PDA

View Full Version : Keeping Paul George and David West



Cousy47
02-13-2013, 11:19 PM
If we afford Paul George a Max extension at the end of the year, what kind of money are we looking at? I think it's less that if we wait and let his contract expire, right? Can we extend him for that kind of money after this year and still keep West? CBA is not my strong point by any means so any help from the stat folks would be welcomed.

Brad8888
02-13-2013, 11:22 PM
I don't want either one of them "deeped".

I would, however, like to have the Pacers retain both of their services.

Sandman21
02-13-2013, 11:24 PM
PG would likely be looking at the Roy deal.

Will Galen
02-13-2013, 11:29 PM
I think he meant 'Keeping' in the title.

bshall
02-14-2013, 12:52 AM
I was kinda scared to click on this thread....

tora tora
02-14-2013, 12:54 AM
:clintshudder:

Dr. Awesome
02-14-2013, 01:01 AM
:clintshudder:

Hahahahahahhahaha, well played.

Bball
02-14-2013, 01:24 AM
I don't want either one of them "deeped".



I'm pretty sure the past tense is actually "dept"....
:zip:

jeffg-body
02-14-2013, 02:02 AM
I have been hoping that we could keep Paul, DW and Danny together. If it came down to it I would rather trade Danny and keep our current "big three" as Roy, Paul and DW. This is coming from a Danny fan as well. I think we should wait on it though to see how they all play together and if they can co-exist. I am not good with the cap and maybe someone could figure a way.

Indra
02-14-2013, 05:59 AM
I agree, jeffg-body. If Roy Hibbert ever comes out of this slump all the way we will have an amazing core. As much as I love DG (and I do love me some DG) I would be more willing to part with him than PG, Hibs, or DW. It will be hard to replace Hibbert's presence on defense, West's veteran leadership and clutch playmaking, and George's skyrocketing trajectory in all aspects of his game.

BRushWithDeath
02-14-2013, 09:40 AM
If we afford Paul George a Max extension at the end of the year, what kind of money are we looking at? I think it's less that if we wait and let his contract expire, right? Can we extend him for that kind of money after this year and still keep West? CBA is not my strong point by any means so any help from the stat folks would be welcomed.

There's no incentive for Paul George to agree to an extension. He'll play out the life of his contract and then sign a max deal but not before it expires.

Ace E.Anderson
02-14-2013, 09:54 AM
There's no incentive for Paul George to agree to an extension. He'll play out the life of his contract and then sign a max deal but not before it expires.

His situation will be very similar to what happened with Roy. He (most likely) won't sign a qualifying offer, and play out his existing contract. He'll then become a restricted Free Agent and then will be signed to the "max deal" that is appropriate for his tenure in the league.

Coopdog23
02-14-2013, 10:13 AM
I know West will re sign because he wants to stay in Indiana to win a title here. I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more

Cousy47
02-14-2013, 10:22 AM
Did I mis-spell Keeping? If I did thanks to whoever fixed it. I also missed on offered, but no one caught that! Ace E., didn't using the extension help Minn. keep Love last year? Some times the "bird in the hand" thing can make a person not take a chance on being a RFA. Remember, "Many a slip, twixt cup and lip". If we wait until 2014, we are facing re-signing PG and DG and Lance? at the same time. Assuming West stays at decent money, we would be looking at a lot of salary cap, no?

owl
02-14-2013, 10:27 AM
I know West will re sign because he wants to stay in Indiana to win a title here. I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more

What do you mean?

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 10:37 AM
There's no incentive for Paul George to agree to an extension. He'll play out the life of his contract and then sign a max deal but not before it expires.

I don't see any reason for the Pacers to sign him early either if they're going to give him the max. See how far he develops and then give him the max at the end of his contract as you suggest. The only reason for a team to sign a player to an extension early would be to save money like they did with Granger. They extended Granger for less then the max just before he had his breakout all star year in which he averaged almost 26 ppg. It seems like a lot of people forget just how good Granger was that year when comparing him to PG. If they hadn't extended him, he'd be making a lot more money right now.

Coopdog23
02-14-2013, 10:42 AM
What do you mean?

by what?

PacerGuy
02-14-2013, 11:03 AM
IMO we roll w/ Danny this season, & see where we get. In the off-season however I think we look to move him. I'm sure we will be looking to lock up D.West & extending P.George to bigger money deals, & w/ Roy's deal not going anywhere, Danny is the logical player to move. His deal will be expiring, & if he shows to be healthy he will hold value, esp for a team that might have a player they want to move to clear cap. This is not an anti-Danny decision by any means, as I like Danny, but it is purely a business decision. Besides, Paul has shown he is a better fit @ the 3, so moving Danny for a younger, cheaper player, esp a 2 would make the most sense. This could even be a move for a higher draft choice, as Lance has shown the ability to be a solid starter, so we would not require a "play now" player.

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:10 AM
We really don't have to make a decision on Granger until we get a grip on what his contract value would be and after we sign West. If the team can keep West to a contract near the range he's at now that would go a long way on keeping Granger long term. It's still very possible to just keep both players. At worst I wouldn't move Granger until this time next year.

Mackey_Rose
02-14-2013, 11:14 AM
I know West will re sign because he wants to stay in Indiana to win a title here. I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more


What do you mean?


by what?

You say "I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more."

A max deal, is an abbreviated way of saying a maximum deal. Meaning he'll be getting the absolute most he is allowed to get under the CBA. I guess he can simply ask for more, but what purpose would it serve to ask for more than he can possibly get under any circumstance?

Basically nothing in your original post made even a lick of sense. You do not know that West will re-sign. You do not know his reasons for possibly doing so. You cannot be certain that PG won't ask for a max deal. He cannot legitimately ask for more than the max. That's why it's called the max.

I'm speaking for him, but it seems to me that owl asked what you meant, because everything that you said was complete and utter nonsense.

Coopdog23
02-14-2013, 11:16 AM
You say "I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more."

A max deal, is an abbreviated way of saying a maximum deal. Meaning he'll be getting the absolute most he is allowed to get under the CBA. I guess he can simply ask for more, but what purpose would it serve to ask for more than he can possibly get under any circumstance?

Basically nothing in your original post made even a lick of sense. You do not know that West will re-sign. You do not know his reasons for possibly doing so. You cannot be certain that PG won't ask for a max deal. He cannot legitimately ask for more than the max. That's why it's called the max.

I'm speaking for him, but it seems to me that owl asked what you meant, because everything that you said was complete and utter nonsense.

I know what max deal is dude. I don't believe he will ask for a max deal because i believe he doesn't want to leave the Pacers so asking for a max deal could really hurt the Pacers finacially

Mackey_Rose
02-14-2013, 11:19 AM
We really don't have to make a decision on Granger until we get a grip on what his contract value would be and after we sign West. If the team can keep West to a contract near the range he's at now that would go a long way on keeping Granger long term. It's still very possible to just keep both players. At worst I wouldn't move Granger until this time next year.

Assuming that Granger is close to the same player he was, which is a huge assumption to be making, it is going to be near impossible to keep George, West, and Granger.

I would prioritize them in that order, George, then West, then Granger. George is the most important player for this franchise over the next decade. He's an absolute no-brainer. I hope they think West is as important as I do, and do everything in their power to get him locked in after this season. Granger unfortunately looks like the odd man out.

vnzla81
02-14-2013, 11:23 AM
I know what max deal is dude. I don't believe he will ask for a max deal because i believe he doesn't want to leave the Pacers so asking for a max deal could really hurt the Pacers finacially

The decision to take the max is not in Paul George's hands, just like Hibbert some team is going to offer him the max, he won't be able to refuse the offer and then the Pacers would have to match it.

And the same thing is going to happen with West.

Mackey_Rose
02-14-2013, 11:23 AM
I know what max deal is dude. I don't believe he will ask for a max deal because i believe he doesn't want to leave the Pacers so asking for a max deal could really hurt the Pacers finacially

He's nearly 6'10". He's 22 years old. He's got out-of-this-world talent. He works his butt off.

On top of that, he cares more about the finances of the Indiana Pacers than he does about his own family.

Paul George, everybody.

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:29 AM
Assuming that Granger is close to the same player he was, which is a huge assumption to be making, it is going to be near impossible to keep George, West, and Granger.

I would prioritize them in that order, George, then West, then Granger. George is the most important player for this franchise over the next decade. He's an absolute no-brainer. I hope they think West is as important as I do, and do everything in their power to get him locked in after this season. Granger unfortunately looks like the odd man out.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying in prioritizing who to keep and I think the team will also look at it that way. I don't think it's inevitable that we lose Granger. If Granger returns to last years form I still don't see him getting more then a 12 mil offer in todays cba. If we can keep West and Granger in the 10-12 range we can keep our starters at around 58 mil and just live with a weak bench to stay under 70-72 mil. None of this is an issue until PG is signed the year after Granger, so I think time is on our side and even if Granger is signed to a larger contract you can trade him during the summer that you sign PG to avoud the LT. There is no need to trade Granger this summer when you don't have to.

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:30 AM
The decision to take the max is not in Paul George's hands, just like Hibbert some team is going to offer him the max, he won't be able to refuse the offer and then the Pacers would have to match it.

And the same thing is going to happen with West.

West is not getting a max offer.

vnzla81
02-14-2013, 11:34 AM
West is not getting a max offer.

And you know that because? all it takes in one team to offer it to screw the Pacers.

Slick Pinkham
02-14-2013, 11:39 AM
If West gets a max offer, then guess what?

Starting at PF, for your Indiana Pacers, TYYYYLLLEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR HANNNNNNNNNNSBROOOOOOOOOOOOOOUGH!

Since86
02-14-2013, 11:42 AM
It seems like just three weeks ago V was saying DWest wouldn't make it just a few more seasons, and now he thinks he's a max contract?

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:46 AM
And you know that because? all it takes in one team to offer it to screw the Pacers.


Because it makes no sense to give him a max offer at his age and current production. Giving a young all center a max offer at least made some sense.
It would take a team under the cap far enough to make that offer that was looking at the short term. Dallas might make that kind of move if they strike out everywhere else but I don't think so. The new tax penalties are going to make this a less lucrative market for players for the next few years.

BillS
02-14-2013, 11:51 AM
It seems like just three weeks ago V was saying DWest wouldn't make it just a few more seasons, and now he thinks he's a max contract?

Well, he thinks more teams other than just the Pacers aren't as good as he is in regards to evaluating talent and player value.

We gotta get this guy a FO position. If nothing else we could be showered with free tickets. :lol:

Hicks
02-14-2013, 11:53 AM
I was just asking count55/JayRedd about this (Paul's next contract).

Odds are barring major shifts in his projected outlook, he's going to get a max contract, and they are telling me that if we designate Paul as the guy we give a 5 year extension to (everyone else can only be 4 years), he will get as much money from that extension as he could possibly get the following summer as a RFA, so odds are good we'll just lock him up before next Halloween with that 5 year deal, and that will probably be worth about $81mm, give or take.

Apparently Paul would even retroactively boost his extension contract if he later met certain requirements to qualify for 30% of the cap versus the typical 25%.

Hicks
02-14-2013, 11:54 AM
I know what max deal is dude. I don't believe he will ask for a max deal because i believe he doesn't want to leave the Pacers so asking for a max deal could really hurt the Pacers finacially

He doesn't have to leave the Pacers to get the most money. In fact, I think the opposite would be true, if anything.

kent beckley
02-14-2013, 11:57 AM
My thoughts on the subject:

Paul will get the max. The only question is which max. Am I correct in saying that if he makes two all-star appearances on his rookie deal, the ceiling gets raised? The Derrick Rose exception? This will be taken care of in 18 months.

I am pretty sure that West will get resigned. He is extremely important to our team. I would love to get him signed for 10-12 per year for at least 3 years. I fear it may be more. Perhaps our only saving grace will be that the PF market will be flooded this summer. J Smoove, Milsap, Jefferson are all mare than Mid-level players, maybe the money will run out before all of these guys get signed.

That leaves Granger and Stephenson. The problem will not be next year, it will be 2014. We cannot afford 15 million for these two players. We will have to pick one of them.

So the question becomes, do we let it ride through next season, or be proactive and trade Danny in the offseason to get a piece along with some cap relief. We have two waves coming. The first involves our current team. The second involves Roy, Paul, and George. Should we go all in on this wave, or trade a current piece for an additional piece on the next wave. That is the question we will be faced with this offseason.

vnzla81
02-14-2013, 12:00 PM
Well, he thinks more teams other than just the Pacers aren't as good as he is in regards to evaluating talent and player value.

We gotta get this guy a FO position. If nothing else we could be showered with free tickets. :lol:

No really, my point is that there is always some crazy team in the NBA that is willing to take that risk, see Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Elton Brand, etc, just because I don't think West is a max player doesn't mean that I don't expect some crazy team to offer him the max or close to it.

I was talking to the Rocketguy and he is telling me that Houston is going to be all over West, and something that we know about Houston is that their front office knows how to play with the contracts(see Lin and Asik).

Hicks
02-14-2013, 12:04 PM
My thoughts on the subject:

Paul will get the max. The only question is which max. Am I correct in saying that if he makes two all-star appearances on his rookie deal, the ceiling gets raised? The Derrick Rose exception? This will be taken care of in 18 months.

Not quite that easy.

He would have to be VOTED IN as an all-star by the fans two years in a row, so that won't happen now even if he had it happen next season.

He could also get 30% of cap instead of 25% if he makes an all-nba team both now and next year (a long shot for this year, I think, but maybe).

He could also get 30% if he wins the MVP award in the next two years (not holding my breath).

So the door isn't closed on 30%, but it's not exactly probable.

wintermute
02-14-2013, 12:25 PM
West's max is a good deal higher than the rookie max that Roy got or that Paul G. is going to get. Roy and Paul's first year started/will start at around $14m. As a 10th year player next year, I believe that West qualifies for 35% of the cap, or approximately $19m on the first year. That's a big investment for any team. Personally I don't think he'll get THAT max ($19m), but anywhere in between $12m to $15m won't surprise me.

I also think that the Pacers will use their designated player status to extend Paul George next year. That's the deal that Harden got this year, i.e. same thing that Hicks/MAStamper is talking about a few posts up. The Pacers don't HAVE to do it of course, but when you have an obvious max type player on your hands, you do everything you can to keep him sweet. That would be the reasoning as to why we should extend him early versus letting him get to the FA market a la Hibbert.

In addition, I suspect we'll need to reserve a pool of money for Lance Stephenson, assuming he continues to develop. Put together, that's a lot of money in future contracts. Which is why a lot of people (including myself) think that someone from the core will be sacrificed eventually in order to stay under the tax.

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 12:53 PM
Maybe we should just trade any player that becomes a free agent in the next 3 years because a chance exist that some other team will offer them a contract that we won't want to match.
Lance has been a nice surprise for a 2cd. round pick. but as a starter he's only averaging 8 points. Once Granger returns I fear this will go down a little as he moves to the bench. I wouldn't worry about a team offering him more then MLE money and that's a stretch. However, if we want to keep Granger even MLE money for a bench player may be too much. Lance may be a better player to move this summer as much as I hate to lose him I'd rather keep Granger.

OlBlu
02-14-2013, 12:55 PM
West's max is a good deal higher than the rookie max that Roy got or that Paul G. is going to get. Roy and Paul's first year started/will start at around $14m. As a 10th year player next year, I believe that West qualifies for 35% of the cap, or approximately $19m on the first year. That's a big investment for any team. Personally I don't think he'll get THAT max ($19m), but anywhere in between $12m to $15m won't surprise me.

I also think that the Pacers will use their designated player status to extend Paul George next year. That's the deal that Harden got this year, i.e. same thing that Hicks/MAStamper is talking about a few posts up. The Pacers don't HAVE to do it of course, but when you have an obvious max type player on your hands, you do everything you can to keep him sweet. That would be the reasoning as to why we should extend him early versus letting him get to the FA market a la Hibbert.

In addition, I suspect we'll need to reserve a pool of money for Lance Stephenson, assuming he continues to develop. Put together, that's a lot of money in future contracts. Which is why a lot of people (including myself) think that someone from the core will be sacrificed eventually in order to stay under the tax.

The CBA has made it this way. The small market teams must jettison good players to stay under that tax but big market teams will snap them up not caring about that tax. This is the major reason the Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship. Their ceiling is to make the playoffs and perhaps win a round and if they have a magic year win two rounds but that takes a lot of magic, indeed........:cool: ...

BillS
02-14-2013, 01:06 PM
The CBA has made it this way. The small market teams must jettison good players to stay under that tax but big market teams will snap them up not caring about that tax. This is the major reason the Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship. Their ceiling is to make the playoffs and perhaps win a round and if they have a magic year win two rounds but that takes a lot of magic, indeed........:cool: ...

Really, how has this CBA made it any worse? That's ALWAYS what it was unless the small market team wanted to pay the LT. At least under this CBA they don't lose 100% of LT revenue by going over the threshold by a couple of dollars, and if big market teams want to ridiculously overspend it is going to cost them a LOT more than it used to.

Hicks
02-14-2013, 01:07 PM
It's probably going to come down to Lance versus Danny.

Using my head and not my heart, Lance would maybe be the better choice due to age and potential, but I still don't fully trust Lance on/off the court. I'm a LOT closer than I used to be though. If Danny can come back from this 80+% of what he used to be, then I still like him more than Lance, personally. But he's also older. But then again he's not TOO old to be considered part of the next phase (3+ years) of the franchise, either.

What'll really **** us up is if someone throws a **** ton of cash at West. I'm hoping he gets offered no more than 12-13m a year. If someone goes wild throwing cash at him... oh boy...

Slick Pinkham
02-14-2013, 01:22 PM
The Pacers and other small market teams will never really compete for a championship.

yes, small market teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City are just doomed to be doormats forever.

You need a dish on that motorhome.

wintermute
02-14-2013, 02:22 PM
Really, how has this CBA made it any worse? That's ALWAYS what it was unless the small market team wanted to pay the LT. At least under this CBA they don't lose 100% of LT revenue by going over the threshold by a couple of dollars, and if big market teams want to ridiculously overspend it is going to cost them a LOT more than it used to.

It's not clear yet how everything is going to play out, but one way the new CBA has made it worse is that luxury tax disproportionately hurts small markets more than big markets. To teams like the Pacers, the tax line is a virtual hard cap now - there is no way they are possibly crossing that line. Whereas before, we've seen teams like Memphis and Minnesota, and yes even the Pacers, pay the tax on occasion in order to keep key players or to add more pieces. That's not going to happen anymore.

It shouldn't be surprising that the first victims of the harsh new tax (OKC and Memphis) are small market teams. People sometimes point to New York losing Lin or Chicago losing Asik as signs that the tax is deterring big market teams - but actually both NY and Chicago are still scheduled to be tax paying teams this year. They may be deterred, but they're still operating above the tax line, and for NY at least it seems clear that they will continue to pay tax year in and year out as a matter of course. Does it make a big difference to the Pacers that NY is now operating at $90m instead of $100m team salary? It's still a huge advantage.

My fear is that the tax would just deepen the divide between "haves" and "have nots" - the tax club became even more exclusive (fewer teams willing to pay the tax), but it also just got even harder for a small market team to gate crash occasionally, for example, to keep a contending team together for a few years longer. Decade long runs like the Spurs would become virtually impossible - even the Spurs paid tax (I think twice) during their run.

There is still some hope. The really harsh taxes won't start until next year, so maybe the deterrent effect is just lagging. But it seems clear that a few teams find the tax perfectly acceptable - LA, NY, Brooklyn all ADDED salary this year, even with the harsh tax looming. Heck, even Toronto just made themselves a tax team (almost certain from next year). It seems that the new CBA just cemented the difference in expected spending levels between big and small market teams.

Sookie
02-14-2013, 02:49 PM
It's probably going to come down to Lance versus Danny.

Using my head and not my heart, Lance would maybe be the better choice due to age and potential, but I still don't fully trust Lance on/off the court. I'm a LOT closer than I used to be though. If Danny can come back from this 80+% of what he used to be, then I still like him more than Lance, personally. But he's also older. But then again he's not TOO old to be considered part of the next phase (3+ years) of the franchise, either.

What'll really **** us up is if someone throws a **** ton of cash at West. I'm hoping he gets offered no more than 12-13m a year. If someone goes wild throwing cash at him... oh boy...

It depends.

If we make a deep run at the end of this season, than it would be smarter to keep the starters together. Lance has been a good bench player, but he's not Danny. It's easier and cheaper to get a player that does for us what Lance does, than what Danny will do. Danny makes us a contender, Lance doesn't. The second we pick Lance over Danny, we're choosing not to compete for a championship during our "win now" years. And by the time Lance's ready, West is going to be too old.

Coopdog23
02-14-2013, 02:51 PM
yes, small market teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City are just doomed to be doormats forever.

You need a dish on that motorhome.

I think OlBlu will be proven wrong this year. If the Pacers extinguish the Heat in the playoffs I believe they will win the title

BillS
02-14-2013, 03:26 PM
To teams like the Pacers, the tax line is a virtual hard cap now - there is no way they are possibly crossing that line. Whereas before, we've seen teams like Memphis and Minnesota, and yes even the Pacers, pay the tax on occasion in order to keep key players or to add more pieces. That's not going to happen anymore.

OK, I guess I am going to need a reference because this isn't what I remember. I remember the tax starting at 1-for-1, like before, then increasing, so going over the tax is no more expensive than it was before this CBA. I also remember that going over the first tax threshold does not disqualify you from receiving revenue from the tax for teams that crossed higher thresholds - a provision that makes going over the tax LESS of a financial impact than it was previously.

If I am remembering incorrectly, please let me know, but that's where I'm coming from in this discussion.

Cousy47
02-14-2013, 03:49 PM
I would just be happy to get PG signed for an extension so we don't have to watch the Lakers offer him a max contract and a chance to go home to Ca.

OlBlu
02-14-2013, 04:36 PM
I would just be happy to get PG signed for an extension so we don't have to watch the Lakers offer him a max contract and a chance to go home to Ca.

And that is the very reason he will not sign an extension........:cool: ...

OlBlu
02-14-2013, 04:38 PM
I think OlBlu will be proven wrong this year. If the Pacers extinguish the Heat in the playoffs I believe they will win the title


They aren't going to beat the Heat in the playoffs if they even get to play them at all. If they did, they cannot beat any team from the West. The Pacers will be fortunate to win one round in the playoffs when the superstars start playing extended minutes. :cool: ...

OlBlu
02-14-2013, 04:43 PM
yes, small market teams like San Antonio and Oklahoma City are just doomed to be doormats forever.

You need a dish on that motorhome.

I have one with every available channel. I will give you Oklahoma City but I think that is a special circumstance with what amounts to a city getting a new team and they are a challenger.... They haven't won anything yet. You forget that I work in the media and I am currently in Texas. We run programs in San Antonio that also encompass Austin. We sell programs there based on their being about 3.5 million people in their viewing area. That doesn't make them a small market team. We pay a premium to run programs in that market equal to what we pay in Houston, Atlanta and cities of that size. It is less than NYC, Philly or Washington D.C. and Chicago. It is much bigger than Indy and other small markets. :cool: ...

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 04:50 PM
I would just be happy to get PG signed for an extension so we don't have to watch the Lakers offer him a max contract and a chance to go home to Ca.

It won't matter if another team does offer him the max. By then every team will know we're just going to give him the max 5 year offer so none of them will even try. If he does sign another offer sheet it still won't matter because he won't have a choice. If the Pacers give him the same max offer he has to play here he can't just choose another team.

PaulGeorge
02-14-2013, 06:06 PM
If the Pacers trade PG before he is 30 I would consider not watching them anymore. This town needs an elite player to get familiar with and come to love and embrace like Reggie/Peyton.

PaulGeorge
02-14-2013, 06:14 PM
They aren't going to beat the Heat in the playoffs if they even get to play them at all. If they did, they cannot beat any team from the West. The Pacers will be fortunate to win one round in the playoffs when the superstars start playing extended minutes. :cool: ...

So you don't think the Pacers could beat Brooklyn, Chicago or Atlanta in the first round home series. Even with the experience they gained in last years playoffs.

daschysta
02-14-2013, 06:23 PM
So you don't think the Pacers could beat Brooklyn, Chicago or Atlanta in the first round home series. Even with the experience they gained in last years playoffs.

Ignore him, his purpose on this board is just to derail topics.

xIndyFan
02-14-2013, 06:27 PM
Isn't David West an Early Bird Free Agent. That limits the amount the Pacers can go over the cap to resign him to 175% of his current salary or $17.5M. He will be a 10 year player which qualifies him for the 35% max as you said. Neither of these seem to be important, because any team willing to pay David West that much would get him. I doubt the Pacers would be willing to pay Granger/Hibbert money for David West under any circumstances.

Theoretically. Couldn't a team offer David a contract of $18 or $19M a year that the Pacers couldn't legally offer. Since he is not a RFA, they couldn't match it. Interesting detail of the CBA.


West's max is a good deal higher than the rookie max that Roy got or that Paul G. is going to get. Roy and Paul's first year started/will start at around $14m. As a 10th year player next year, I believe that West qualifies for 35% of the cap, or approximately $19m on the first year. That's a big investment for any team. Personally I don't think he'll get THAT max ($19m), but anywhere in between $12m to $15m won't surprise me.

I also think that the Pacers will use their designated player status to extend Paul George next year. That's the deal that Harden got this year, i.e. same thing that Hicks/MAStamper is talking about a few posts up. The Pacers don't HAVE to do it of course, but when you have an obvious max type player on your hands, you do everything you can to keep him sweet. That would be the reasoning as to why we should extend him early versus letting him get to the FA market a la Hibbert.

What to do with Lance is an interesting question. If you have 4 clearly superior players in Paul, Danny, David and Roy, should you sacrifice one of them to save money for a guy that might or might not someday be a good player. I don't think that is a good way of looking at it. If the Pacers are making a title attempt with this bunch, dumping Danny to keep Lance would seem to be making a choice that keeps you from success both now and in the future. If you keep David West, you are going for a win right now. If you keep Lance, you are going for a win in the future. I think the real question about keeping Danny is the question about Danny and Paul being able to both play at the same time. Can Paul play the SG spot as he gets older and slower and bigger. If the answer is no, then it seems you have to choose between Paul and Danny. If he can play the 2 and you keep David, then keeping Danny makes more sense.

I suspect the Pacer FO will be looking at things from a short term gain view point. If they think they have a chance to win now, they will. I expect David to be resigned and next summer to be worried about next summer.

In addition, I suspect we'll need to reserve a pool of money for Lance Stephenson, assuming he continues to develop. Put together, that's a lot of money in future contracts. Which is why a lot of people (including myself) think that someone from the core will be sacrificed eventually in order to stay under the tax.

count55
02-14-2013, 06:34 PM
OK, I guess I am going to need a reference because this isn't what I remember. I remember the tax starting at 1-for-1, like before, then increasing, so going over the tax is no more expensive than it was before this CBA. I also remember that going over the first tax threshold does not disqualify you from receiving revenue from the tax for teams that crossed higher thresholds - a provision that makes going over the tax LESS of a financial impact than it was previously.

If I am remembering incorrectly, please let me know, but that's where I'm coming from in this discussion.

Beginning with the 2013-14 season, the Tax rates for teams with team salary above the Tax level are as follows:
Incremental Team Salary Tax Rate

$0M $5M $1.50-for-$1
$5M $10M $1.75-for-$1
$10M $15M $2.50-for-$1
$15M $20M $3.25-for-$1
Tax rates increase by $0.50 for each additional $5M above
the Tax level (e.g., for team salary $20M-$25M above the
Tax level, the Tax rate is $3.75-for-$1).

Also, there's the apron:



23. Other than financial penalties, are there restrictions on taxpaying teams?

In addition to the tax payments described in question number 21, taxpaying teams have the following restrictions. Note that most of these restrictions aren't triggered unless the team would be over the "apron" -- the point $4 million above the tax level -- following a signing or trade.

Teams above the apron cannot use the Bi-Annual exception (see question number 25).
Teams above the apron have a smaller Mid-Level exception (see question number 25). Teams above the apron can offer contracts no longer than three years, while other teams can offer four. The starting salary is also lower (for example, in 2011-12 it is $3 million for teams above the apron, versus $5 million for other teams).
Taxpaying teams can acquire less salary in a simultaneous trade (see question number 82).
Starting in 2013-14, teams above the apron cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 89).
Teams above the apron do not have the same protections under the Gilbert Arenas provision (see question number 44). Under the Arenas provision other teams can offer restricted free agents salaries starting at the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception. If a team with the right of first refusal does not have Early Bird rights to the player and is over the apron, it will have only the smaller Taxpayer Mid-Level exception at its disposal, and cannot match an offer for the full Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception.

In addition, taxpaying teams do not receive a distribution from the leaguewide tax fund. However, they do receive a distribution from the escrow fund (see question number 22).


It's the repeater tax and apron mechanisms that will trip the teams that don't care about the tax.

Every luxury tax system will hurt the poorer teams first. The goal is to make it hurt enough (most) teams to force it to behave as a quasi-hardcap. It never works particularly well.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2011/09/cba-talk-why-a-luxury-tax-isnt-the-answer/

Will Galen
02-14-2013, 10:07 PM
I know West will re sign because he wants to stay in Indiana to win a title here. I'm certain that PG won't ask for a max deal but he can ask for more

Hibbert said ('I'm not a max player,' among other statements etc.) Which led me to think he was different and would give the Pacers a break. Brad Miller wanted to stay here too, yet he took the money.

Granger could probably have got max or near max but he gave the Pacers a break. There's not many like Danny that will give their team a break. We will see.

Will Galen
02-14-2013, 10:12 PM
West is not getting a max offer.

Vnzla is still right, West is going to get an offer for way more than we want to pay.

Cousy47
02-14-2013, 10:22 PM
If the Pacers trade PG before he is 30 I would consider not watching them anymore. This town needs an elite player to get familiar with and come to love and embrace like Reggie/Peyton.
What if the Lakers make PG a poison pill offer after next year with a BIG payday(ala Lin) in it. We would be pressed to find the money to match, if we even can, and still re-Danny and Lance in the same year. That's my worry and why I would like to see an extension before he becomes a RFA. Basically what we did with Granger back in the day. No Max money, but REALLY good money.

spazzxb
02-14-2013, 10:54 PM
And that is the very reason he will not sign an extension........:cool: ...

We could still match it, makes no sense.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

spazzxb
02-14-2013, 10:55 PM
What if the Lakers make PG a poison pill offer after next year with a BIG payday(ala Lin) in it. We would be pressed to find the money to match, if we even can, and still re-Danny and Lance in the same year. That's my worry and why I would like to see an extension before he becomes a RFA. Basically what we did with Granger back in the day. No Max money, but REALLY good money.

He's already going to get the max. Can't poison pill it.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:00 PM
What if the Lakers make PG a poison pill offer after next year with a BIG payday(ala Lin) in it. We would be pressed to find the money to match, if we even can, and still re-Danny and Lance in the same year. That's my worry and why I would like to see an extension before he becomes a RFA. Basically what we did with Granger back in the day. No Max money, but REALLY good money.

It doesn't work that way, that's only for players that have shorter initial contracts such as players that weren't drafted and even then we'd have the right to match it and force him to stay here but no one can offer PG a poison pill contract. The most the Lakers can offer PG is far less then what the Pacers can offer him because the raises are less and the contract they can offer is 1 years shorter. The Pacers could offer something like 5 years 75 mil while the Lakers can only offer 4 years 58 mil. Someone can correct me on the precise #'s but that's the jest of it. There is no way anyone can take PG the year he becomes a free agent if the Pacers want to keep him, just like the Roy Hibbert saga last summer. This is why there is no reason to extend him if you know he's going to be given a max contract, the only reason to do this would be if he'd sign for less and that's most likely not going to happen.

xIndyFan
02-14-2013, 11:25 PM
JMO, but the Pacers will do with Paul George the same thing they did with Roy Hibbert. The Pacers have no real incentive to give a max contract to Paul vs going the RFA/matching route. The starting amount is the same, but the raises are lower. That makes the base amount of the contract lower for the rest of Paul Georges career. The Pacers will save about $2M or $3M over the life of the contract and maybe a million and a half every year after that.

For example a 4 yr contract with 7.5% raises starting at $14M would be $14M, $15.05M, $16.1M and $17.15M for a total of $62.3M.

A 4 yr contract with 4.5% raises starting at $14M would by $14M, $14.63M, $15.26M and $15.89M for a total of $59.78M. This is a saving of $2.52M. AND more importantly the next contract starts at $16.6M instead of $18M. That means the next contract will be saving between one and two million a year. Not a lot, but if a team is trying to squeeze under the cap or luxury tax level, every million counts.

Pacerized
02-14-2013, 11:32 PM
I think it works that non restricted free agents with at least 6 years can get 7.5% raises.
A restricted free agent like PG could only get something like 3% raises from another team and 4.5% raises from us plus 1 more year. It comes down to 58 mil over 4 years to match another team.

xIndyFan
02-14-2013, 11:38 PM
I think it works that non restricted free agents with at least 6 years can get 7.5% raises.
A restricted free agent like PG could only get something like 3% raises from another team and 4.5% raises from us plus 1 more year. It comes down to 58 mil over 4 years to match another team.

I don't think this is correct. Restricted Larry Bird Free Agents, which Paul will be, get 7.5% from their team and 4.5% from other teams. If you want a good website to read about the details of the CBA, here is good link (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm).

edit: fwiw, I used $14M as a starting salary to make the math simple. We will not know the actual starting salary number until the summer after next.

Pacerized
02-15-2013, 01:30 AM
I don't think this is correct. Restricted Larry Bird Free Agents, which Paul will be, get 7.5% from their team and 4.5% from other teams. If you want a good website to read about the details of the CBA, here is good link (http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm).

edit: fwiw, I used $14M as a starting salary to make the math simple. We will not know the actual starting salary number until the summer after next.

This is good link to compare the current cba to the old one. As I read this again I think you are correct. Max raises 4.5% from another team and 7.5% from the players own team. I remember reading that Portlands offer to Hibbert was 58 mil and that's what the Pacers are currently paying him in 4 years so it did save the team money.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/CBA-111128/how-new-nba-deal-compares-last-one
• 2005 CBA: Six years with 10.5 percent raises for Bird free agents; five years with 8 percent raises for other players. Maximum salaries are approximately 25, 30 or 35 percent of the salary cap, depending on the player's years of service.
• 2011 CBA: Five years with 7.5 percent raises for Bird free agents; four years with 4.5 percent raises for other players (including all sign-and-trade transactions). The maximum salaries are the same as the 2005 CBA, except players coming off their rookie scale contracts qualify for the 30 percent maximum if they meet certain criteria. Minimum and rookie scale salaries are frozen near their 2010-11 levels until revenues rise enough that the reduction is proportional to the 12 percent reduction in the overall system.

BillS
02-15-2013, 10:25 AM
The problem I have with the Lakers being the ones to offer West the max is that they are already over the cap - who are they cutting so they can add a max FA?

Gamble1
02-15-2013, 11:09 AM
The problem I have with the Lakers being the ones to offer West the max is that they are already over the cap - who are they cutting so they can add a max FA?
They can't even cut people and make it work and I believe if you are in the LT then you can't do a sign and trade for a player. I am not worried about the lakers but certainly I could see someone offering around 14 mill for him which is close to the point where you let him walk IMO.

xIndyFan
02-15-2013, 11:12 AM
The problem I have with the Lakers being the ones to offer West the max is that they are already over the cap - who are they cutting so they can add a max FA?

The short answer is, they aren't. It is my understanding that there are many teams under the cap. One of them might offer more than the Pacers. I suspect that if they do, the Pacers say have a nice life and move on. I doubt the Pacers overpay for David West. IMO, TPTB feel he is an above average starting PF, but not special enough to go over budget for. Like Roy, great intangibles, but competent/good vs excellent on the court.

Gamble1
02-15-2013, 11:20 AM
Let me also say that the market for big men will be low next year since many teams have used high draft picks on what they hope are the future big men on their team and very few teams that are significantly under the cap will be close to a playoff team. If West want to make a run in the playoffs then he will stay here.

OlBlu
02-15-2013, 11:33 AM
Let me also say that the market for big men will be low next year since many teams have used high draft picks on what they hope are the future big men on their team and very few teams that are significantly under the cap will be close to a playoff team. If West want to make a run in the playoffs then he will stay here.

If he wants to win a championship, he will move on.....:cool: ...

OlBlu
02-15-2013, 11:40 AM
So you don't think the Pacers could beat Brooklyn, Chicago or Atlanta in the first round home series. Even with the experience they gained in last years playoffs.

I think they could but it is far from being a given. If Chicago has Rose back and playing well, they beat the Pacers and the Pacers have not beaten them for the division yet. I think they likely beat Atlanta but Brooklyn, if they make a deadline impact trade could beat the Pacers. I do not believe the Pacers can beat any of the teams in the second round. What did the Pacers learn from last years playoffs? They learned that they could beat a team whose superstar was injured (but no doubt lose badly if he is not). They learned that a team with the best player on the planet can rise up and beat them by himself. How will that help them? :cool: ...

OlBlu
02-15-2013, 11:42 AM
Ignore him, his purpose on this board is just to derail topics.

That is not true. I do not believe the Pacers are made to win in the playoffs but are built to be a very good regular season team. I have said this many times. The playoffs are where the superstars start playing heavier minutes (or all of the minutes like Lebron did last year) and the Pacers cannot cope with that. :cool: ...