View Poll Results: See the post for the question.

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, they should try to do this.

    19 40.43%
  • I have mixed feelings on this idea.

    16 34.04%
  • No, they should not risk it.

    12 25.53%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Is it worth the risk?

  1. #1
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Is it worth the risk?

    As I understand it, if we let Granger go into this season without an extension, he will become a restricted free agent in the summer of 2009.

    The downside to this is he will probably command a larger contract in a year than he does right now.

    However, there is a flip side.

    If we can wait on Granger until later in the summer, which of course is dependent on him agreeing to do this, we will temporarily have a good deal of capspace on our hands earlier in the summer.

    As such, this would temporarily allow us to go after a big fish on the market (such as Carlos Boozer), sign him, and then, because Danny Granger is already one of our players, we can go over the salary cap to re-sign Danny once the free agent is squared away.

    My question to you all is: Should the Pacers try to do this?

  2. #2

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    The prospect doesn't frighten me.

    I think Granger is more valuable to us than to any other team and we are certainly going to match any offer he gets next summer if we don't extend him earlier. Danny's value on the market might not rise much. His output might slacken this coming season since he'll be sharing the ball in what I hope will be a more efficient offense. Whether that happens or not, I trust that Bird is leaving no doubt with Danny or his agent that he's going to stay in Indiana.

    I don't have a lot of expectation of catching a big free agent. But the cap space saved after Nesterovic leaves can just apply to the bottom line of the Pacers' balance sheet.
    And I won't be here to see the day
    It all dries up and blows away
    I'd hang around just to see
    But they never had much use for me
    In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

  3. #3
    Administrator Roaming Gnome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indy's Wild Wild West Side: 8 sec-check...Club Rio-check...Cloud 9-check
    Age
    40
    Posts
    5,932

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    If for some reason the negotiation gets messy, Dunleavy could play that spot on the floor.

    I'm sure if managment keeps Danny and his agent on board with what is going on, and offer Danny the right deal without trying to low ball him. I don't think the negotiation will get sour.

    I voted to be able to play the market.
    Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 09-19-2008 at 10:31 AM.
    ...Still "flying casual"
    @roaminggnome74

  4. #4
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,685

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I don't have a problem waiting.

    The risk is if a team next summer gives granger a max contract or something very close, then the pacers will either be forced to match or let him go

  5. #5
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    The way I understand it, we'll have 11 mil (according to Chad Ford) if we renounce all of our other FA except for Danny (Jack, Quis, Rasho, Jeff). So we could try to sign someone then go over the cap to resign whomever we'd we want. If we renounced Danny, we could probably have $20 mil, right? But we would lose the right to match any offer. If he signed with Portland, he would sign with Portland and he'd be gone.

    Feel free to correct me, Count.

  6. #6
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,795

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I might just be a little niave about Danny, but I have too much faith in his character.

    To be honest, I'm thinking the team has a verbal agreement with him, a la Boozer and the Cavs. I think Danny is too good of a person to pull the schtick Booz did.

    With Bird coming out in the press saying he wanted to wait, to be able to sign a FA first then Danny, makes me think they have been in contact and there is an understanding between the two. Usually in this situation we see/hear remarks from the player and his agent. There mere fact that there isn't any talk about it public makes me feel easy about the situation.

  7. #7
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Two problems with the "significant cap space theory":

    1. This team has no history of pursuing or bagging major free agents. I don't see a real reason to think this will change given (a) the teams level of talent, (b) the teams contract commitments to players like Murphy, Dunleavy, & Tinsley (& the impending Danny contract) (c) the team's current attendance and financial position, and (d) the questions surrounding the future of the ownership given the advanced age of the Simons, and the reported lack of interest by David Simon.

    2. It's exceedingly unlikely that we will actually have "significant cap space". This has been outlined ad nauseum, but the CBA puts cap holds for free agents on salaries in order to prevent teams from circumventing the cap by signing FA, then re-signing their own players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Coon
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    31. Why do free agents continue to count against a team's cap?

    It closes another loophole. Teams otherwise would be able to sign other teams' free agents using their cap room, and then turn their attention to their own free agents using the Bird exceptions. This rule restricts their ability to do that. It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.
    If we don't sign Danny, he will still count as $7mm towards our cap next summer until he signs a contract with us or someone else. We have just under $42mm in contract commitments next year. Danny's cap hold would put us at $49mm, and the hold for our 1st round pick will probably put us at around $50-51mm. Assuming that the cap will be around $62mm next year, that would leave us $12mm of cap space before considering any other free agent cap holds we have. We have the following other cap holds:

    Rasho $12,600 (150% of this year's salary)
    Foster $8,250 (150%)
    Baston $3,409 (150%)
    Jack $6,008 (300%)
    Graham $1,074 (130%)
    McBob $925 (130%)

    So, before we actually have cap space available to sign free agents, we'd have to renounce the rights to some or all of the players listed above. To get the $11-12mm, we'd have to renounce the rights to all of them. What does it mean to "renounce" a player? It means that we're basically giving up our right to go over the salary cap to sign them. We can re-sign them, but only if (a) we have enough free cap space (in other words, they become the UFA we'd sign) or (b) they sign to the Minimum Player exception. We can't use the MLE. We can't use Bird Rights. We can sign-and-trade them, but that gets pretty speculative. Effectively, you have lost those players, likely with no compensation.

    So, let's say we do renounce all of those players. Why would a player like Carlos Boozer take a below-market offer (starting at $11-12mm) to come to a team with Granger, Dunleavy, Murphy, B Rush, Hibbert, Diener, Ford, Tinsley (or his replacement/buyout amount), and a (likely) mid-1st rounder, and nothing else? What difference maker are you going to get for that amount that is that big of an upgrade over the rights to Foster, Jack, or potentially Rasho?

    If we were to decide that we wanted to retain the rights to even one of the rotational players listed above (Rasho, Foster, or Jack), then their cap hold would probably get us close enough to the cap for the MLE & LLE cap holds (yes, they have those, too) to kick in, effectively zeroing out our free cap space and relegating us to MLE-level signings.

    The idea of waiting until next year to sign Danny to "maximize cap space" is simply a red herring. It is flawed in it's very core.

    There is only one reason that the Pacers would not sign Danny to an extension this year:

    The Pacers Front Office and ownership is, at this time, unwilling to commit to Danny at the price he would be asking for this summer.

    They want to see another year. They're gunshy from Rose, JO, Bender, Artest, Jackson, and Tinsley. They're hemmorhaging money, and attendance is abysmal. The Simons are aging, and they're balking at committing $60+mm to a guy who only has one year of big numbers, and that was on a team that didn't make the playoffs.

    Or worse. They may not be willing to commit that money to anybody.

    The talk of "free agents" is a misdirection. The Pacers are not in a position to sign major free agents, and they won't be next summer, either. While their "conservatism" may be sound fiscal policy, it's something we should be concerned about. What happens if Danny averages 20 & 7, but the team wins 30 games? Did he prove that he was worth Iggy money, or did he prove that he wasn't worth it?

    They may be playing the exact same game that Atlanta did with Josh Smith...hoping that the market will be constrained enough to knock down Danny's price.

    If the Pacers knew for sure that they wanted to lock up Danny, then it would be done this summer, just like NO did with Paul, Milwaukee did with Bogut, and GS did with Ellis & Biedrins. Allowing Danny to enter the FA market is much more indicative of a higher willingness to let him walk than we currently would like to believe, than it is of strategic cap planning.

    If Danny doesn't sign an extension this summer, I would (unscientifically) put the chances of us losing him next summer at 1 in 3. This isn't because I think that it's more likely for a huge bidding war to drive him out of our price range. It's because I think that the ownership may think he's already out of our price range.
    Last edited by count55; 09-19-2008 at 11:13 AM.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brown County, Indiana
    Posts
    3,562

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't have a problem waiting.

    The risk is if a team next summer gives granger a max contract or something very close, then the pacers will either be forced to match or let him go
    Or to do a sign-and-trade with the other team for ?

  9. #9
    Banned Jonathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,833

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I value the PG heavily, but look at the starting PG's on The NBA Finals teams last year. The trend seems to be to have a three headed monster to do damage ie KG, Pierce, Allen. Go to Houston Ming, T MAC, ARTEST. The Pacers need to sign another player so we have Danny, McRoberts, & ......

  10. #10
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    And there you go.

  11. #11
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The way I understand it, we'll have 11 mil (according to Chad Ford) if we renounce all of our other FA except for Danny (Jack, Quis, Rasho, Jeff). So we could try to sign someone then go over the cap to resign whomever we'd we want. If we renounced Danny, we could probably have $20 mil, right? But we would lose the right to match any offer. If he signed with Portland, he would sign with Portland and he'd be gone.

    Feel free to correct me, Count.
    You are correct...I was in the middle of writing my tome when you posted this, so I didn't see it until after I posted.

  12. #12
    It Might Be a Soft J JayRedd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Age
    33
    Posts
    12,158

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I didn't read all of what count wrote due to its Naptimeyness, but I imagine he said that the OP is incorrect since we would have what is called a "cap hold" next summer anyway that would tie up at least somewhat close to as much cap room as what we would end up giving Danny in Year 1 of an extension.

    The only benefit we could get out of not signing Danny this summer is if he turns out to be a worse player than we thought over the next 10 months. And that, of course, isn't particularly helpful for our franchise either.
    Last edited by JayRedd; 09-19-2008 at 12:29 PM.
    Read my Pacers blog:
    8points9seconds.com

    Follow my twitter:

    @8pts9secs


  13. #13
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by JayRedd View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I didn't read all of what count wrote due to its Naptimeyness, but I imagine he said that the OP is incorrect since we would have what is called a "cap hold" next summer anyway that would be tie up at least somewhat close to as much cap room as what we would end up giving Danny in Year 1 of an extension.

    The only benefit we could get out of not signing Danny this summer is if he turns out to be a worse player than we thought over the next 10 months. And that, of course, isn't particularly helpful for our franchise either.
    Basically, we don't have any real cap space available next year, and Danny's extension would make only a minimal impact on it.

    Not signing Danny is far more likely to be due to misgivings the Pacers have about paying Danny (specifically, or quite possibly anyone, generally) the kind of money he would likely command this (or next) summer.

    Therefore, rather than viewing it as some clever strategem to help turn the team around, we should more likely view this turn of events as a troubling sign that the Simons' commitment to the Pacers may be faltering, and that they are more concerned with the P&L than the Box Score.

  14. #14
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    How much cap space would we have if we only hold onto the rights to Danny and Jack?

    Also, something else to keep in mind is that there is always the possibility of a new trade that would change our finances. If we end up with more expiring contracts, you never know.

  15. #15
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I totally agree with count55 on this.....I don't want to take the risk.

    I want to ensure that we keep Granger, Jack AND Foster and I therefore do not want to renounce their rights....which means that they would impact the amount of Capspace we have.

    On top of that....I really think that the Blazers will do their best to make a serious run at Granger. Everyone knows that we have limited Salarycap flexiblility and make a push to price Granger out of our comfortable price range.

    Bottomline....if we can extend Granger to a price of $12 mil for 6 years ( which can be considered pricey ), I am happy with it. IMHO...it's fair market value for a player of his caliber, age and talent.
    Last edited by CableKC; 09-19-2008 at 01:02 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  16. #16
    It is ka Thankee sai Major Cold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Garrett, IN
    Posts
    9,008
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I don't want to take the risk now. Look what happened with the Clippers. They don't resign Brand first. They spend on Baron and Brand leaves for another team. Bird rights are only beneficial in certainty. And in the NBA certainty does not exist in the NBA FA market.

  17. #17
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    How much cap space would we have if we only hold onto the rights to Danny and Jack?

    Also, something else to keep in mind is that there is always the possibility of a new trade that would change our finances. If we end up with more expiring contracts, you never know.
    Contracts: $41,778

    Capholds: $14,997 (Danny $6,989, JJ $6,008, 1st Rounder $2,000)

    Total $56,775

    Assuming a $62,000 salary cap (5.7% growth over this year's), we'd have $5,225, which would likely get gobbled up by the roughly $6,000 MLE hold.

    Obviously, if we could find a way to convert somebody (preferrably Tinsley) into an expiring contract this year, it would significantly change the math, but, failing that, the only way we'll be able to have enough space to sign someone for more than the MLE is to renounce everybody but Danny.

    If we wanted to keep Jack, we'd probably be better off signing him to an extension this summer, or locking him up on Day 1 next, because it's exceedingly unlikely he'd command a contract starting at $6,000. In fact, with the exception of Danny, all of those players listed would likely sign 1st year contracts for far less than their cap holds. However, once they were signed and added to our existing contracts and Danny's cap hold, we'd be back up against the cap and looking at MLE's anyway, so there's not a huge advantage in being quick with them.

  18. #18
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Contracts: $41,778

    Capholds: $14,997 (Danny $6,989, JJ $6,008, 1st Rounder $2,000)

    Total $56,775

    Assuming a $62,000 salary cap (5.7% growth over this year's), we'd have $5,225, which would likely get gobbled up by the roughly $6,000 MLE hold.

    Obviously, if we could find a way to convert somebody (preferrably Tinsley) into an expiring contract this year, it would significantly change the math, but, failing that, the only way we'll be able to have enough space to sign someone for more than the MLE is to renounce everybody but Danny.

    If we wanted to keep Jack, we'd probably be better off signing him to an extension this summer, or locking him up on Day 1 next, because it's exceedingly unlikely he'd command a contract starting at $6,000. In fact, with the exception of Danny, all of those players listed would likely sign 1st year contracts for far less than their cap holds. However, once they were signed and added to our existing contracts and Danny's cap hold, we'd be back up against the cap and looking at MLE's anyway, so there's not a huge advantage in being quick with them.
    count55, we discussed this on another PD thread and also on RealGM....but since "renouncing the rights" to players would determine what our Salary Cap would be....could you elaborate ( again ) on what the advantages of "renouncing/retaining the rights" to UFA and RFA is?

    If we were to retain the rights to Granger and ( let's say ) renounce the rights to Jack ( RFA ) and Foster ( UFA ), wouldn't we still have the right to match any offer that Granger and Jack get?

    What would be the advantages/disadvantages of retaining the rights to RFAs and UFAs when it comes to resigning them?

    For our RFAs, I'm trying to figure out what benefits we would want to retain or renounce their rights.

    As for Foster, I know that in the end, it's up to Foster to decide where he wants to go....but I am guessing that there would be some advantage in retaining the rights to Foster.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    count55, we discussed this on another PD thread and also on RealGM....but since "renouncing the rights" to players would determine what our Salary Cap would be....could you elaborate ( again ) on what the advantages of "renouncing/retaining the rights" to UFA and RFA is?

    If we were to retain the rights to Granger and ( let's say ) renounce the rights to Jack ( RFA ) and Foster ( UFA ), wouldn't we still have the right to match any offer that Granger and Jack get?

    What would be the advantages/disadvantages of retaining the rights to RFAs and UFAs when it comes to resigning them?

    For our RFAs, I'm trying to figure out what benefits we would want to retain or renounce their rights.

    As for Foster, I know that in the end, it's up to Foster to decide where he wants to go....but I am guessing that there would be some advantage in retaining the rights to Foster.

    Renouncing someone's rights for all intents in purposes mean you lose whatever "rights" you had that were important in the first place.

    Most of the time this means you're losing a guy's Bird rights and, if he was restricted FA, the rights to match a contract given by someone else. So if you renounced Granger, you would lose the right to go over the cap and re-sign him. Renouncing a player also automatically makes him an unrestricted FA, meaning you don't have rights to match.

    If you renounce Granger, that gets rid of his cap hold. Now that opens up space to sign someone else's FA. Problem is, once that guy is signed, you no longer have the ability to go over the cap and re-sign Granger because you would no longer have his Bird rigths..

  20. #20
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,041

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    As I understand it, if we let Granger go into this season without an extension, he will become a restricted free agent in the summer of 2009.

    The downside to this is he will probably command a larger contract in a year than he does right now.

    However, there is a flip side.

    If we can wait on Granger until later in the summer, which of course is dependent on him agreeing to do this, we will temporarily have a good deal of capspace on our hands earlier in the summer.

    As such, this would temporarily allow us to go after a big fish on the market (such as Carlos Boozer), sign him, and then, because Danny Granger is already one of our players, we can go over the salary cap to re-sign Danny once the free agent is squared away.

    My question to you all is: Should the Pacers try to do this?
    I voted no. It's MY VIEW unless you can get way under the cap ($20m plus) and have a good team too, you are better off not going under at all. That way you can sign a major free agent and still have cap space to play with.

  21. #21
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by d_c View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Renouncing someone's rights for all intents in purposes mean you lose whatever "rights" you had that were important in the first place.

    Most of the time this means you're losing a guy's Bird rights and, if he was restricted FA, the rights to match a contract given by someone else. So if you renounced Granger, you would lose the right to go over the cap and re-sign him. Renouncing a player also automatically makes him an unrestricted FA, meaning you don't have rights to match.

    If you renounce Granger, that gets rid of his cap hold. Now that opens up space to sign someone else's FA. Problem is, once that guy is signed, you no longer have the ability to go over the cap and re-sign Granger because you would no longer have his Bird rigths..
    Basically, what he said.

    Renouncing a guy pretty much amounts to losing him, and the vast majority of the time, you lose him without any compensation.

    The simple way I look at it is that I'm only going to renounce a guy's rights if I've decided that I simply don't want him any more. I'm sure we'll renounce Baston, McBob, & Graham because they could all conceivably be re-signed for the mins.

    However, I don't think we'll renounce Rasho, Jack, or Foster because we'll want to leave open the door to re-signing them.

  22. #22

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    This post has opened my eyes, and now I'm getting to think it's pointless to play the FA game next summer. Let's just start developing a young team consisting of our current talent and future draft picks, if at all possible high 1sts, and just deal with our bad contracts while watching our young team grow. It's the best way to go.

    We have good parts already in place with Ford, Granger, Jack, Rush, and Hibbert. Unfortunately, I don't see much room for Dunleavy at his age in a young team like that, so we should probably see what's out there in the trade market. Let's do what OKC's doing right now basically, saving tons of cap room while developing a very nice core for the future.

  23. #23
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,285

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDoddage View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This post has opened my eyes, and now I'm getting to think it's pointless to play the FA game next summer. Let's just start developing a young team consisting of our current talent and future draft picks, if at all possible high 1sts, and just deal with our bad contracts while watching our young team grow. It's the best way to go.

    We have good parts already in place with Ford, Granger, Jack, Rush, and Hibbert. Unfortunately, I don't see much room for Dunleavy at his age in a young team like that, so we should probably see what's out there in the trade market. Let's do what OKC's doing right now basically, saving tons of cap room while developing a very nice core for the future.
    Yeah....for the Pacers, the only time that we will have a chance to play the FA market is in the summer of 2011-2012 when Dunleavy, Murphy and whoever we dump Tinsley for will come off the books.
    Last edited by CableKC; 09-19-2008 at 07:57 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  24. #24
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    14,880

    Default Re: Is it worth the risk?

    I see the financial situation as one that naturally fluctuates and that the best plan is to slowly build a team via trade and the draft....unless we're prepared to make a legitimate run at a championship (IOW, the guy would be considered the last piece) or to acquire a superstar...something we cannot afford at the present time. Otherwise, we might want to play it if we have the money and do not have any critical pieces to sign....neither of which is true at the present time.

    Granger is an important player to the franchise...maybe not critical...but important enough to lock down. Yes, we got burned by locking down SJax, Tins and Artest...but Granger is not likely to blow up in your face. We will only end up paying 4-8M more per year to match if we don't do it now.

Similar Threads

  1. Mike Wells: How Much is Granger Worth?
    By Putnam in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 08-25-2008, 04:51 AM
  2. Is getting Brett Favre worth a 1st round pick?
    By joew8302 in forum Indianapolis Colts
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 04:28 PM
  3. Does the Shaq deal make Foster worth more?
    By bambam in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 02-10-2008, 04:02 PM
  4. ESPN: Is Kobe Worth It?
    By Anthem in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-07-2007, 12:31 PM
  5. Ford: Is Kobe worth it? [ESPN]
    By RoboHicks in forum NBA Headlines (RSS Feeds)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-06-2007, 04:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •