PDA

View Full Version : Being smart with money is not "ownership issues"



Naptown_Seth
07-05-2012, 01:01 PM
Okay, obviously this stems from the Roy debates, but it gets thrown about all over the place really. Any time a team won't puke away millions on your personal favorite player despite the market or production value being far below that, suddenly it's "cheap" ownership not willing to "do what it takes to win".


Well with a salary cap and rules that restrict what contracts you can acquire beyond that cap, it's got a lot less to do (almost none) with being cheap and everything to do with "doing what it takes to win". Which is to say that what it takes to win is MAKING GOOD DEALS. Sure, if there is an expensive but reasonable deal a "willing" owner should pursue it.

But throwing away cap space foolishly is actually the exact opposite of doing what it takes to win. Just ask Knicks fans who watched Dolan do plenty of "what it takes" spending on the way to cap hell.

If TPTB pass on the Roy contract it could very well be about VALUE considerations and future ability to improve/acquire talent, and nothing about "oh, I'd like to spend $5m below the cap to save money". Herb knows you have to win to sell tickets and TV spots and arena sponsorship, he knows what the income was the last few years regardless of the roster costs, and those numbers likely suggest that there is nowhere the salary figure can go under the new CBA minimum salary rules that would get below the paltry income a last place attendance dog would provide.


The idea that Herb is happy just selling 7000 seats for a team going 38-44 every year is ridiculous. Teams like Indy, SA, Port, and MIL need to show some winning from time to time to build and keep a fanbase. Fans will follow a losing team, but only if it has already won and shows promise of winning again in the future.

With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).



BTW, if they don't match Roy and 2 years from now the team is doing great in the alternate configuration are we going to get a long list of "I'm sorry, you were right, you're not cheap, I would have ruined the team" emails to Herb? Doubtful.

Wrong or right on choices, the Simons have never failed to spend in order to keep a top flight roster together, they have no history of being cheap in the NBA.

Kid Minneapolis
07-05-2012, 01:09 PM
Being smart with money is exactly what you want to do ---- in an effort to clear up cap space, so you can make championship moves. I think that's my disappointment. We've been through years of mediocrity, did the good-boy act, finally cleared up space and went into the off-season with more flexibility than almost every team out there --- and did nothing.

And what's the point of getting cap space if all you do with it is eventually eat it all up by re-signing your current guys. Keep doing what we're doing for the next few years, and what we'll have is the exact same team we have now, minus the cap space. Which I wouldn't have an issue with if it was a championship-caliber team --- but it's not. It's a good playoff team, but this team with it's current make-up is extremely challenged to truly contend. We have so much cap flexibility right now because we have a bunch of young guys on extremely reasonable contracts, but when their new contracts come around and we gotta up the ante like Hibbert and Hill, there goes that space, and therefore our flexibility and window to make moves that will put us in that elite tier.

There's a lot of FAs out there, and it is widely known that we need a PG. Our window is right now.... waiting 2-4 years isn't what wins championships. And don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those "championship or bust" guys. But dammit, it would be nice to friggin' win one. We have the assets and pieces and cap space right now to make that leap --- and we stood pat. Thus far. And meanwhile, there goes Steve Nash, there goes Dragic, there goes Joe Johnson, there goes Deron Williams, there goes all the difference-makers!

It really does get frustrating to constantly be passed-over by and/or we neglect to go out and get those difference-makers. This team as it stands right now isn't too far from our 2000 team, with one difference ---- Reggie Miller. So we basically gotta hope we land a stud in the draft. And right now, we don't have a Reggie Miller.

mrknowname
07-05-2012, 01:15 PM
this situation isn't much different than the movie moneyball. replace an expensive guys production with a couple cheaper options

graphic-er
07-05-2012, 01:16 PM
I agree with what you say. The mere fact that Roy only plays 30 mins per game is the biggest reason for pause. You can get buy with his lack of speed because he is really good defensively around the rim. But the stamina is not worth the money.

But if you think they are going to get a better player with out signing Hibbert, you are nuts. The only way they get out of this situation looking great is if they some what get a sign and trade to another team with assets. Somebody mentioned Atlanta's Al Horfod.

docpaul
07-05-2012, 01:21 PM
Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/why-the-portland-trail-blazers-could-be-off-center-next-season/

In particular, read through the reader comments.

Aw Heck
07-05-2012, 01:25 PM
Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/why-the-portland-trail-blazers-could-be-off-center-next-season/

In particular, read through the reader comments.
Interesting article, but the author is taking Hibbert's seasons under the "all threes, all the time" reign of Jim O'Brien into account.

Hibbert under Jim O'Brien and Hibbert under Frank Vogel are two different players. There's a reason why Hibbert had a breakout season in his only full season with Frank Vogel at the helm.

Rogco
07-05-2012, 01:57 PM
I like this post. The other thing to remember is the new CBA rules about luxury tax and trades go into effect next season. I think the thing you have to balance is how good will your team will be vs team flexibility. I see two approaches to this: some teams are probably spending now to try and get a good team together before the new rules take effect (New York, New York, LA, Portland). The downside to this approach is you are screwed if it doesn't work. The Pacers, from my observation, are much more likely to take the second route, which is to try and keep cap flexibility for next year and take advantage of teams that find themselves in a bind and haven't planned well for the new cap and free agency restrictions.

Is Roy worth the money? I won't be upset either way, as long as the FO manages to find an adequate replacement for Roy at either a cost or a contract length that provides more flexibility. We won't get a better player, but 30 minutes max a game (and really 25 productive minutes) is not a lot for that type of contract. Also, and I mentioned this before, but I'm worried Roy is going to get hurt. He throw's himself about and takes a lot of hard falls. So far he's been amazingly resilient, but falling from that height, and with his limited athleticism, it seems there is always an elevated chance of knee, ankle, or wrist injuries ala Bogut.

rm1369
07-05-2012, 02:14 PM
In general I agree with you. In Roy's specific case I can understand not matching - he's not currently good enough to justify that salary. If you match, you are Gambling that he will eventually get there. I will criticize the FO if they don't match only because that means they should have traded him last year and got value. The offer Roy received should not be a surprise to anyone. But back to the main subject - the pacers are finally in a position that they have cap room to make aggressive moves in free agency, especially if they don't match on Roy. It does not currently appear they will land a big time FA this year. You in particular have stated that the Pacers will have no problem recruiting top Free Agents to Indy - they've just never had the space. At what point does it become valid to question at least one of those statements?

SycamoreKen
07-05-2012, 02:19 PM
If they find they need to not match, I hope they are able to explain why and what the plan is going forward. We have been looking to the future for a long time and to not bring back a player as fan friendly as this is going to take some serious PR work. I can see the casual fan saying, WTF they let him go after that season?

Sollozzo
07-06-2012, 12:37 AM
The idea that Herb is happy just selling 7000 seats for a team going 38-44 every year is ridiculous. Teams like Indy, SA, Port, and MIL need to show some winning from time to time to build and keep a fanbase. Fans will follow a losing team, but only if it has already won and shows promise of winning again in the future.

With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).



If you don't match on a 25 year old big man who has been in the league for just 4 years and has gotten better every season then it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that you are 100% committed to winning. Do they have any better ideas of how to improve the team right now? Doubt it. Roy on this roster at least guarantees you a comfortable playoff seed for the immediate future. And you aren't matching with the expectation that you will merely get 5 years of 2012 Roy. No, you are hoping that he continues to improve as he has every season and that in three or so years, he is an extremely good player.

A scenario in which we don't match on Roy a mere two weeks after Bird leaves (which happened just 4 weeks after being so seemingly excited about coming back as President) tells me that we have some ownership issues as far as spending money is concerned. That may be completely wrong, but that's how I'll view it. Doubt I'm alone. Our owners were able to get 33 million dollars out of the city just two years ago, so they clearly haven't been comfortable with the recent financial state of this franchise. Pointing the fingers at ownership if we don't keep Roy is not an off-base reaction.

Peck
07-06-2012, 01:05 AM
If you don't match on a 25 year old big man who has been in the league for just 4 years and has gotten better every season then it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that you are 100% committed to winning. Do they have any better ideas of how to improve the team right now? Doubt it. Roy on this roster at least guarantees you a comfortable playoff seed for the immediate future. And you aren't matching with the expectation that you will merely get 5 years of 2012 Roy. No, you are hoping that he continues to improve as he has every season and that in three or so years, he is an extremely good player.

A scenario in which we don't match on Roy a mere two weeks after Bird leaves (which happened just 4 weeks after being so seemingly excited about coming back as President) tells me that we have some ownership issues as far as spending money is concerned. That may be completely wrong, but that's how I'll view it. Doubt I'm alone. Our owners were able to get 33 million dollars out of the city just two years ago, so they clearly haven't been comfortable with the recent financial state of this franchise. Pointing the fingers at ownership if we don't keep Roy is not an off-base reaction.

Yea I kinda gotta go with Sollozzo here, not saying that Seth is off base either but I don't think questioning ownership in this case would be beyond the pale so to speak here.

I've gone back and watched Birds end of the season press conf. and there are just a couple of times he talks about the ability to spend money that just catches me off guard. However to be fair he also did make a point to say that Herb would spend the money.

Either way this situation sucks.

wintermute
07-06-2012, 05:13 AM
With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).


I agree with your post actually, but especially this part. I personally value Hibbert highly, and would really look askance at the FO if they think spare parts like Kaman+ would make up for the loss of Roy. But I don't doubt that ownership would put up the money if the FO says it's necessary.

Nuntius
07-06-2012, 05:23 AM
It's quite simple, actually.

Can we get something better than Hibbert with that kind of money?

It all boils down to that. That's what the FO is trying to explore. If they don't match then they obviously have a plan in mind.

Personally, I believe that we cannot get something better so we should match Roy.

wintermute
07-06-2012, 05:25 AM
Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/why-the-portland-trail-blazers-could-be-off-center-next-season/

In particular, read through the reader comments.

Not to get all stat geek on you, but I'm very wary of any conclusion based on the Wins Produced metric. It's the same metric that rates Troy Murphy and David Lee as superstars - in fact there's a article on that same site that famously predicted that the Warriors were going to win 50 games because they signed David Lee.

That said, the article's results:



Here’s a breakdown of Hibbert’s Wins Produced by season (Wins per 48 in quotes)

09′ -0.6 Wins Produced (-0.031 WP48)
10′ 1.5 Wins Produced (0.035 WP48)
11′ 1.0 Wins Produced (0.021 WP48)
12′ 8.1* (0.161 WP48)


Is at least consistent with the "Hibbert = terrible under Obie, great under Vogel" explanation.

All the same though, (again being all stat geek) I'd point to other advanced metrics like Win Score and RAPM which show Hibbert as a much more consistent (and top rated!) performer.

It would explain much though if it turns out that our advanced stats department relies heavily on Dave Berri's Wins Produced :shudder:. I thought that stuff went out with Obie.

Heisenberg
07-06-2012, 05:44 AM
Unless Wells is full of it it's up to Pritchard and Walsh. He specifically said Simon's given the greenlight for them to go either way with it.

pacerjones20
07-06-2012, 05:46 AM
But what's the point of keeping money and overspending when no one wants to be here? Shun Roy away and why would George want to stay? Just seems like the best we can do is make sure we keep OUR best players. I'm just worried the whole jermaine one scares TPTB and we may never see a huge star locked up

Sollozzo
07-06-2012, 07:47 AM
Unless Wells is full of it it's up to Pritchard and Walsh. He specifically said Simon's given the greenlight for them to go either way with it.


Do you remember where that quote came from? Was it from radio, twitter, or The Star?

I have a hard time believing that Walsh wants his first move to be the loss of an all-star center that leaves him with a noticeably worse roster than the previous year. I also don't think Pritchard wants to lose Hibbert to his former employer. This just seems like it would be a no-brainer for most GM's unless of course you are getting pressure from above about the money. That's just my take though. Matching a 25 year old all star big man who has improved every year of his four year career seems like it would be one of the more easy decisions that Walsh/Pritchard will make.

Speed
07-06-2012, 07:50 AM
Do you remember where that quote came from? Was it from radio, twitter, or The Star?

I have a hard time believing that Walsh wants his first move to be the loss of an all-star center that leaves him with a noticeably worse roster than the previous year. I also don't think Pritchard wants to lose Hibbert to his former employer. This just seems like it would be a no-brainer for most GM's unless of course you are getting pressure from above about the money. That's just my take though. Matching a 25 year old all star big man who has improved every year of his four year career seems like it would be one of the more easy decisions that Walsh/Pritchard will make.

It was part of the Wells article in the Indy star, something along the lines as being a basketball decision that Simon as left in managements hands.

duke dynamite
07-06-2012, 08:27 AM
As much as I hate to say it, even with the lockout last year in order to contend you're going to have to spend a ton of money. It's been evident so far in this FA period so far. I just don't see us letting Hibbert go that easily, especially when what we have available to us is not that attractive.

*astrisk*
07-06-2012, 09:38 AM
I am leaning toward agreeing with an earlier poster of an earlier thread who spoke of the mini MAX contract (first free agent deal) as a GREAT value!

Roy was an 11/11 guy this year who's team came off a lockout and searched for an identity. They were good with spreading the points around but never really tried to pound the post. They started to season with P n R to West and Hans, and 1on 1 with Danny and PG. We never got creative with getting the ball to Roy, but when we did get it to him, he was pretty efficient.

My point is that I believe Hibbert has 18 and 12 potential and with a full off-season and training camp he will reach that this season. For a guy who has his skill, size, potential, leadership, community involvement, along with his production and yearly improvement 14.5 mil per year is a fair deal. Especially considering we are offering him about 2 mil less per, anyway, and he is the majority of the fanbases favorite player.

The truly scary part is that if we are really, debating whether or not we should give him this deal, then as a fan base we DO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE COMPETENCY of the FO... Now if it was a second Max. Kobe, Joe Johnson, Pau, etc. Where we were having to pay in the 20 mil per range. FUGETABOUTIT!

We are going to be a franchise that needs to capitalize on these mini Max deals. When you have players who make as big an OVERALL impact as Roy does, you need to lock him up... Especially since you know we will NEVER sign ANYONE to a second MAX...

Oh, and the longer this plays out, the more valuable he becomes... He is now the #1 guy talked about in the media for possibly the next week in Free Agency and will put KP in position to be the HERO. The real question is how the HELL did we just give George Hill 40 mil when Jeremy Lin just signed for 28 !!!!!!

I have changed my stance. In order to be taken seriously, we HAVE to keep Roy...

Dr. Hibbert
07-06-2012, 01:21 PM
Sorry, I just refuse to cheerlead a front office in the process of putting together a worse roster than existed last year, when last year's roster wasn't a true contender in the first place.

*astrisk*
07-06-2012, 01:42 PM
Sorry, I just refuse to cheerlead a front office in the process of putting together a worse roster than existed last year, when last year's roster wasn't a true contender in the first place.

Worse? Right now we are on our way to putting the same roster on the court.. at. Worst...

Dr. Hibbert
07-06-2012, 03:03 PM
Worse? Right now we are on our way to putting the same roster on the court.. at. Worst...

The same roster minus Hibbert is not the same roster.

funnyguy1105
07-06-2012, 03:07 PM
Sorry, I just refuse to cheerlead a front office in the process of putting together a worse roster than existed last year, when last year's roster wasn't a true contender in the first place.

I'll cheer until their proven untrustworthy/inept. Barring a pass on Hibbert we will have an almost identical roster on the court plus a few key additions. This is good for us with so many young guys and DWest fully recovered from knee surgery. Staying the same is actually improving. This law of diminishing returns approach is a problem with the cores of the Celtics, Lakers, etc.

spazzxb
07-06-2012, 03:18 PM
Okay, obviously this stems from the Roy debates, but it gets thrown about all over the place really. Any time a team won't puke away millions on your personal favorite player despite the market or production value being far below that, suddenly it's "cheap" ownership not willing to "do what it takes to win".


Well with a salary cap and rules that restrict what contracts you can acquire beyond that cap, it's got a lot less to do (almost none) with being cheap and everything to do with "doing what it takes to win". Which is to say that what it takes to win is MAKING GOOD DEALS. Sure, if there is an expensive but reasonable deal a "willing" owner should pursue it.

But throwing away cap space foolishly is actually the exact opposite of doing what it takes to win. Just ask Knicks fans who watched Dolan do plenty of "what it takes" spending on the way to cap hell.

If TPTB pass on the Roy contract it could very well be about VALUE considerations and future ability to improve/acquire talent, and nothing about "oh, I'd like to spend $5m below the cap to save money". Herb knows you have to win to sell tickets and TV spots and arena sponsorship, he knows what the income was the last few years regardless of the roster costs, and those numbers likely suggest that there is nowhere the salary figure can go under the new CBA minimum salary rules that would get below the paltry income a last place attendance dog would provide.


The idea that Herb is happy just selling 7000 seats for a team going 38-44 every year is ridiculous. Teams like Indy, SA, Port, and MIL need to show some winning from time to time to build and keep a fanbase. Fans will follow a losing team, but only if it has already won and shows promise of winning again in the future.

With that in mind, they probably will match on Roy. But if they don't it won't be cheap Herb but rather smart Herb (or DW, Pritch, etc) that are thinking about the big picture and the best value per dollar. You might disagree with that assessment, but that doesn't make them cheap, just wrong (if they actually turn out to be).



BTW, if they don't match Roy and 2 years from now the team is doing great in the alternate configuration are we going to get a long list of "I'm sorry, you were right, you're not cheap, I would have ruined the team" emails to Herb? Doubtful.

Wrong or right on choices, the Simons have never failed to spend in order to keep a top flight roster together, they have no history of being cheap in the NBA.

I wanted to add cheese to this

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2012, 03:30 PM
And what's the point of getting cap space if all you do with it is eventually eat it all up by re-signing your current guys.
I don't know, maybe ask the 93 to 2004 Pacers. I happened to enjoy game 5 of the 2000 Finals, but apparently most people hated it. Go figure, who knew it was a big waste of time and money. 8 in 8.9 - crap, Smits miracle - crap, 1998 game 7 vs Bulls - crap.

What those teams needed to do was get rid of Dale and Reggie so they could sign Latrell Spreewell or Iverson or Barkley. Then they would have won some games.



And this coming from a guy (me) saying that Roy is a tough call on the match. I'm not 100% you must resign guys no matter what obviously. My stance is "do you like the value of that player's salary, does this group look good enough to challenge at the ECF level? Then sign them and be done with it".

Naptown_Seth
07-06-2012, 03:35 PM
Good article about Hibbert that gets into some of what Naptown is trying to sell here:

http://wagesofwins.com/2012/07/03/why-the-portland-trail-blazers-could-be-off-center-next-season/

In particular, read through the reader comments.
To be clear, I'm not making the case to not resign Roy. I'm making the case that just because TPTB or ownership want to mull it over and don't think it's obvious does not make them "cheap" and does not suggest they aren't doing what it takes to win.

What it takes to win is assembling a functional group of talented players led by a strong, smart coach (or staff).

Signing Roy isn't the indicator of being cheap or not, it's just a tough basketball decision. Not paying Roy $8m a year just to save money - that's cheap (see Reds, Pirates circa 95-2005)

Dr. Hibbert
07-06-2012, 04:07 PM
I'll cheer until their proven untrustworthy/inept. Barring a pass on Hibbert we will have an almost identical roster on the court plus a few key additions. This is good for us with so many young guys and DWest fully recovered from knee surgery. Staying the same is actually improving. This law of diminishing returns approach is a problem with the cores of the Celtics, Lakers, etc.

So minus Hibbert, plus Plumlee = almost identical roster? I get being a fan, but c'mon...

Also, Plumlee is not a key addition. Orlando Johnson will be lucky to make the team (but I'm rooting for him to).

ChicagoJ
07-06-2012, 04:59 PM
But throwing away cap space foolishly is actually the exact opposite of doing what it takes to win.

And that's where it doesn't matter if it is an extra million guaranteed to somebody like D. Jones or Pendegraff or an extra million to make a max contract for Roy.

Now I've thought ever since the lockout that Roy was going to get the max. I'm just surprised it is working out this way. Do you really think David Falk would've have balked last season if the Pacers offered the max then?

If there is one thing Donnie Walsh did get right consistently for 20 years, it was that he found ways (more than 90% of the time) to keep the players we wanted to keep. Reggie never left. Rik never left. Foster never left. Chuck, Micheal Williams, Det, Tony, and Dale left on HIS terms. He lost two guys that he wanted to keep ever -- Byron Scott when he gambled wrong about the expansion draft and Brad Miller. Help me out here... have we lost any other significant free agent except Brad Miller during the Donnie Walsh years? If it was a player Donnie deemed expendable, he found a way to move them for value instead of losing them for nothing/ "cap space".

And a note, there is enough of a problem converting individual stats to winning, let alone one step further to compensation. You've got an all-star C that is 25 years old and has shown improvement every season. And he's the foundation of your entire team. You can replace a wing or backcourt player with another guy that has similar stats. But a legit low-post C? How many of those even exist right now? Everyone else is scrambling to get one and we're in a situation where we might let ours walk away so that we can find a better bargain? What's that old parable about building a house on solid rock or building a house on sand?

This is why we needed the flexibility. Imagine if we traded Dunleavy for a similar sized contract that was still on the books this summer... there's no way we could even think about matching for Hibbert and Hill.

And if it isn't clear, I'll just throw out there that I think our three most important players last season were Hibbert, West and Hill. Did other guys produce more statistics? Yes, but those three guys were the foundation, the identity, of the 2011-2012 Pacers team.