Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 51

Thread: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

  1. #26
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Anyone know if a Team has ever chosen to not exercise a Team Option for a Player but instead was signed to a new Contract under Free Agency with that same Team?
    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.

  2. #27

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We traded our own to Miami for the rights to Stanko Barac.

    Did you really have to point that out? My blood pressure must go up 50 points everytime I think of Bird drafting him over others.

  3. #28
    Pacer Junky Will Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,051

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by aceace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you think about all the teams trying to trade for expiring contracts, it will be hard on guys like Daniels and Jack this summer.
    Agree!

    A lot of teams are looking to be under the cap in two years for Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. Well, it's obvious there's not going to be enough of those type players to go around.

    Jack could accept the qualifying offer, and Daniels could sign for a lessor amount for one year, knowing teams are going to have a lot of money to spend the next year, and their chance at a big payday would go way up.

  4. #29
    The Dude Abides MrSparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,375

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Justin Tyme View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Did you really have to point that out? My blood pressure must go up 50 points everytime I think of Bird drafting him over others.
    Stanko shall have the last laugh.
    Report: 82% Of Wiseguys Think They're Real Funny

  5. #30
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Will Galen View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agree!

    A lot of teams are looking to be under the cap in two years for Lebron, Wade, Bosh, etc. Well, it's obvious there's not going to be enough of those type players to go around.

    Jack could accept the qualifying offer, and Daniels could sign for a lessor amount for one year, knowing teams are going to have a lot of money to spend the next year, and their chance at a big payday would go way up.
    Given the liklihood that JO'B will be around for another season.....I'd want to resign either Jack or Marquis....but I would not want to resign both. If JO'B has the choice to give minutes to Jack, Marquis or BRush minutes....I think that BRush would be the low-man on the Totem Pole when it comes to getting minutes. I'd fear that J'OB would always chooose to play either of them ahead of BRush in the rotation.

    That's one of the reasons why I propose that we resign one or the other......it's to ensure that JO'B has no choice but to give BRush a solid 20+ mpg in the PG/SG/SF rotation in his Sophmore season.
    Last edited by CableKC; 03-02-2009 at 09:20 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.

  6. #31

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    I really hope we can find some way to keep Daniels. He is the best on the Pacers at finding a way to the rim when nobody else can make a play imo. At least two or three times a game I see him drive and score when the shot clock is about to expire and nobody else was able to get through the defense. He also has the ability to play point guard; he was often used at that position in Dallas.

    I would bet that the Tinsley situation will effect what we do in the off-season too. If he isn't traded or bought out, does anybody think Bird would consider bringing him back? After sitting out an entire season it may be necessary to prove that he can still play. It would also allow TPTB to fill the void left by Jack and Daniels, without spending more money, in the event that they both leave. I highly doubt this would be considered, but stranger things have happened.

    (I apologize if that suggestion makes anybody vomit in their mouth a little while reading it)
    Last edited by switch; 03-02-2009 at 10:32 PM.

  7. #32

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Perhaps Quis will demonstrate his future value to the team via a trade -- ideally, a draft-related one ... either to secure an additional first-rounder, or to trade up, or to trade (with our pick?) for a desirable veteran like Chicken Chandler.

  8. #33
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrFife View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Perhaps Quis will demonstrate his future value to the team via a trade -- ideally, a draft-related one ... either to secure an additional first-rounder, or to trade up, or to trade (with our pick?) for a desirable veteran like Chicken Chandler.
    From my understanding, the only way to trade him in the offseason is to pick up his Team Option at $7 mil a season....which would mean that we would have to take back someone with at 2009-2010 salary between $5.83 mil to $9.19 mil...which would put us over the Luxury Tax threshold.
    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.

  9. #34

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    From my understanding, the only way to trade him in the offseason is to pick up his Team Option at $7 mil a season....which would mean that we would have to take back someone with at 2009-2010 salary between $5.83 mil to $9.19 mil...which would put us over the Luxury Tax threshold.
    I read on ESPN that we could trade him and whoever we traded him to could refuse to p/u his option. I think we have to trade him before July 1st and then the team must waive his team option and cut him by July 1st. Its a sweet asset the Pacers have this summer.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  10. #35
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by aceace View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I read on ESPN that we could trade him and whoever we traded him to could refuse to p/u his option. I think we have to trade him before July 1st and then the team must waive his team option and cut him by July 1st. Its a sweet asset the Pacers have this summer.
    This is wrong. He can't be traded without picking up his option first.

  11. #36
    Member OakMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,031

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Count,

    Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?

    Perhaps we could find a team that's substantially under the cap and then pick up 'Quis option and send him (or some other higher paid player their way).

    Also, how does it work trading for guys with unguaranteed or partially guaranteed contracts? We could just trade for them and cut them, right?
    Last edited by OakMoses; 03-03-2009 at 01:22 PM.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  12. #37
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by mellifluous View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Count,

    Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?

    Perhaps we could find a team that's substantially under the cap and then pick up 'Quis option and send him (or some other higher paid player their way).
    Yes, we could pick up his option, then trade him.

    If we were to trade with someone currently over the cap, we'd have to take back about $5.9mm, unless that team had a trade exception of at least $7.4mm (which I can't think of any at the moment, except for maybe Denver).

    If we were to trade with someone under the cap, at least under the cap far enough to take on the $7.4mm, we would not have to take back any salary.

    However, I'm a little unclear if we could take back something in between. That is to say, could we trade Quis to someone under the tax, but only take back a guy making $2 or $3 million.

  13. #38
    Member OakMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,031

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Here's a list of teams that would have enough cap room to take on 'Quis or another $7 million contract:

    Atlanta
    Charlotte
    Detroit
    Memphis
    Oklahoma City
    Portland
    Sacramento
    Toronto

    See any takers?
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  14. #39
    Member Speed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brownsburg
    Posts
    8,621

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.

  15. #40
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    42
    Posts
    25,672

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.
    The only way that I could see any team wanting to trade for Marquis' contract is if it was treated it as a 2009-2010 Expiring AFTER we decide to pick up the Team Option for ~$7mil. We would end up trading his 1 year Expiring / $7mil contract for some Multi-year / $7mil to $9.19mil per year Contract. We would take on the additional Salary. The only way that I would consider doing this is IF we got back a very solid Athetic Frontcourt Player that fits our needs Low-Post Scoring/Defense that has a Contract that expires AFTER the 2010-2011 season.
    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. #41
    Member OakMoses's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,031

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I see alot of teams that could use him, none that would spend 7 million on him due to the health history.
    Most of those teams could pick up Ford or Foster or even Dunleavy (I doubt anybody wants him).

    Portland keeps saying they want an upgrade at PG. We could send Ford to the Blazers for Blake and save $4 million. Then we'd have enough to possibly keep 'Quis and Jack. Foster would be a pretty good back-up big for them as well.

    I suppose Charlotte or Atlanta might be interested in 'Quis or Foster also.

    I can't see Memphis, OKC, or Sacramento being interested.

    Detroit's a possibility, but they're going to try to make a bigger splash than anything we can ofer.
    "A man with no belly has no appetite for life."

    - Salman Rushdie

  17. #42
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,886
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Here is my opinion on exactly what the Pacers FO is thinking for this off-season. I will make one caveat in this whole scenario, that moving Tinsley is our top priority. I am not going to consider his situation in our off-season, because I will assume we trade him for a player with two years and $14M left on their contract as well.

    1. We will not pick up the team option on Daniels. We are exercising our ability to reduce salary. I love Daniels and his defense. Realistically, we need to reduce payroll and he is a definite casualty. He will get paid solid money by someone. If we were to decline his option and look to resign him, we would be looking at four years and about 16-19M, IMO. In order to get enough of a discount for us to want to sign him, he would need four years at least on that deal. I don't think the Pacers would even consider that. Plus, if we do sign him, he will count against our MLE to do so, and that would be most of our MLE. Not good.

    2. We are going to sign the offer sheet for Jack's restriction. That is 2.9M for next year. We are praying that no one signs him to a contract. I think realistically we could get him for his restriction price. The better he plays down the stretch, the less likely we can sign him for his restriction price. We therefore will be keeping Jack unless he gets a big or lengthy offer from someone else. If I were a betting man I would say that Jack will be back. We can exercise our Bird Rights on him, and thus alleviate using the MLE.

    3. Rasho will go elsewhere. He wasn't real happy to get traded here in the first place, and we don't have a need for him, unless he will take a low ball offer. At that point he could take less to play for a championship caliber team or command a heck of a lot more money in Europe.

    4. Travis Deiner will take his team option.

    5. Maceo will be playing in Europe.

    6. Stephen Graham and Josh McRoberts I will put in the same boat. We want to resign these guys for a couple of years to see if they produce more. They will be happy to be in the NBA still I am sure, and both would probably look to stay with us. Graham has been given a chance to play by us, and McRoberts is from here. Both have an opportunity to actually fill a role with us. Both of these players are "Early Bird Free Agents", meaning that they have been in the league for two years and we can use the "Early Bird Exception" to sign them to contracts without using our MLE or BIA. I think this is mandatory that we resign them since they will be cheap and allow greater flexibility in signing other players (This is assuming that we re-sign them for more than the minimum contracts, that they would probably sign elsewhere). Also, we could use the Minimum player salary exception if either one of them would accept a minimum deal, which would be optimal.

    7. We then have our MLE left to sign whoever we would like. This gives us the ability to take our team to the LT threshold. We have a lot of options. We can make use of a lot of these exceptions to re-sign our guys, which I think will be necessary for our flexibility. I can almost guarantee we will be re-signing most of our own players and not making any big splashes in free agency. I could see us not using our MLE at all in the pre-season. Possibly signing a free agent rookie to a minimum deal. That way, if necessary, we have our entire MLE to use during the year.

    Let me know your thoughts. I know this is probably just a long-winded version of what many of us already know, but I figured I would put a bit more depth into the thoughts. If I am incorrect on anything I said, please feel free to correct me. I won't be offended if you just skip the post too.

  18. #43

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Pacergod2, most of what you said I agree with. #1 priority will be Tinsley, that will probably have the biggest effect on what we do next. Who we trade him for SG,PF or C will be key. Mostly guys that are making 6-7M have at one time been a pretty good player to get money like that. Hopefully they will be able to help, at the very least a 2nd string player. Another key will be "what is Duns situation". Will he play next season, probably won't know that until August at the earliest. I don't see us as having more than 65M in salaries at the most. That would be the two differences which might make some of your points, not happen.
    "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
    Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

  19. #44
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here is my opinion on exactly what the Pacers FO is thinking for this off-season. I will make one caveat in this whole scenario, that moving Tinsley is our top priority. I am not going to consider his situation in our off-season, because I will assume we trade him for a player with two years and $14M left on their contract as well.

    1. We will not pick up the team option on Daniels. We are exercising our ability to reduce salary. I love Daniels and his defense. Realistically, we need to reduce payroll and he is a definite casualty. He will get paid solid money by someone. If we were to decline his option and look to resign him, we would be looking at four years and about 16-19M, IMO. In order to get enough of a discount for us to want to sign him, he would need four years at least on that deal. I don't think the Pacers would even consider that. Plus, if we do sign him, he will count against our MLE to do so, and that would be most of our MLE. Not good.
    If we decline his options, I believe we still retain his Bird rights. Therefore, it would not strictly count against our MLE.

    However, we would not be able to re-sign Daniels for any amount and still use any of our MLE. Therefore, it has the same net effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    2. We are going to sign the offer sheet for Jack's restriction. That is 2.9M for next year. We are praying that no one signs him to a contract. I think realistically we could get him for his restriction price. The better he plays down the stretch, the less likely we can sign him for his restriction price. We therefore will be keeping Jack unless he gets a big or lengthy offer from someone else. If I were a betting man I would say that Jack will be back. We can exercise our Bird Rights on him, and thus alleviate using the MLE.
    We'll certainly make the tender, and only two things would keep us from matching his offers: He gets something significantly higher than $4mm, or we get Daniels for $4mm or less.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    3. Rasho will go elsewhere. He wasn't real happy to get traded here in the first place, and we don't have a need for him, unless he will take a low ball offer. At that point he could take less to play for a championship caliber team or command a heck of a lot more money in Europe.

    4. Travis Deiner will take his team option.

    5. Maceo will be playing in Europe.
    Yup

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    6. Stephen Graham and Josh McRoberts I will put in the same boat. We want to resign these guys for a couple of years to see if they produce more. They will be happy to be in the NBA still I am sure, and both would probably look to stay with us. Graham has been given a chance to play by us, and McRoberts is from here. Both have an opportunity to actually fill a role with us. Both of these players are "Early Bird Free Agents", meaning that they have been in the league for two years and we can use the "Early Bird Exception" to sign them to contracts without using our MLE or BIA. I think this is mandatory that we resign them since they will be cheap and allow greater flexibility in signing other players (This is assuming that we re-sign them for more than the minimum contracts, that they would probably sign elsewhere). Also, we could use the Minimum player salary exception if either one of them would accept a minimum deal, which would be optimal.
    I'm relatively sure McBob will be back...as to Graham, I'm less sure, but it will be him or some other min-level player filling out the roster

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    7. We then have our MLE left to sign whoever we would like. This gives us the ability to take our team to the LT threshold. We have a lot of options. We can make use of a lot of these exceptions to re-sign our guys, which I think will be necessary for our flexibility. I can almost guarantee we will be re-signing most of our own players and not making any big splashes in free agency. I could see us not using our MLE at all in the pre-season. Possibly signing a free agent rookie to a minimum deal. That way, if necessary, we have our entire MLE to use during the year.
    We won't use our MLE, unless we lose both Daniels and Jack. We only have $11mm to sign 6 players. The 1st rounder and Daniels-or-Jack will chew up $7-8mm of that, leaving us 3-4 to sign the other four players...so you're looking at 2nd rounders and min level players.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me know your thoughts. I know this is probably just a long-winded version of what many of us already know, but I figured I would put a bit more depth into the thoughts. If I am incorrect on anything I said, please feel free to correct me. I won't be offended if you just skip the post too.
    There's going to be a lot of speculation, but I think we're going to re-sign Jack, sign our first rounders, and fill out the roster with cheap guys. There simply aren't a lot of options.

  20. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,443

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Quote Originally Posted by mellifluous View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here's a list of teams that would have enough cap room to take on 'Quis or another $7 million contract:

    Atlanta
    Charlotte
    Detroit
    Memphis
    Oklahoma City
    Portland
    Sacramento
    Toronto

    See any takers?
    I don't see anyone there who would want to pay $7M for Marquis Daniels to be on their roster next season. Not in this economic climate, no. If you're one of those teams interested in Daniels' services, you'll just wait for the Pacers to decline his option, then offer him a deal for probably less than half that.

  21. #46
    Member Jon Theodore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Age
    30
    Posts
    1,762

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    We are such a better team when Marquis plays STARTER minutes. Whenever we had Dunleavy we were not a better team. Dunleavy is a great player, but he is not a good fit on our team.

    Really wish we could of somehow traded Dunleavy for an expiring/pick last year/this year so we could keep Quis. Many have said it, but Quis, Jack, Granger, Rush, Graham is not a real solid wing rotation.
    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

  22. #47
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,886
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Count... thanks for the knowledge on the team option.... I didn't realize we retained his Bird rights. I would much rather sign him than Jack, but I do like both players and I think Jack will warrant less money than Daniels. So we might have Jack back by default.... plus I have a feeling who we like at our draft position might dictate which position we keep. If we go say PF, SG, we keep Jack. If we go PG (best available), PF, then I could see Daniels being our focus.

    Also, I think we have WAY more options this year than we did last. Good job Morway... and Bird.

  23. #48
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Isn't it possible for a team that's under the salary cap to make trades where they bring in more salary than they send out?
    Possible? Happens all the time. How many trades actually perfectly match salary at both ends, over or under the cap?

    Thus someone ends up with the right to fill the rest of that contract void they sent out - ala a trade exception. You send out 6 and get back 5 you have the right to absorb another 1 over the next year, but you forfeit the right to take back 6 + 25%. You only get to match what you sent out.

    This is one reason people love teams that are under the cap and why KStat envisions this world where Detroit is holding all the cards. Personally I think he's buying too much into it, but he's not technically wrong.

    we'd have to take back about $5.9mm,
    To clarify this just a bit, no team is ever obligated to take back salary technically. The obligation is that no team CAN ADD more than 25% of the salary they send out if they are over the cap.

    Thus when you get two teams that are over the cap and no one else involved, they both have to meet this requirement and those players have to go someplace, so you are "forced" to take back at least some salary.

    But the salary cap rules don't technically limit how little you take back in a deal, only how much you take back in a deal. I think this is a better way to keep track, especially in multi-team deals where one team is way under the cap. As long as each team avoids going more than 25% over what they send out, then the deal is good.


    * bear in mind that a players cap hit is affected by stuff like base year contract aspects, which isn't the same as the team's cap rule but can impact a trade due to how much value the deal applies to each team's cap (BYC aren't the same cap hit for both sides which makes them tougher to trade)

  24. #49
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Portland keeps saying they want an upgrade at PG.
    Paging Shade. When is there a warning sign that your draft pick isn't panning out? When they won't play him and are looking to upgrade the guys they are playing at his position.

    Yikes. But no way they trade Blake for Ford. I don't think that's enough of an upgrade. Heck, I'd do that straight up right now due to Blake's approach to the position, more of a pure distributor I think.


    TRADE PARTNERS
    I think a team like Boston would like to add a guy like Quis. Teams have scaled it back, but some of the true title teams could still use his inside scoring combined with defense. It's like Posey but with crafty 2pt drives instead of 3pt bombs.

    And with that you might have a comer like Miami looking for a boost to their overall depth, or even Utah. But in cases like these the top thing you are getting out of the deal is a late first round pick it would seem, and I wouldn't trade for one of those and especially not for this draft. Last year maybe, but too late now.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-05-2009 at 07:41 PM.

  25. #50
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,638

    Default Re: Is not picking up Marquis Team Option but trying to sign him as a UFA for cheaper an option?

    Pacergod2, most of what you said I agree with.
    Yeah, me too unfortunately. At this point it almost has nothing to do with basketball and everything to do with the team's financial situation. And worse yet, just when the Pacers most need to get out of a cap problem AND when they had some really nice expiring deals, you run square into such a bad economy that it reduces the cap/tax limits and puts every team into skittish mode when it comes to acquiring overpaid players that can still help push you over the limit (Troy, Dun) or even willing to offer much for expiring deal this year enough to interest the Pacers.

    Other years you would have certainly seen Jeff, Quis and Rasho all gone for 2 good picks, a decent younger guy and a not-so-great contract guy.

Similar Threads

  1. Do the Pacers have a team option on JO
    By esabyrn333 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-16-2008, 11:28 PM
  2. ESPN Trade talk: Ten teams to watch.
    By Will Galen in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 03:52 PM
  3. Early Review of Pacers Season, Outlook on future
    By imawhat in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 01:59 AM
  4. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 01:50 AM
  5. Why not Anderson Varejao???
    By bambam in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-27-2007, 10:41 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
  •