PDA

View Full Version : ShamSports updates our salaries



Heisenberg
09-22-2012, 07:03 PM
http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/pacers.jsp

Team Option
Qualifying Offer
Unguaranteed

http://imageshack.us/a/img832/723/pacerssalaries.jpg

Glad to see Hill's new deal's a flat 8 million per year, should it ever come down to it that's more tradeable down the line than had he gotten raises.

Some notes;
Roy's deal has a 15% trade kicker
Danny's got 200k worth of potential bonuses that are "unlikely"
Lance's last year is fully unguaranteed but becomes guaranteed if he's on the roster after July 15, 2013. Also has 75k worth of potential "unlikely" bonuses.
OJ's last year is unguaranteed, becomes guaranteed if on the roster after August 1, 2014

Mad-Mad-Mario
09-22-2012, 07:10 PM
Wow, didn't realize we were that over the cap.

docpaul
09-22-2012, 07:37 PM
Thanks for pointing to this. However, there are a couple of comments on the mouseovers for the player names that imply that these data might not be totally trustworthy.

For example, it says that Gerald Green signed a 4 year deal. It also says that Indiana matched Portland's offer letter, when in fact Portland simply dropped their offer once they found out that Indy was going to accept.

Eleazar
09-22-2012, 07:38 PM
Mahinmi and Green are both also flat. I wonder if other teams are doing this for mid-tier type of players under the new CBA. I'm sure it would help make managing the cap a lot easier. If it is a league wide trend I think it would be a good one.




It also says that Indiana matched Portland's offer letter, when in fact Portland simply dropped their offer once they found out that Indy was going to accept.

That is just semantics.

Heisenberg
09-22-2012, 07:43 PM
The Green mouseover is obviously just at typo, he's got the same reported contract details as everywhere else in the actual chart.

yoadknux
09-22-2012, 07:43 PM
I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

Mad-Mad-Mario
09-22-2012, 07:50 PM
I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

A young starting PG with potential upside who gets along with his teammates well. Yes totally not worth 8 million dollars. Because as we all know everyone and their mother is just clamoring to come to Indiana and play.

Kegboy
09-22-2012, 07:53 PM
I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

Just be glad it's 8,8,8,8,8 and not 6,7,8,9,10.

yoadknux
09-22-2012, 08:21 PM
A young starting PG with potential
He turns 27 in a few months. It's safer to say that he's in his prime than saying that he's a "young rising point guard with potential".
As for his "starter" status, he only got it because our other point guard (which we traded for a backup center..) got injured. You could say he was our starting point guard for the playoffs, but he didn't exactly shine there (13.5/2.3/2.9 with 2 TO/game)

who gets along with his teammates well.
Yeah, how many players get paid because they get along with their teammates?

Because as we all know everyone and their mother is just clamoring to come to Indiana and play.
D.J Augustin came for 1/$3.5m...

Mad-Mad-Mario
09-22-2012, 08:28 PM
He turns 27 in a few months. It's safer to say that he's in his prime than saying that he's a "young rising point guard with potential".
As for his "starter" status, he only got it because our other point guard (which we traded for a backup center..) got injured. You could say he was our starting point guard for the playoffs, but he didn't exactly shine there (13.5/2.3/2.9 with 2 TO/game)

Yeah, how many players get paid because they get along with their teammates?

D.J Augustin came for 1/$3.5m...

No he was our starting PG, because when he got his chance to play the team was better than with DC. And its not fair to take his playoff numbers. Plenty of guys on our team had their numbers go down. And yes George Hill is young. Hes only been in the league what, 3 or 4 years. Hes still developing as a player both Mentally and physically.'

Not many, but better to have somebody who does than somebody who doesn't. Getting jerks on your team leads to situations like umm the Pacers 4 years ago.

Somebody took a one year deal to get the hell out of Charlotte. Yeah that totally means people are willing to come here to play.

Cubs231721
09-22-2012, 08:31 PM
If those salary figures are correct, Scola would have been a very unlikely target even without the timing issues of Hibbert/Hill signing first. Even if the Pacers had gotten him for the same amount the Suns did, that would have left them less than 0.5 million away from the luxury tax (that's also without Ahern, Gaines, and Young). I doubt the Pacers want to get that close and lose all in season flexibility to add a 15th man or make a trade. And of course to win the bid, they would have had to bid even more than the Suns did and thereby get even closer to the tax level.

Brand would have been a possibility to fit in if not for the timing issues.

Overall though, if the Pacers keep two of Gaines, Ahern, and Young, they'll be about 3.3 million away from the tax level. They perhaps could have spent a little more, but they didn't leave a huge amount of money on the table.

Pacers13Colts12
09-22-2012, 09:44 PM
There is probably a reason DJ signed here. What has he done exactly?

I don't get the Hill hatred on here. He was very solid last year, 8 mil is a good deal. Slightly overpaid maybe, but not worth the hate he gets on here.

Sandman21
09-22-2012, 09:55 PM
D.J Augustin came for 1/$3.5m...

Because anywhere was better than Charlotte.

xBulletproof
09-22-2012, 10:15 PM
So we are 2 million from the luxury tax, I thought it was 3, but we didn't have near the room to maneuver people acted like we did. Some people wanted major moves which wasn't in the cards with what we had.

MvPlumlee
09-22-2012, 11:14 PM
Storytellers updated them like 6 months ago and even hoopsworld has done a much better job in keeping them up to date.

Let's see if they made lesser mistakes.

wintermute
09-23-2012, 02:38 AM
So we are 2 million from the luxury tax, I thought it was 3, but we didn't have near the room to maneuver people acted like we did. Some people wanted major moves which wasn't in the cards with what we had.

We were at $65m before signing the unguaranteed trio of Gaines, Young, and Ahearn. We had a little bit more room.


If those salary figures are correct, Scola would have been a very unlikely target even without the timing issues of Hibbert/Hill signing first. Even if the Pacers had gotten him for the same amount the Suns did, that would have left them less than 0.5 million away from the luxury tax (that's also without Ahern, Gaines, and Young). I doubt the Pacers want to get that close and lose all in season flexibility to add a 15th man or make a trade. And of course to win the bid, they would have had to bid even more than the Suns did and thereby get even closer to the tax level.


Yup. Either Pacers couldn't work the timing (still seems like a BS excuse to me), figured Scola would cost more, or simply decided that keeping flexibility is the best option.

I'm not expecting more than 1 out of Gaines, Young, Ahearn to make the team, and even then he'd be an emergency use player. But I figure we want flexibility in case of injury, etc. We still have the $2.5m room exception to use, and space under the tax to use it.

wintermute
09-23-2012, 03:02 AM
Storytellers updated them like 6 months ago and even hoopsworld has done a much better job in keeping them up to date.


I was using Storytellers while waiting for Sham to update, and I'm happy to see that they match line by line.

Sham does get details that other sites don't report (like Roy's trade kicker), but as far as I'm concerned, the more reliable salary sites, the better.


I knew that Hill's contract is terrible as soon as the details for it were coming out, but looking at it like that makes me think even more what was going through our FO's minds when they gave him that contract...

FWIW, I felt better about Hill's contract after reading Hollinger's report. He's not the best playmaker, true, but he's a low turnover guy, and his shooting, defense, rebounding are all above average. Still a bit too much money - I'd compare him to Arron Afflalo, who makes slightly less.

But I can see where you're coming from. My preference is still to have a true playmaker at PG, with Hill playing SG or even 6th man.

xBulletproof
09-23-2012, 09:27 AM
We were at $65m before signing the unguaranteed trio of Gaines, Young, and Ahearn. We had a little bit more room.

Yes but these are signings we knew we had to make, so you have to leave room for them as well. So while technically the room was there, you couldn't use it for the reason that you knew you needed it.

beast23
09-23-2012, 03:10 PM
Yes but these are signings we knew we had to make, so you have to leave room for them as well. So while technically the room was there, you couldn't use it for the reason that you knew you needed it.

Well, wait a minute. Including the unguaranteed contracts, we hav like 16 guys with a contract. That means that we had 13 guys under contract before the last 3 guys wer signed. So, technically, we didn't have to add another player. Isn't 13 the minimum you have to carry?

xBulletproof
09-23-2012, 03:29 PM
Well, wait a minute. Including the unguaranteed contracts, we hav like 16 guys with a contract. That means that we had 13 guys under contract before the last 3 guys wer signed. So, technically, we didn't have to add another player. Isn't 13 the minimum you have to carry?

Yes, but what's the point if you're already over the cap? Last year we added Barbosa with that roster space. This year we'd just be risking someone taking a player we wanted once someone got hurt with no potential gain from it.

wintermute
09-23-2012, 03:48 PM
Yes but these are signings we knew we had to make, so you have to leave room for them as well. So while technically the room was there, you couldn't use it for the reason that you knew you needed it.

I'd argue that if we had used the money for something else, we wouldn't be making so many camp signings now. Depends on what you think is important I guess.

wintermute
09-23-2012, 03:48 PM
Btw, Sham has corrected the errors pointed out in this thread.

xBulletproof
09-23-2012, 04:59 PM
I'd argue that if we had used the money for something else, we wouldn't be making so many camp signings now. Depends on what you think is important I guess.

What money? So you take 1,800,000 (2 camp guys) off and we are still only less than 4 million away from the tax. What type players make that money, that aren't on rookie contracts? Not many that are going to be a difference maker. It also brings you within pennies of the tax which we probably don't want to risk getting so close.

I'm not sure what kind of awesome moves that are worth complaining about that could have been made for that price.

Mad-Mad-Mario
09-23-2012, 05:10 PM
The only way the team was going to be able to sign anybody else with experience was if Charlotte had accepted Tyler in a trade for DJ

hackashaq
09-23-2012, 05:22 PM
What money? So you take 1,800,000 (2 camp guys) off and we are still only less than 4 million away from the tax. What type players make that money, that aren't on rookie contracts? Not many that are going to be a difference maker. It also brings you within pennies of the tax which we probably don't want to risk getting so close.

I'm not sure what kind of awesome moves that are worth complaining about that could have been made for that price.

i think people generally mean Scola/Brand bids in these situations. 4.6m Scola bid or 2.2m Brand were feasible, tax wise.
Timing/want is the question in those situations rather than tax.

Naptown_Seth
09-23-2012, 06:42 PM
Wow, didn't realize we were that over the cap.
$10m in total to guys that aren't likely to contribute much at all this year.

Roy
West
Danny
Paul
Hill
DJ Aug
Green
Young
Mahimi
9 man rotation - 58m

Of course I'm going to leave Tyler out, and even more so when you look at his 4m salary option for next year with a 7m cap hold till he's signed. He's done after this year.

And it's nice to load up on depth, but you can only have so many 1.5m Pendergraphs on the team. With 1m to Plumlee also and Tyler already mentioned that's a lot of money for what should really just be 1 guy at 1-2m. 5.5 and you don't know that any of them are going to produce enough to warrant 500+ minutes this year, barring injury. I guess I don't mind Pendy at that price, but scrub big foul machine rebounder hustler describes a lot of dudes out of business right now that can be picked up as needed.


And I hate to say it, but it also points out the limits of having a 14m guy that can only go 30 minutes a night. You've got to pay to cover those other 18 minutes. It's really on his shoulders this year because either his money is going to buy a guy that can carry the team a little bit or they are in big trouble with not a lot of wiggle room sans a full punt at .75 on the dollar.

Naptown_Seth
09-23-2012, 06:45 PM
The only way the team was going to be able to sign anybody else with experience was if Charlotte had accepted Tyler in a trade for DJ
Yep, kinda what my answer just alluded to. You've got too much money tied into backup big. If you can move Tyler's 3m and move Plumlee in at 1m it's not so bad, but having them both plus Pendy is tough.


I'd argue that if we had used the money for something else, we wouldn't be making so many camp signings now. Depends on what you think is important I guess.
I agree. If they'd pulled Scola then they definitely wouldn't have tried to load up with some of this other stuff, even the guards/wings perhaps, and they might have returned to trying to move Tyler.

docpaul
09-23-2012, 06:53 PM
Somebody took a one year deal to get the hell out of Charlotte. Yeah that totally means people are willing to come here to play.

Um, wasn't he a free agent?

2minutes twoa
09-24-2012, 11:17 PM
My preference is still to have a true playmaker at PG, with Hill playing SG.

I still think this is ultimately what will happen and that's why I'm ok with the deal. Gives you a lot of flexibility with the line up either way.