minutes as the backup two... He is just versatile.

3rdStrike
07-04-2012, 03:35 PM
I'd prefer $7m/per but really what's the difference? He's a good player. He's young. He's a local product. Not a bad deal, if not a great one.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 03:38 PM
You honestly believe another team would have forked over 8 million for him and he would have chose them over INDY.

I mean look at the teams the Pacers are competing against for a pg. ITs hard for me to beleive that another Pacer type team in need of a pg would look at HIll's production and want to spend 8 million on him. HE IS AVERAGE AT BEST AS A STARTING PG.

Nothing would surprise me. And you're so sure his team wouldn't match whatever 4 year deal we'd offer?

idioteque
07-04-2012, 03:45 PM
The PD advocacy for the Pacers having a $30 milllion payroll continues

croz24
07-04-2012, 05:49 PM
Recent contract comparisons:

Conley: 5yrs 40mil(8yr)
Stuckey: 3yr 25mil(8.3yr)
Felton: 2yrs, 15.8mil (7.9yr)
Hinrich: 5yr 47.5mil(9.5yr)

Dragic expects 10mil/yr
Lin expects 8mil/yr

Obviously there are other comparisons where there were better contract terms for the team, but are any of those guys better than Hill? No. So even though id rather see rhat figure become 7.2-7.6/yr, I guess I don't think he's overpaid by much.

People just don't get it. Nearly every team in the league has a "George Hill" on the squad. Combo guards are a dime a dozen and it makes little to no sense to pay one anything over $5mil per season unless he's elite, and there are very few of those. The Pacers have far more pressing needs than overpaying someone who can be easily replaced by the next Hill, Lowry, Lin, Dragic, Collison, Lou Will, Mayo, Crawford, West, etc.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 06:02 PM
Who are these 'other George Hill' players, to you? The ones that are just as good as he is? I'm doubtful.

cgg
07-04-2012, 06:05 PM
Offensive combo guards are a time a dozen. Defensive combo guards not exactly. 8M is just not that bad for a 30mpg player whether he comes off the bench or starts.

BringJackBack
07-04-2012, 06:09 PM
Actually, I would bet you a million dollars that we are the only team in the NBA with a George Hill.

PacerPenguins
07-04-2012, 06:27 PM
he's worth it. plays offense and defense, great to the city, good role model, will only grow from what we saw last year, now that he's the starter and has an offseason under his belt he will improve

idioteque
07-04-2012, 06:49 PM
Who are these 'other George Hill' players, to you? The ones that are just as good as he is? I'm doubtful.

Exactly, I am still waiting on some names, like I presume Hicks is

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:00 PM
[QUOTE=Ace E.Anderson;1472021]

I'd agree with everything you said. Unfortunately we don't have any better options /QUOTE]


WHAT?

Lowry
Felton
Sessions

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:03 PM
what if another team offers a similar deal, but front-loads it? Lets say, it starts at 9 mil a year and goes down. that hurts us pretty badly. we wouldn't be able to use some of our cap.

what if some team decides to offer a bigger but shorter deal? He's not overpaid that much now; so what if someone really overpays? Do we just let him go? That clears 4 mil cap, so I guess we could add Steve Blake.

with Hibbert it's easy. he won't take anything under the max, we wait for him to get the max, we match it. With Hill it's more difficult.
We overpaid a little bit, but who's to say we wouldn't have been screwed otherwise on July 11th.

If Pritchard didn't do his due diligence here, that's one thing. But I don't know how we can assume that. If anything, so far he's been maniacal when it comes to probing and researching the market.



What makes you think this contract is KP's? It smells like Walsh all the way.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:09 PM
Yeesh, you make it sound like we just signed Dunleavy to his old contract. Better player, better contract, more important position he plays.


Lowry has a far better contract than Hill has been offered, and he's a better PG. What's wrong getting a better PG at a cheaper salary? If it was Lowry in a Pacers uni, people would be laughing at Hill's offer.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:11 PM
Here is my problem... We TRADED FOR HILL so lets just add that in there to his cost as well. He is a average pg in this league and there is nothing wrong with that but again we shouldnt' get in the habit in overpaying for guys. Collectively that does bite you in the hind end.

From a FO postion we could have signed Mayo or HIll and still had a lotto player in Leonard. I guess there is a reason why the spurs are the spurs and the Pacers are the Pacers.


Well said.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:15 PM
Hill has excellent length, is a good shooter, a decent scorer, a strong defender, has decent court vision, is a good passer, has an excellent pedigree, has some swagger to his game, is mature, can play 2 positions, and is just about to enter his prime. It appears we got him for market value. I'm glad we're going to lock him up for 5 years.

He's not an elite PG, but no one's giving those up. If we've solidified our PG position for the foreseeable future, I'm happy. Now we can go out and improve the rest of the roster.



Yeah, Hill's "D" was so good on Nelson that Vogel had to take Hill out and put DC on Nelson so as to contain 5'10" Nelson.

ballism
07-04-2012, 07:17 PM
What makes you think this contract is KP's? It smells like Walsh all the way.

what does Pritchard smell like, and what does Walsh smell like?

i assume both have impact. Pritch was here for a while, he helped bring Hill in, I don't see any reason to think he's not a part of this.

ballism
07-04-2012, 07:21 PM
Lowry has a far better contract than Hill has been offered, and he's a better PG. What's wrong getting a better PG at a cheaper salary? If it was Lowry in a Pacers uni, people would be laughing at Hill's offer.

I don't see how it's an argument. Are the Rockets giving him away for peanuts? If they were, we'd already have him. Or if not us, then someone else.

It's like saying Gortat or Horford is great value compared to Hibbert. True, but so what.

Justin Tyme
07-04-2012, 07:35 PM
what does Pritchard smell like, and what does Walsh smell like?

i assume both have impact. Pritch was here for a while, he helped bring Hill in, I don't see any reason to think he's not a part of this.



Hill was BIRD's fascination, not Pritchard's. Bird was the driving force to get Hill, and what makes you think it's Pritchard's call on how much to pay Hill.

Walsh smells like Cro's contract, Tinjury's contact, Bender's contract. All overpaid and putrid! Sniff sniff. This is the exact reason I was so adamant about not wanting Walsh back in charge. Walsh has a record of overpaying Pacer players.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 08:29 PM
Exactly, I am still waiting on some names, like I presume Hicks is

I'm expecting players that do some of the things Hill does, but not ALL of the things Hill does. He's not just a combo guard, he's one of the better combo guards. He plays both sides of the floor, can play two positions, plays well with or without the ball. Shoots well and can do some slashing. Can catch and shoot and shoot off the dribble. Not to mention he's intelligent, not afraid of clutch plays, seems to get along with his teammates. Oh, and seems to be low maintenance, a model citizen, and to want to be here.

But other than all that in one package, yeah, a dime a dozen.

I'm not trying to make him sound better than he is, but I hate when people try to downplay things like this.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 08:30 PM
I'd agree with everything you said. Unfortunately we don't have any better options


WHAT?

Lowry
Felton
Sessions

Lowry is so awesome and cheap Houston seems to be going out of their way to find something different (offering Dragic 8per, and also Lin) and they were trying to flip him into a draft pick last week; methinks there is more than meets the eye with him, and it's probably bad. Raymond Felton is interesting, but I don't know that he's superior to Hill. Certainly coming off a bad season. Ramon Sessions? What's special about him, exactly?

Hicks
07-04-2012, 08:32 PM
Yeah, Hill's "D" was so good on Nelson that Vogel had to take Hill out and put DC on Nelson so as to contain 5'10" Nelson.

He was being screened to death by one of the better screen and roll teams using one of the better screen and roll point guards. It wasn't like it was a bunch of one on one. Not a shock that he struggled in that scenario. Teams use screens for a reason -- they work!

The Future
07-04-2012, 08:34 PM
Wow!

Unbelievable...

5 years 40 million??? Is the FO insane?

This is too much for a SG playing PG while dribbling the clock out nearly every possession in the playoffs vs the Heat...

We should have traded for a better PG in Lowry with a much reasonable contract, he can atleast dish out assists with good company..

I cant believe this and I'm completely disgusted by this signing.

There goes the flexible salary we had and we're done making impact signings such as Beasley/Mayo/a REAL PG/etc).

Sookie
07-04-2012, 08:47 PM
I don't agree with everything you said.

But first of all, if we give Hill essentially 8 million a year to play out of position, we better pay Roy.

I think this really qualifies as over paying.

I love George Hill, but he's not a point guard..and we've basically locked him in as our starting point guard...unless he gets moved back to the position he should be (third guard..and even then..we should try and keep him away from backup point) So..Jason Terry's role...who is currently going to be paid 5 million for 3 years.

ballism
07-04-2012, 08:57 PM
Lowry is so awesome and cheap Houston seems to be going out of their way to find something different (offering Dragic 8per, and also Lin) and they were trying to flip him into a draft pick last week; methinks there is more than meets the eye with him, and it's probably bad.

in all fairness, they wanted to trade him in a deal for a #5 pick. it was something like Lowry and a few mid picks for Tyreke and #5. and Lowry and a pick for Hayes and #5. that's not going out of their way.
they are trading him partly because he asked for it, and partly because he's so underpaid and his value is great. But they won't just flip him for our pick or scraps.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 09:21 PM
in all fairness, they wanted to trade him in a deal for a #5 pick. it was something like Lowry and a few mid picks for Tyreke and #5. and Lowry and a pick for Hayes and #5. that's not going out of their way.
they are trading him partly because he asked for it, and partly because he's so underpaid and his value is great. But they won't just flip him for our pick or scraps.

That's fair, but what still doesn't add up is why they offered Dragic $8m when they should be looking for a backup PG, or why they're now offering Lin a similar deal. Something doesn't add up.

ballism
07-04-2012, 09:37 PM
That's fair, but what still doesn't add up is why they offered Dragic $8m when they should be looking for a backup PG, or why they're now offering Lin a similar deal. Something doesn't add up.

Well, Lowry is severely underpaid for two more years. Until then, he's their best trading chip, and they are openly shopping for a franchise player. But they need a long term starting point.

jeffg-body
07-04-2012, 09:39 PM
I like the signing myself. GH is coming into his prime years and we were able to lock him up for 5 more. I have no problem with him starting at the 1 spot, especially if DC gets some good minutes per game. Guys that have the skill set at both ends of the floor are not as common as people think. When I first looked at it I was a little stirred by the 8 per year, but it compares to players in similar position and roles. Hopefully we can get Roy matched and possibly acquire another player that may be a young big or explosiveness coming off of the bench.

docpaul
07-04-2012, 09:42 PM
I don't agree with everything you said.

But first of all, if we give Hill essentially 8 million a year to play out of position, we better pay Roy.

I think this really qualifies as over paying.

I love George Hill, but he's not a point guard..and we've basically locked him in as our starting point guard...unless he gets moved back to the position he should be (third guard..and even then..we should try and keep him away from backup point) So..Jason Terry's role...who is currently going to be paid 5 million for 3 years.

I continue to believe that this dynamic totally changes once Granger is gone. Hill will slide to the 2, George will slide to the 3.

Hicks
07-04-2012, 09:47 PM
Well, Lowry is severely underpaid for two more years. Until then, he's their best trading chip, and they are openly shopping for a franchise player. But they need a long term starting point.

So they're going to pay someone else starter money while they still have Lowry because the hope to trade Lowry in a bigger trade for a franchise player? I don't get it. That's hardly a certainty to work out well. If/when it doesn't pan out, he's going to whine his way off of the roster. Why? If he's so good and cheap, why not just keep him and figure out something that improves the team while keep your nice/cheap starting PG?

ballism
07-04-2012, 10:15 PM
So they're going to pay someone else starter money while they still have Lowry because the hope to trade Lowry in a bigger trade for a franchise player? I don't get it. That's hardly a certainty to work out well. If/when it doesn't pan out, he's going to whine his way off of the roster. Why? If he's so good and cheap, why not just keep him and figure out something that improves the team while keep your nice/cheap starting PG?

well, that's been their strategy for years now. Buy low, flip assets while they are valuable, look for a franchise player. They won't settle down now, they've gotten nowhere yet.
I think Lowry gets traded this summer. Being underpaid is a big part of his value, and that will diminish.
It may be a superstar, or it may be another 'interim' waive of assets. I don't think they'll wait long enough for him to lose his value. Is it risky, sure, but it seems like a reasonable risk, and they are taking plenty of those.
They'll also ship 2-3 of their PFs, they have 5 valuable ones now. And probably Martin.

I don't think they'll overpay for anyone though, including Dragic. If they sign him, it will be a contract that could be moved if necessary.
Lin on the other hand is pretty safe. 3 years, high marketing value, the 3rd high salary year will be an expiring, there's little risk here.

wintermute
07-04-2012, 11:15 PM
well, that's been their strategy for years now. Buy low, flip assets while they are valuable, look for a franchise player. They won't settle down now, they've gotten nowhere yet.
I think Lowry gets traded this summer. Being underpaid is a big part of his value, and that will diminish.


Exactly. Houston treats all their players that way. Basically as assets to be flipped. They do amazingly well on the court, all things considered, despite this asset-first philosophy. In contrast, I remember the pre-Big 3 Celtics being a disaster on the court - Ainge pursued a similar asset stockpiling strategy before he finally landed KG and Allen.

I don't think we can land Lowry. We're not exactly rich in assets and we certainly don't have the superstar the Rockets are looking for. Unless it's a multi team trade?

BringJackBack
07-05-2012, 12:03 AM
The only thing I could see us doing with Houston is our scraps (DC, Hans, first) for Kevin Martin's contract. We get a big time scoring wing off the bench who could push Paul George, dump salary, get his Bird's rights, They get value in Hans as he still has the possibility of lashing out and being what he was in 2010, they get a GREAT backup point guard, and a pick.

Also leaves us the option to pursue a new backup or starting point guard, depending on Hill's role. Hill might have a breakout season this year if handed the reigns. Have to think that Pritch still loves Armon Johnson and Patty Mills, and Kirk Hinrich has always been glorified around here.

Hell, hypothetically:

Hill (If he makes strides/Hinrich (Great backup point guard who plays both sides of the ball and distributes)
George (Potential of breakout year)/Martin/Johnson or Lance
Granger/Martin/Jones
West/Pendergraph
Hibbert/Chumlee

Fill the gaping hole at the third big man (Cheap one year contract to Jamison or Kenyon Martin) and I think we'd be set. We'd have Martin's and West's bird rights, as well as money coming off the books from Jones and Pendy. It'd be about 24 million coming off the books. Payroll stays relatively low for next season as well. Danny, Hill, Hibbert, Pendy, Plumlee, and Johnson add up to around 45 million as an estimate. Continue to have cap space, and then we could re-sign Martin and West with birds rights.

Now Martin is a ****** defender, but I think his offense would be a net positive since we have a multitude of solid to elite defensive players on the team. Not to mention Vogel/Shaw could probably convince Martin to play defense at least during the playoffs.

The one issue here would be that we don't have a third big man, but if we can sign a guy for one year like Kenyon Martin or Antawn Jamison to hold us off until 2013 free agency we would be fine. I believe we'd have 11 million to mess around with next summer and 2013 big man are intriguing. Paul Milsap, Al Jefferson, and Josh Smith all seem like better guys to go after than Chris Kaman to me, and would all likely get the same salary he will. I don't think it would be a long shot to be able to get one of those guys, especially with Jefferson and Smith being disgruntled. Then, so long as we can re-sign West and Martin, in 2013:

Hill/Hinrich/Stephenson
George/Martin/Johnson/Stephenson
Granger/Martin
West/Big man
Hibbert/Big man/Plumlee

From then on out we look for a point guard, and eventually move George Hill into either our sixth man or starting shooting guard while being backup point guard. But hell, perhaps George Hill evolves into a good point guard.

TheDon
07-05-2012, 12:41 AM
The weirdest thing about this signing to me is it literally just came out of nowhere while this whole Roy debacle is going on. It seems like the Pacers just outbid themselves for whatever reason. Was some other team making him an offer that the entire media world was unaware of? I just think it's a little odd for us to offer what we did when no other team was willing to pay that much for Hill as far as we know. It's almost like after Roy got his crazy offer from Portland they hit the panic button and decided to cave and up their offer from the extension deadline and hope he accepted before some other team decides to screw us with Hill as well.

Mac_Daddy
07-05-2012, 09:57 AM
I was playing Association mode in 2k12 yesterday and I was able to sign Hill to a 5-year $28 million contract and Hibbert to a 5-year $54 million. I also traded Granger/pick for Gordon and West/pick for Horford. Moved George to SF and set Hill to SG to give them a rating bump.

If only real life were that easy.

Sparhawk
07-05-2012, 10:13 AM
I can only imagine that Bird didn't want to lose that first for nothing and said to pay whatever it takes to keep Hill.

Ugh.

I was mad the Pacers traded a high first round pick for Hill, who they'd likely have to pay a lot to keep. I like Hill and I'm glad he's on the Pacers, but I feel this cost the Pacers too much in the end. If the Pacers traded down and drafted MarShon Brooks, our SG spot would have been taken care of for the next 3-4 years. Might have been able to pick up an extra pick in this year's draft too so we might have been able to get both Plumlee and PJIII/Moultrie.

Again, I like Hill, but he's now over paid...and playing out of position. I truly hope this gamble works out for the Pacers.

Then used that money going to Hill to sign someone like Dragic.

Hindsight....but it still really sucks how things are working out. I feel the Pacers got very lucky last season with the shortened schedule and they remained one of the healthiest teams. All that played in their favor. I don't think they'll be as lucky, but I still think they'll get into the playoffs as long as they resign Hibbs(which they will). But I think the Pacers will be a 7 or 8 seed. And heaven forbid us losing a starter for an extended amount of time...this team will be toast.

Ace E.Anderson
07-05-2012, 10:35 AM
I can only imagine that Bird didn't want to lose that first for nothing and said to pay whatever it takes to keep Hill.

Ugh.

I was mad the Pacers traded a high first round pick for Hill, who they'd likely have to pay a lot to keep. I like Hill and I'm glad he's on the Pacers, but I feel this cost the Pacers too much in the end. If the Pacers traded down and drafted MarShon Brooks, our SG spot would have been taken care of for the next 3-4 years. Might have been able to pick up an extra pick in this year's draft too so we might have been able to get both Plumlee and PJIII/Moultrie.

Again, I like Hill, but he's now over paid...and playing out of position. I truly hope this gamble works out for the Pacers.

Then used that money going to Hill to sign someone like Dragic.

Hindsight....but it still really sucks how things are working out. I feel the Pacers got very lucky last season with the shortened schedule and they remained one of the healthiest teams. All that played in their favor. I don't think they'll be as lucky, but I still think they'll get into the playoffs as long as they resign Hibbs(which they will). But I think the Pacers will be a 7 or 8 seed. And heaven forbid us losing a starter for an extended amount of time...this team will be toast.

You also have to consider that we wouldn't have been near as good as we were last yr without Hill on the team. I forget the exact numbers, but we were significantly better when he was in the lineup.

blanket
07-05-2012, 04:35 PM
Grading the Deal: Pacers Keep George Hill

http://basketball.realgm.com/blog/222056/Grading_The_Deal_Pacers_Keep_George_Hill

Assumes $38-46M contract, and still gives Pacers an A- grade.