PDA

View Full Version : Financial choices



Cubs231721
02-28-2013, 02:31 PM
So here's the situation. Granger and Lance both hit free agency in the same offseason. The Pacers will likely have 10 million or so to spend on non-minimum salary players. If you had the chance to sign Granger for 4/40 or Lance for 4/20, which one do you choose? Assume Granger has had to miss no additional games for his knee over the next year and a half. Other then that, feel free to project any progression/decline for either player. Also remember those would be age 31 through age 34 seasons for Granger, and age 24 through age 27 for Lance.

Also the assumption is that you can only keep 1 of them. If the Pacers can keep both of them, that will be wonderful. But if they can only keep one, which one would you take?

Trader Joe
02-28-2013, 02:34 PM
Can't say right now IMO.

CableKC
02-28-2013, 02:39 PM
I chose Lance....but I have a feeling that some Team is going to overpay Lance a contract that is between $5-6 mil per year.

Mackey_Rose
02-28-2013, 02:43 PM
We don't even know if Granger can play yet.

rabid
02-28-2013, 02:48 PM
I chose Lance but I hope Danny can be retained for a slightly better deal than that, or that we can keep both. I think we can but it's obviously not a sure thing.

Il Ragionier Ugo Fantozzi
02-28-2013, 02:54 PM
Lance.

yoadknux
02-28-2013, 02:57 PM
It's too early to do this poll. We have an entire season to see how well Granger returns from his injury & how well Lance plays with extended minutes.

sav
02-28-2013, 02:58 PM
Assuming Granger is reasonably healthy and returns at or near his pre injury quality of play, I would say Granger.

Here is why. If the Pacers are going to stick with Bird's plan, which I think is a good one, then we should look at some of Bird's thoughts in the past. Bird has stated that in order for a small market team to be a contender, they would need to play as a team and have good team chemistry. He has also stated that if the Pacers were going to make the Finals, they would need 1 or 2 more players as good as or better than Granger.

Looking at those two statements tell us first that the Pacers need to try and keep as much of the current team together as possible. Unfortunately, due to finances some players will have to leave.

In my opinion, Paul George and David West are as good as Granger (prior to injury) and Hill and Hibbert are also pretty good players. So the Pacers have the 1 or 2 players as good as or better than Granger like Bird wanted. Why then would they get rid of Granger? Let's look at it like this. The Heat had DWade and added LeBron and Bosh. They added 2 players as good as or better than Wade (okay Bosh isn't quite as good as Wade) and they didn't get rid of Wade did they?

With the emergence of OJ plus 2 drafts, the Pacers should be able to adequately replace Lance. Don't get me wrong here, I like Lance and if that is the direction the Pacers decide to go, it would not be a bad move, however, I think if Granger is reasonalbly healthy, he could have another 4-6 years left. We did not unload Reggie and he contributed up until his retirement.

I say stay with Granger. Hill/George/Granger/Hibbert and West is a solid starting lineup that should be able to go deep into the playoffs the next few years.

Since86
02-28-2013, 03:00 PM
About a full year too soon. Need to see how Danny comes back, and how Lance progresses next season. Although Lance is most likely the better choice. Age alone is a big plus.

BPump33
02-28-2013, 03:05 PM
I don't know how to decide.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XLM9cRFmAMM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Cubs231721
02-28-2013, 03:07 PM
About a full year too soon. Need to see how Danny comes back, and how Lance progresses next season.

I would say it's probably a little too early, but maybe not that much. The Pacers are probably going to have to make some variation of this choice. And depending on what they choose, they will need to seriously consider trading the other player this offseason in order to get value. There's only 30-40 games left to analyze before management hits that point.

They could choose instead to go into free agency and take their chances, but that's a big risk because they'll be forgoing their last major chance to add a cheap asset to the roster.

Since86
02-28-2013, 03:53 PM
I don't think any team is going to want to take on Granger and his contract. Teams are really going to start shedding salary, I can't see any team that can absorb him that needs him. Maybe a team that's rebuilding, but they're not going to give up anything of real value in return.

The Pacers can afford to just wait it out, and I think they'll do it.

Mad-Mad-Mario
02-28-2013, 05:13 PM
I chose granger, but I don't know why. An emotional selection I guess. But I would bet that a team will overpay Lance so we won't get him for that.

Thing here is, I hope they do what it takes to keep both of them. And if we can somehow win a title in the next 2 years I think we will.

Pacer Fan
02-28-2013, 06:00 PM
Considering Paul will get paid the same year and West getting paid this summer. Don't see Danny being here at all, unless he signs for like 7 mil. and if he does that then what would it say about his ability due to health. I don't see him taking a big pay cut if he gets back to his old self and if he does this then I see Pacers trading him this summer for youth, cheap contracts.

I wouldn't have any problem signing Lance to 4 yrs. 20 mil. as long as he keeps his game going.

With this said, the probable choice is Lance.

aamcguy
02-28-2013, 06:06 PM
If you have to choose between those two contracts, I think you have to choose Lance. But if the team is committed to staying with this core long-term, I don't know why they wouldn't consider signed both Granger and West to frontloaded or even 4-5 year deals where they make less per year than they deserve now but toward the end they are "overpaid." Because with the production you're going to get from Hill, George, and Hibbert over the next 5 years West and Granger will still be productive players for us even as their athleticism really starts to lag.

Ideally, I want both. Per the figures in the top I want Lance. Strictly Lance vs. Granger, i want Granger.

Goyle
02-28-2013, 06:14 PM
At those deals Lance, but I'm anticipating re-signing both for less than that.

BlueNGold
02-28-2013, 06:17 PM
Lance is already a good starter in the NBA right now at just 22 and he could get much better. He may never be the player Granger has been, but he's young and 20M allows us more room to keep/resign West, George, Hibbert and Hill.

Edit: BTW, I think at 10M/year that may be overpaying for Danny even if he's healthy. Due to the risk associated with his knee, there is really no way would I risk 4 years at that amount.

beast23
02-28-2013, 06:56 PM
First off, not Granger OR Lance. Both. Period.

Granger will NOT cost 10M per year. And, if the Pacers are smart, they will find a way to get a new contract with Lance done this summer. That way Lance gets more for next season rather than the Pacers just picking up his option. And the Pacers get Lance for a much better deal than 5M per year.