PDA

View Full Version : We passed ib this guy once, but now he could put us over the top.



BornReady#6
07-09-2012, 06:09 PM
DeJuan Blair, after passing on this fella once, I really feel he could be our next Jeff Foster.


http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2012/07/09/blair-comes-cheap-motivated/?ls=iref:nbahpt2


Kevin Garnett is getting $34 million more from the Celtics. Roy Hibbert is getting a max deal from either the Blazers or Pacers. Omer Asik will be getting $25 million from the Rockets or Bulls. Ersan Ilyasova is getting $45 million from the Bucks. Ryan Anderson is getting about $35 million from the Hornets. And now it sounds like Brook Lopez is getting a max deal, whether he plays for the Nets or Magic next season.
So what would you say about the idea of paying $1.1 million for a big man who played almost 1,400 minutes for the best team in the league last season?
DeJuan Blair was a feel-good story for the San Antonio Spurs. He was taken 37th in the 2009 Draft and quickly became a contributor for a title contender, despite his lack of ACLs.
But Blair was replaced in the Spurs’ rotation by Boris Diaw late last season, and he played just 77 minutes in the playoffs. Then, there were reports that the Spurs might bring over Slovenian big man Erazem Lorbek next season, possibly pushing Blair further down the depth chart.
Lorbek looks to be re-signing with FC Barcelona, but Blair still thinks his days in San Antonio are numbered.
Mike Monroe of the San Antonio Express-News caught up with Blair in Las Vegas, where the big man is putting in work for the U.S. Select Team:
Blair makes no attempt to hide his feelings when he discusses his diminished role in the playoffs, including his belief he might be better off elsewhere.
“I love the Spurs, but they’ve got a lot of ‘bigs,’ and they’re bringing somebody else from overseas, so where am I going to fall at?” he said. “I was out of the rotation at the end of the season, so imagine next year.
“That’s something I really don’t want to go through again, because it tore me down.”

Blair turned 23 as the post-lockout season concluded in late April. What has happened since requires maturity.
“The Spurs are excellent,” he said. “They used me to get everybody going and just get to the playoffs. That’s what it’s seemed like the last two seasons. But it’s a business, and everybody has their role, and I played mine, obviously, in the season. That’s proved right now.
“We were No. 1 the last two seasons when I was starting, and then lost in the playoffs when I wasn’t. That’s just, well, I don’t know, common sense.
“But I’ll be all right.”
Given Lorbek’s decision to stay in Europe and Diaw’s inconsistency, it might behoove the Spurs to hold onto Blair. And it’s hard to imagine they’ll get back equal value for a guy who’s slated to make less than $1.1 million next season.
But if the Spurs plan on bringing back the big man, it’s clear they’ll have some work to do in trying to repair his psyche.Kevin Garnett is getting $34 million more from the Celtics. Roy Hibbert is getting a max deal from either the Blazers or Pacers. Omer Asik will be getting $25 million from the Rockets or Bulls. Ersan Ilyasova is getting $45 million from the Bucks. Ryan Anderson is getting about $35 million from the Hornets. And now it sounds like Brook Lopez is getting a max deal, whether he plays for the Nets or Magic next season.
So what would you say about the idea of paying $1.1 million for a big man who played almost 1,400 minutes for the best team in the league last season?
DeJuan Blair was a feel-good story for the San Antonio Spurs. He was taken 37th in the 2009 Draft and quickly became a contributor for a title contender, despite his lack of ACLs.
But Blair was replaced in the Spurs’ rotation by Boris Diaw late last season, and he played just 77 minutes in the playoffs. Then, there were reports that the Spurs might bring over Slovenian big man Erazem Lorbek next season, possibly pushing Blair further down the depth chart.
Lorbek looks to be re-signing with FC Barcelona, but Blair still thinks his days in San Antonio are numbered.
Mike Monroe of the San Antonio Express-News caught up with Blair in Las Vegas, where the big man is putting in work for the U.S. Select Team:
Blair makes no attempt to hide his feelings when he discusses his diminished role in the playoffs, including his belief he might be better off elsewhere.
“I love the Spurs, but they’ve got a lot of ‘bigs,’ and they’re bringing somebody else from overseas, so where am I going to fall at?” he said. “I was out of the rotation at the end of the season, so imagine next year.
“That’s something I really don’t want to go through again, because it tore me down.”

Blair turned 23 as the post-lockout season concluded in late April. What has happened since requires maturity.
“The Spurs are excellent,” he said. “They used me to get everybody going and just get to the playoffs. That’s what it’s seemed like the last two seasons. But it’s a business, and everybody has their role, and I played mine, obviously, in the season. That’s proved right now.
“We were No. 1 the last two seasons when I was starting, and then lost in the playoffs when I wasn’t. That’s just, well, I don’t know, common sense.
“But I’ll be all right.”
Given Lorbek’s decision to stay in Europe and Diaw’s inconsistency, it might behoove the Spurs to hold onto Blair. And it’s hard to imagine they’ll get back equal value for a guy who’s slated to make less than $1.1 million next season.
But if the Spurs plan on bringing back the big man, it’s clear they’ll have some work to do in trying to repair his psyche.

Jeremy
07-09-2012, 06:17 PM
Why do you compare Blair to Foster? They are completely different players. Blair would be nice to have as a 3rd big. He can post up, set screens, and keep people out of the post. However, there is always an injury risk with him because of his bad knees.

BornReady#6
07-09-2012, 06:28 PM
Because he is a decent rebounder, who doesn't have much O and has been healthy since his one injury in college.

SycamoreKen
07-09-2012, 06:35 PM
Blair's waiste line is a bigger issue than his knees

ilive4sports
07-09-2012, 06:40 PM
how would Blair put us over the top? A back up PF is not putting us over anything.

xIndyFan
07-09-2012, 06:46 PM
Not sure I see the fascination with Blair. Guess it goes back to the draft. :whoknows:

FWIW, if this guy is your 3rd big, you got problems. Nice rebounder. sets a decent screen. no hops, no speed, easy to shoot over, short, long arms though, add it all up and it says just another guy. If you want a guy like Blair, you can get one for cheap just before camp. Lots of guys are this good.

Lance George
07-09-2012, 06:47 PM
The fact that San Antonio's giving up on him is worrisome, but the guy's been an excellent producer in his limited minutes.

Blair and Foster's career averages. They've played nearly identical minutes-per-game, so it works out nicely:

<iframe src="http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=5dbq7&output=iframe" width=724 height=120 scrolling=auto>
Report Created on <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/"></a>
</iframe>

The guy's a beast on the glass, like Foster, but he provides much more scoring.

Shade
07-09-2012, 06:56 PM
Can we trade Tyler for him?

Brad8888
07-09-2012, 07:03 PM
Can we trade Tyler for him?

We would have to include our most talented player in that trade. I think Tyler plus Lance plus a 2nd should get the job done.

docpaul
07-09-2012, 07:04 PM
The fact that San Antonio's giving up on him is worrisome, but the guy's been an excellent producer in his limited minutes.

Blair and Foster's career averages. They've played nearly identical minutes-per-game, so it works out nicely:

<iframe src="http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/share.cgi?id=5dbq7&output=iframe" width="724" height="120" scrolling="auto"><br />Report Created on <a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/"></a><br /></iframe>

The guy's a beast on the glass, like Foster, but he provides much more scoring.

SA passing on them seems increasingly to be consistent with their strategy: balancing key core players with support players on their rookie contracts.

They were able to get some value out of Hill, and seems to be less likely that they'll get the same value out of Blair. That said, he was a 2nd round pick. :)

OlBlu
07-09-2012, 07:05 PM
DeJuan Blair, after passing on this fella once, I really feel he could be our next Jeff Foster.


http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2012/07/09/blair-comes-cheap-motivated/?ls=iref:nbahpt2


No. Just no...... :cool:

vnzla81
07-09-2012, 07:06 PM
I rather get Diaw, THE GUY WHO REPLACED HIM LAST YEAR!!! aim higher people.

cdash
07-09-2012, 07:07 PM
DeJuan Blair the guy to put us over the top? Uhhh...gonna go ahead and violently disagree with that assessment.

Sandman21
07-09-2012, 08:25 PM
Blair >>> Cheeseburger Boris

Justin Tyme
07-10-2012, 07:11 AM
We would have to include our most talented player in that trade. I think Tyler plus Lance plus a 2nd should get the job done.


I'd do the trade straight up in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, salaries don't match.

Hans 3 mil
Blair 1 mil

Blair 9.5 PPG... 5.5 Reb... Plays "D", sets picks 2nd... Buford 2 Rd pick 09 draft

Hans 9.3 PPG... 4.4 Reb... little "D", sets poor picks... Bird lottery pick 09 draft

Hans 3x's the money for equal to less quality.

Gamble1
07-10-2012, 09:45 AM
I am still confused on why so many of you are willing to trade for a guy who will not be a RFA and will be a FA in one year.

Sometimes it pays to wait one year and let the guy come to you rather than trading picks/players.

Slick Pinkham
07-10-2012, 09:50 AM
Given their number of bigs and their affection for Euro players, we might get him for not much more than the rights to Stanko.

I am not saying he is great or anything, just practically free. I would like a much bigger backup PF that can play the 5 and elevate and attack the rim when fronted by the likes of Shane Battier, but if he is getting in shape (<260) and costs Stanko and a 2nd, I'd do it. Gives you more than Tyler, IMO

Ransom
07-10-2012, 09:52 AM
With all due respect, is it that difficult to get a Jeff Foster type player?

ChicagoJ
07-10-2012, 11:18 AM
With all due respect, is it that difficult to get a Jeff Foster type player?

Yes, it takes a very special player to go 2-10 from the floor in order to rack up 9 ORs. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that Blair doesn't average as many OR's as Foster since he shoots a higher percentage he has fewer opportunities to re-rebound his own missed putbacks.

Justin Tyme
07-10-2012, 11:24 AM
[QUOTE=Gamble1;1477145]

I am still confused on why so many of you are willing to trade for a guy who will not be a RFA and will be a FA in one year.

Sometimes it pays to wait one year and let the guy come to you rather than trading picks/players.[/QUOTE


There is NO guarantee you could get him next year. Getting Blair now gives you a chance to see if he's a good fit for the Pacers. If he is, then he's already acquainted with the team and maybe has some allegence to the Pacers. If you get him now, Bird Rights go with it.

His salary is less than 1.1 mil. I don't see the Spurs wanting to take salary back, so a 2nd/Stanko and cap would probably get a deal done. Stanko is never going to wear a Pacers uni anymore than Lorbek was. They are trade fodder that costs the Pacers nothing to trade.

Other teams are making moves to get better. The Pacers can't sit with thumbs up their, and do nothing expecting to repeat the same results or produce better results this coming year. Blair is an asset that can help the 2nd unit and has been a starter on one of the premier NBA teams. At 1 mil he is a bargain that can help the Pacers. He brings more to the table than Hansbrough which is 3 times the cost. Plus if Hans gets injured, vertigo, you have a cheap qualified player already on the roster.

Gamble1
07-10-2012, 12:01 PM
There is NO guarantee you could get him next year. Getting Blair now gives you a chance to see if he's a good fit for the Pacers. If he is, then he's already acquainted with the team and maybe has some allegence to the Pacers. If you get him now, Bird Rights go with it.

His salary is less than 1.1 mil. I don't see the Spurs wanting to take salary back, so a 2nd/Stanko and cap would probably get a deal done. Stanko is never going to wear a Pacers uni anymore than Lorbek was. They are trade fodder that costs the Pacers nothing to trade.

Other teams are making moves to get better. The Pacers can't sit with thumbs up their, and do nothing expecting to repeat the same results or produce better results this coming year. Blair is an asset that can help the 2nd unit and has been a starter on one of the premier NBA teams. At 1 mil he is a bargain that can help the Pacers. He brings more to the table than Hansbrough which is 3 times the cost. Plus if Hans gets injured, vertigo, you have a cheap qualified player already on the roster.

If all he cost is Stanko then I would be open to the idea but I think your kidding yourself if thats all he would cost and the only reason I say this is that other teams would most likely offer a lot more than some second round fodder.

Would Blair be a good fit with a defensive Center in Plumlee? Probably not and the big issue is what it cost to retain him. He will atleast get a MLE offer or something in that range and I would like to follow the Spurs strategy to keep the cost low on the backup players on the team and they way they do that is by keeping their picks and making the most out of them.

Skaut_Ech
07-10-2012, 01:16 PM
Pssst!! Read this! (http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1190437)

PlumBob
07-10-2012, 01:24 PM
With all due respect, is it that difficult to get a Jeff Foster type player?

Like all Pacer fans I appreciated Jeff Foster, but the obsession with him on both the front office and fan base is kind of annnoying. When we drafted Hans we heard he was "Jeff Foster with a more developed offensive game". When we drafted Plumlee we heard that he was a "Jeff Foster type of player". With all do respect to Jeff, I'm not sure he i the type of player that will put a team over the top.

If championships were won solely through grit and determination we would be perennial title contendors.

Justin Tyme
07-10-2012, 02:00 PM
If all he cost is Stanko then I would be open to the idea but I think your kidding yourself if thats all he would cost and the only reason I say this is that other teams would most likely offer a lot more than some second round fodder.

Would Blair be a good fit with a defensive Center in Plumlee? Probably not and the big issue is what it cost to retain him. He will atleast get a MLE offer or something in that range and I would like to follow the Spurs strategy to keep the cost low on the backup players on the team and they way they do that is by keeping their picks and making the most out of them.


Who else is going to give a better deal? Stanko would be a 1st round pick now, and the Spurs aren't wanting to take back salary. That's very important. Remember, they supposedly didn't have the money to re-sign Hill. Personally, I find that humorous since they just spent 8.5 mil on re-signing 2 of their own players... Green 4 mil and Diaw 4.5 mil. It's amazing they got Diaw towards the end of the season after trading Hill, and they now are spending 4.5 mil to keep him. As far as I'm concerned, they saw Bird coming and sold him a bill of goods while reaping in Kawhi Leonard.

For 1 mil and Stanko does it really matter how Plumlee and Blair fit together? Better question yet, how is Hansbrough and Plumlee going to fit? At least, Blair can play "D", reb, and set picks. Those things fans complained about Hans not being able to do all last season.

Even if Blair is nothing but a 1 year rental, like Lou, he comes 3X's cheaper than Lou did, and can SCORE. I see getting Blair for Stanko and Cap as a win win situation, even if it's just for a year. JMOAA

Do I think it will happen? No, TPTB aren't that in tune to get it done..

vnzla81
07-10-2012, 03:35 PM
I was reading on twitter that he is trying to lose weight again, WTF?

Gamble1
07-10-2012, 05:35 PM
Who else is going to give a better deal? Stanko would be a 1st round pick now, and the Spurs aren't wanting to take back salary. That's very important. Remember, they supposedly didn't have the money to re-sign Hill. Personally, I find that humorous since they just spent 8.5 mil on re-signing 2 of their own players... Green 4 mil and Diaw 4.5 mil. It's amazing they got Diaw towards the end of the season after trading Hill, and they now are spending 4.5 mil to keep him. As far as I'm concerned, they saw Bird coming and sold him a bill of goods while reaping in Kawhi Leonard.

For 1 mil and Stanko does it really matter how Plumlee and Blair fit together? Better question yet, how is Hansbrough and Plumlee going to fit? At least, Blair can play "D", reb, and set picks. Those things fans complained about Hans not being able to do all last season.

Even if Blair is nothing but a 1 year rental, like Lou, he comes 3X's cheaper than Lou did, and can SCORE. I see getting Blair for Stanko and Cap as a win win situation, even if it's just for a year. JMOAA

Do I think it will happen? No, TPTB aren't that in tune to get it done..
So Stanko would be a first round pick now at the age of 25? Even if I would believe that I wouldn't trade a first round pick for a one year rental. Atleast not for a marginal backup pf/c which is what Blair is.

Now that Hill and Hibbert are getting paid and the Pacers will be well over the cap the Pacers will have to be wise with not overpaying for marginal bench players. That means holding on to their picks and having them be solid contributors.

Stanko is signed until 2015 and by then he will be 28. The same as as Lorbek who will most likely come over the pond to join the Spurs. I can understand why Lorbek wouldn't come over for a crappy Pacers team but now that the Pacers are more than lottery team I fully expect a guy like Stanko to come over and fullfill a role as a solid backup Center.

Naptown_Seth
07-10-2012, 06:37 PM
Can we trade Tyler for him?
I will kill you. Why must you push my buttons like that? ;)

Wouldn't that be the ultimate irony, let's trade down like we should have in the first place only after 3 years of jerking around. And it could have included Holiday, Collison or Lawson too if we'd done it draft night.


Blair is not a complete player, he's a great floor space rebounder, uses his hips and leverage to contain people on the glass and to establish his own rebound space. He's got great reach which overcomes the height. His scoring is really hot and cold. Some nights he just cleans up around the rim and has nice inside touch, other nights you get nothing.

Decent hands for rebounding, no real shot blocking or rim protections. Great screens.


I wanted him over Tyler (by a large margin) because he's a more traditional POWER forward, all muscle, bulk, interior shoving and spacing. If you paired him with Mayo (or similar) and Collison you could have a pretty productive bench.

I assume the Spurs are shying away from his defensive limits due to height and quickness. IMO, who cares. He's still a talent upgrade on this roster's bench.

Justin Tyme
07-10-2012, 06:50 PM
So Stanko would be a first round pick now at the age of 25? Even if I would believe that I wouldn't trade a first round pick for a one year rental. Atleast not for a marginal backup pf/c which is what Blair is.

Now that Hill and Hibbert are getting paid and the Pacers will be well over the cap the Pacers will have to be wise with not overpaying for marginal bench players. That means holding on to their picks and having them be solid contributors.

Stanko is signed until 2015 and by then he will be 28. The same as as Lorbek who will most likely come over the pond to join the Spurs. I can understand why Lorbek wouldn't come over for a crappy Pacers team but now that the Pacers are more than lottery team I fully expect a guy like Stanko to come over and fullfill a role as a solid backup Center.


How old was Splitter when he came to the Spurs after they drafted him years previously?

Like holding on to marginal picks like Plum Jam to strengthen the Pacers.

Like I said the FO getting Blair isn't going to happen. They can't see the forest for the trees. I hope you enjoy another year of Hansbrough as your b/u PF with his 40% FG shooting, and little "D". Maybe he's been working this off season on how to set a proper pick. One can only hope!

Naptown_Seth
07-10-2012, 06:50 PM
I'd do the trade straight up in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, salaries don't match.

Hans 3 mil
Blair 1 mil

Blair 9.5 PPG... 5.5 Reb... Plays "D", sets picks 2nd... Buford 2 Rd pick 09 draft

Hans 9.3 PPG... 4.4 Reb... little "D", sets poor picks... Bird lottery pick 09 draft

Hans 3x's the money for equal to less quality.

And people wonder why I boo'd loudly at the draft party that night. So frustrating because it's not a shock.


And as I've said a million times, save the "but the ACL's were missing" crap because there's never been a player that's failed to play when his ACLs have degenerated away prior to that point. Tearing one that they are using, that's horrible, but developing the leg without them in place is different.

Don't trust me, go Google Hines Ward. That's the NFL, WR, planting, cutting, taking hits laterally with the leg/knee bearing most of the force many times per game...Super Bowl MVP and borderline HOF career, and known for being a physical, blocking WR. Now name any player besides Ward or Blair that had this condition and subsequently had a career ending injury a few years into his career because of it. There aren't any, the whole thing was unprecedented when Ward was drafted.

Any Blair knee issue was SPECULATIVE because there just weren't any cases besides Hines Ward of people having that situation and being pro-athlete caliber. People just felt like it shouldn't work and therefore had to eventually be a problem.


Now the weight - that's different. That is troublesome because it could lead to fatigued, sloppy play.


I am still confused on why so many of you are willing to trade for a guy who will not be a RFA and will be a FA in one year.

Sometimes it pays to wait one year and let the guy come to you rather than trading picks/players.
True, but I also like the idea of getting the help now, taking a look at him with the team prior to the FA situation, and developing a relationship with him too. If you get the Bird rights so much the better.

Gamble1
07-11-2012, 10:40 AM
True, but I also like the idea of getting the help now, taking a look at him with the team prior to the FA situation, and developing a relationship with him too. If you get the Bird rights so much the better.
I have no doubt getting Blair into the organization would help us resign him but I see it as a marginal difference that his 3rd down the list. Money and floor time matter most to a young FA and I doubt you would disagree with that.

My question to you is simply this. To what end? Adding Blair at his premimum price won't matter much to a small market team like the Pacers. He certainly won't level the scales in favor of the Pacers in the East. He won't put them 2nd in the East and he certainly won't change the outcome of a Heat/Pacer series.

The Pacer HAVE TO pay top dollar for a starting 5 and underpay for their bench players. This is of course assuming that Simon won't go into the LT but maybe I am wrong about that. I certainly don't think he will stay in the LT IMO. Would you disagree with this?

The biggest bang for the buck is in smart draft picks. Plummle wasn't a smart draft pick. Hansborough wasn't a smart draft pick. Splitter was a smart late first round draft pick. Hill was a smart late first round draft pick.

I suggest we follow the model of the Spurs in drafting AND letting guys go when they can be replaced by future draft picks. In a lot of ways the Spurs simply bait a hook with their expiring draftees and get even more value for them by trading them away.

The Pacers with the Hill trade took that bait when they should have been the ones like the Spurs getting more value out their own picks and replacing them with other cheaper options.

I wanted to believe early on that the Hill trade was a smart move but I can't bring myself to believe that anymore. Trading away 3 guys one of which should have been a lotto pick just wasn't worth Hill.

We could have signed him this season IMO and still had 3 assets in Lorbek, Kahwi, Davis Bertanss. Even if guys like JT say that we run the risk of not being able to sign him from the Spurs or he would have been traded,,,OK. Lets assume that does happen. My response to this is SO WHAT?

You lost out on the opportunity to overpay for 6th man who can play some pg minutes but is really a sg. The Pacers still don't have a solid point guard and they could have overpaid for OJ Mayo to replace that lost opportunity in signing Hill.

So here is my last thought before I stop rambling on and on. IN order for the Pacers to build a contender they need to build up their assets (draft picks/talent) and make smart trades that improve the starting 5 and solidify the bench.

Right now we have overpaid for Hill and now the suggestion is to do the same with Blair.. NO thank you.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 11:34 AM
The Pacer HAVE TO pay top dollar for a starting 5 and underpay for their bench players.

Bingo. Its why Foster's last contract was such a crime. Its why four years of guaranteed money (and above the vet's minimum) for D. Jones was stupid. Its why a multiyear seven-figure contract for a risky project like Stephenson is nothing better than an expensive gamble. Take out the last two, and you don't even have to blink at the idea of overpaying a little bit to keep the starting C that you've been building around.

I don't agree with most of your assessment of George Hill except for one point. I still would rather he become the starting SG, perhaps alongside Collison, than the starting PG. But he's definitely a starting-quality guard, we just don't have clue what we're really going to do at the SG spot yet. I don't think Hill is overpaid, but the Pacers' backcourt is still in need of help.

We've been doing this for 20 years now - overpaying for bench depth and then we get in a playoff series as a lower seed and find out that our starting five just isn't good enough -- so who cares about bench depth at that point?

vnzla81
07-11-2012, 11:44 AM
Bingo. Its why Foster's last contract was such a crime. Its why four years of guaranteed money (and above the vet's minimum) for D. Jones was stupid. Its why a multiyear seven-figure contract for a risky project like Stephenson is nothing better than an expensive gamble. Take out the last two, and you don't even have to blink at the idea of overpaying a little bit to keep the starting C that you've been building around.

I don't agree with most of your assessment of George Hill except for one point. I still would rather he become the starting SG, perhaps alongside Collison, than the starting PG. But he's definitely a starting-quality guard, we just don't have clue what we're really going to do at the SG spot yet. I don't think Hill is overpaid, but the Pacers' backcourt is still in need of help.

We've been doing this for 20 years now - overpaying for bench depth and then we get in a playoff series as a lower seed and find out that our starting five just isn't good enough -- so who cares about bench depth at that point?

I agree so much with the highlighted part, bravo.

Hicks
07-11-2012, 01:24 PM
Lance is six-figure, not seven, AFAIK.

Since86
07-11-2012, 01:27 PM
Lance is six-figure, not seven, AFAIK.

Shamsports says it was a 4/3,360,000 deal. Says he's due $870,000 this year and $930,000 next. Both unguaranteed.

Regardless, it's still extremely inexpensive relative for the NBA.

xIndyFan
07-11-2012, 01:40 PM
Shamsports says it was a 4/3,360,000 deal. Says he's due $870,000 this year and $930,000 next. Both unguaranteed.

Regardless, it's still extremely inexpensive relative for the NBA.

exactly, complaining about a guy making less than $1M is insanely stupid, imho at least. Pacers are going to have cap space problems, to be sure. But Lance and his contract are not going to have anything to do with it.

The kind of contracts that will cause problems are the ones like poster here want to offer guys like Mayo or Humphrey or whoever. 8, 9, 10 million per year type contracts are the ones that kill cap space, not 870K contracts or even contracts like Dahntay's.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 03:12 PM
It doesn't matter where you spend the million. Overpaying your 12th man by 870k or 930k (like that is materially different than "seven figures") is the same as overpaying Hibbert by about a million. You fill out the end of your roster with vet-minimum players or second round picks after you take care of your main players. You should never end up fretting over the contract to your starting C because an extra million (being spend on the end of the bench) puts you closer to the luxury tax.

Since86
07-11-2012, 03:14 PM
You say to round out your roster with second round players, which is exactly what they did with Lance.

Justin Tyme
07-11-2012, 03:16 PM
I have no doubt getting Blair into the organization would help us resign him but I see it as a marginal difference that his 3rd down the list. Money and floor time matter most to a young FA and I doubt you would disagree with that.

My question to you is simply this. To what end? Adding Blair at his premimum price won't matter much to a small market team like the Pacers. He certainly won't level the scales in favor of the Pacers in the East. He won't put them 2nd in the East and he certainly won't change the outcome of a Heat/Pacer series.

The Pacer HAVE TO pay top dollar for a starting 5 and underpay for their bench players. This is of course assuming that Simon won't go into the LT but maybe I am wrong about that. I certainly don't think he will stay in the LT IMO. Would you disagree with this?

The biggest bang for the buck is in smart draft picks. Plummle wasn't a smart draft pick. Hansborough wasn't a smart draft pick. Splitter was a smart late first round draft pick. Hill was a smart late first round draft pick.

I suggest we follow the model of the Spurs in drafting AND letting guys go when they can be replaced by future draft picks. In a lot of ways the Spurs simply bait a hook with their expiring draftees and get even more value for them by trading them away.

The Pacers with the Hill trade took that bait when they should have been the ones like the Spurs getting more value out their own picks and replacing them with other cheaper options.

I wanted to believe early on that the Hill trade was a smart move but I can't bring myself to believe that anymore. Trading away 3 guys one of which should have been a lotto pick just wasn't worth Hill.

We could have signed him this season IMO and still had 3 assets in Lorbek, Kahwi, Davis Bertanss. Even if guys like JT say that we run the risk of not being able to sign him from the Spurs or he would have been traded,,,OK. Lets assume that does happen. My response to this is SO WHAT?

You lost out on the opportunity to overpay for 6th man who can play some pg minutes but is really a sg. The Pacers still don't have a solid point guard and they could have overpaid for OJ Mayo to replace that lost opportunity in signing Hill.

So here is my last thought before I stop rambling on and on. IN order for the Pacers to build a contender they need to build up their assets (draft picks/talent) and make smart trades that improve the starting 5 and solidify the bench.



Right now we have overpaid for Hill and now the suggestion is to do the same with Blair.. NO thank you.


Hmmm, 1 mil for Blair is overpaying, but 3 mil for Hansbrough is fine! I've never said the Pacers had to re-sign Blair. I'M LOOKING FOR HELP THIS YEAR! If Blair worx out and IF the price is right re-sign him. If not, let him walk.

Please point out where the Pacers can get a player from another team for less than 1.1 mil at a position of need, b/u PF, with Blair's ability and production? The cost I'm talking about to of get Blair is a 2nd/Stanko and 1 mil. Bird traded 3 2nds for James White and gave him a 2 year guaranteed contract then was cut prior to training camp, and you are worried about the cost of Blair? Lets not forget the Pacers traded for John Edwards at 1.1 mil then cut/waived him. 1 mil isn't something that the FO under Walsh ever worried about throwing away, but you are? I'd get upset with your thinking if it wasn't so laughable.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 03:18 PM
You don't pay second rounders and vet minimum players a million bucks a year. But even if the dollars are similar, you don't lock 'em up for four years. And you don't need to give 13, 14, or 15 guaranteed contracts (the old Donnie Walsh way of managing a 12 active player roster.) We have a better idea who is going to be in street clothes this season (or never taking their warmups off) vs. who is going in the rotation.

Since86
07-11-2012, 03:23 PM
If giving Lance less than 1 mil per year, for two years guaranteed and two years non-guaranteed is one of the bigger problems to comlain about when talking about salary issues, then I'd venture to say that it's a petty thing to be squabbling over.

Lance eating up 1mil per year isn't going to make or break your ability to re-sign a guy like Hibbert. It's small potatoes.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 03:48 PM
True. But Lance plus Pendegraff plus Jones and suddenly you're at a shade under $5 million for guys that you hope never are forced into the game during meaningful minutes. That's 9% or so of the cap right there on guys wearing ties or their warmup jackets all night long.

Since86
07-11-2012, 03:53 PM
9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.

Gamble1
07-11-2012, 04:23 PM
Hmmm, 1 mil for Blair is overpaying, but 3 mil for Hansbrough is fine! I've never said the Pacers had to re-sign Blair. I'M LOOKING FOR HELP THIS YEAR! If Blair worx out and IF the price is right re-sign him. If not, let him walk.

Please point out where the Pacers can get a player from another team for less than 1.1 mil at a position of need, b/u PF, with Blair's ability and production? The cost I'm talking about to of get Blair is a 2nd/Stanko and 1 mil. Bird traded 3 2nds for James White and gave him a 2 year guaranteed contract then was cut prior to training camp, and you are worried about the cost of Blair? Lets not forget the Pacers traded for John Edwards at 1.1 mil then cut/waived him. 1 mil isn't something that the FO under Walsh ever worried about throwing away, but you are? I'd get upset with your thinking if it wasn't so laughable.
For one I don't believe the Pacers can get Blair for just Stanko or a second round pick and I have stated before that I would be more than willing to do this.

What I find funny is that your pointing to one mistake of Birds (James White) as if that should automatically prove that Blair wouldn't be as bad as a mistake and therfore justifiable.

I respect your opinion JT and I am not just blowing smoke here. The only reason I would want Blair is if the Pacers could resign him on the cheap. Thats around 3 million IMO and that would be a steal. Do I think its plausible or likely? No I do not just like my reasoning of resigning Hill was not a net gain when you factor in what it took to get him and what he is signed for now AND how the Pacers will use him.

In order for Blair to be a part of the puzzle of a contending team he has to have a reasonable contract because he is nothing more than a backup bigman and somewhat average at that.

Now let me ask you this are the Pacers contending this coming year? My answer to that question is no. As of right now they are behind the Nets (without Dwight) and the Heat IMO.

So having Blair for one year and accomplishing a second round exit means very little to me. I would much rather keep the draft pick and let Hans expire or trade him away in some package with Collison that upgrades the starting 5.

I believe we ultimately have the same goals for the Pacers but we differ on how to get there which is why I make a big stink on topics like this. Blair makes us playoff contenders but not championship contenders unless he is on a cheap contract and the Pacers improve the starting 5.

Gamble1
07-11-2012, 04:42 PM
9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.

I am fine with paying 9% as long as it goes to player with potential which is why I differ from Chicago J on this in regards to Lance. Djones and Pendgraph though I see very little potential there and so I don't see the point on some of those signing especially when Brush was on the team during the Djones signing.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 05:43 PM
9% of your cap for 25% of your roster is a pretty good trade off, if you ask me.

That could be true. But this is also 9% of the cap for 0% of the rotation, and to me that is the kicker.

Right now the Pacers have about 81% of the cap tied up on the starters, which will go up further when Paul George's contract is up. And another 11% in the sixth, seventh, and eighth men (Collison, Tyler who are both due for pay raises soon, and Plumlee if he's actually going to be in the rotation?!??!??). So that leaves about -1% of the cap for the 9th through 12th men. And perhaps another backup big if Plumlee isn't going to be any more ready than Pendegraff.

Clearly, Stephenson's contract in isolation is less of a concern if the Pacers aren't already saddled with D. Jones and Pendegraff. But they're clearly overspending on the guys that look good in suits, which which has been a long-term problem.

Lance George
07-11-2012, 06:04 PM
Pendergraph, Stephenson, and Dahntay Jones combined to play exactly 1,600 minutes last season. That's 10.1% of the 15,840 available minutes.

They combined to make $5.1M. That's 8.6% of the $58M salary cap.

I'm not seeing the problem. They actually take up a higher percentage of the playing time than they do the salary cap.

ChicagoJ
07-11-2012, 06:09 PM
You're talking about last season's minutes. And by the end of the season, all three had played their way out of the rotation and to the end of the bench. If they're playing 1600 minutes again this upcoming season, the roster got worse or the Pacers are having injury problems.

Hicks
07-11-2012, 06:20 PM
Shamsports says it was a 4/3,360,000 deal. Says he's due $870,000 this year and $930,000 next. Both unguaranteed.

Regardless, it's still extremely inexpensive relative for the NBA.

Right. I thought he was saying Lance made seven figures each year.

speakout4
07-11-2012, 06:51 PM
You're talking about last season's minutes. And by the end of the season, all three had played their way out of the rotation and to the end of the bench. If they're playing 1600 minutes again this upcoming season, the roster got worse or the Pacers are having injury problems.

If you don't think they are worth it then we don't need any more than the absolute minimum # of players to comply with nba guidelines. If someone goes down then a 10 day contract is in order. These guys also provide valuable scrimmage for the starters so what's the big deal?

Hicks
07-11-2012, 06:52 PM
If the problem is our bench isn't very good, why would we want to comprise it with a bunch of veteran minimum players?

vnzla81
07-11-2012, 07:09 PM
I agree with ChicagoJ, the Pacers are known for expending money in bench players that are really never going to play, why not expend a bit more and get better quality starters? as an example last year the Pacers decided to give money to Foster and at the end of the day that ended up biting them in the a$$, if the haven't done that they would have probably been able to ad Barbosa and Kaman at the end of the trade deadline.

ChicagoJ
07-12-2012, 12:53 AM
If you don't think they are worth it then we don't need any more than the absolute minimum # of players to comply with nba guidelines. If someone goes down then a 10 day contract is in order. These guys also provide valuable scrimmage for the starters so what's the big deal?

They scrimmage after training camp ends? I'm not sure that's true, even in a normal 82-game season. Its all games, walk-throughs, and maybe a half dozen full-speed, full contact practices per year (only if consecutive days between games/ travel days.)

ChicagoJ
07-12-2012, 12:55 AM
If the problem is our bench isn't very good, why would we want to comprise it with a bunch of veteran minimum players?

Sixth, seventh, and eighth (and maybe ninth) men need to be capable players. And none of these guys are likely to be in that role. My point is not about the bench but in the rotation as much as about the guys wearing suits on game day.