Last edited by Eleazar; 12-12-2012 at 02:45 PM.
I think you offer West 3 yrs/24 million and hope that no team is going to go so far over that as to make it worth West to move. I would consider going 3 yrs/30 million, but I wouldn't be thrilled about it. I wouldn't give him a guaranteed 4th year under any circumstances right now. I would give him a team option though for a 4th year if that would make him feel better, especially if he is confident he will continue to play well.
If they were to shut this down. They would trade Roy and Danny and let West walk. Not resign Tyler and Augustin and let Hill and Paul be the only bright spot and lottery it up for a few seasons. Then when Hill and Paul are in their "prime" still they will have young lottery pieces to really challenge.
Its a 4 year window probably that will result in us losing George (inflated numbers on a lottery team), a botched lottery pick, and injuries. Or we can rearrange our bench and hope that Roy is in a slump, Danny can comeback, and George be a consistent scorer.
Either way we are at the start of this not the end. So quit trying to pitch that it is dooms day 1/4 of the way into the season. Get Real!!!!
I don't see who's lining up to give D West 4 years 40 plus million, maybe there is, I don't know. I think its like anything else, its not sign David West at all costs, but 3 years at 30 plus million sounds reasonable. His game isn't predicated on traditional athleticism, I could easily see him playing to that level through that contract. You can still take a run at Milsap and Josh Smith, but in a reasonable way. If someone is offering 4 years 50 million, let him go, but I don't see it. The other thing to consider is who fills his position.... So back to the point of primes, you waste Danny's prime by not having a viable PF or making him play PF, that will injure him. So ya, I guess we'll see what his market value is... I would have never dreamed Roy's was a max contract, so who knows.
There were a couple big differences between the 90's team and this team. The first is that the 90's team had the pieces to be able to slowly take over for the veterans as they aged. In 96-97, Jalen only averaged 18 minutes. By the third year of that 3 year run, he was leading the team in minutes. Missing the playoffs allowed the Pacers to take Croshere in the lottery, and by year 3 he was averaging double figures and playing 23 minutes a game. Best and Antonio were really solid bench players that were already there (of course Antonio left).
What is there on this team that can compare? There are some on this year's bench that are solid, but this bench doesn't have the future starters/key role players that were there in the 90's. That puts further pressure on the starters to keep up their play, unlike the 90's team where the starters were gracefully being given a lesser role (by that last year Jackson averaged 27 minutes per game, Smits 23.4, and McKey only 19.8).
The second is the difference in where the Pacers rank in salary. In 1999, keeping that core together had the Pacers at 3rd in the NBA in overall salary. With ownership not wanting to go above the luxury tax, there's no way they stay anywhere near 3rd in overall salary (they're in between 10th and 15th this year). With that in mind, they are going to need cheap players to not only supplement their core but allow them to slowly take over as parts of the core start to decline. And right now, the only cheap player they have with that kind of upside is really Lance (maybe Plumlee, but his upside is limited), and Lance only has 1 year left of being cheap after this year.
I'd love to build a team like the 90's. And unlike some, I think the main core has the ability like the 90's one did to do some damage right now. But this Pacers squad simply doesn't have some of the advantages the 90's one did. If the Pacers end up paying all 5 of their starters over the next year and a half, basically the only upgrades to the team will come from low 1st round draft picks and very low cost bench signings. And unless they get very lucky with one of those, that isn't going to have enough upside to offset any decline from the starters. Even if Lance does work out and becomes a great 6th man, the Pacers likely won't have the money to pay him after paying West, Granger, and George.
I'd have to say, who on the roster do you not "dislike" - and that includes players you think are OK but you don't like them due to their contracts? I seldom hear you say a positive thing about anyone that isn't tempered by something negative.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
If West is willing to resign for under $10M/yr, then yeah, I'd love for him to come back.
If there is a good deal that you can make for West, then I hope the Pacers take it. While I think he should be traded since his value is high, it doesn't mean I want him traded for any deal. I just don't see the Pacers making much noise this season, so get something of value while you can.
I would caution the continual comparing to the 90 Pacers. There is no Reggie here. There is no Jax. There is no Dale. We have no Tony. And the NBA today is not the same. You might as well compare the Pacers to the Colts of the 80s. Cause it is a different game.
I don't want to be "picking" on you again, but why do you constantly feel the need to take someone's opinion and make it extreme?
That is NOT what Seth said.
I find that I agree with vnzla81 a great deal of the time. One as to look at the players with a critical eye. I don't dislike any of them but I thought they should have moved Granger a few years ago when he still had some value. West is a stop gap player. There are a lot like him available. People are waiting for PG to become a star. I think he is a very good player but will never be a star. Hill is a very good player playing out of position and I like his game a lot. Lance is showing everyone that Bird was right all along and he may be the best chance of everyone we have to become a star player. Hibbert is way outperforming anything that people expected of him. He won't be a star but he will be a top five or six center for a long time. Everyone else on the roster is a journey man and it really doesn't matter if they are here or not. There are always players available to fill these spots. So, what you have is a small market team whose management is delighted to just see them make the playoffs and who have no plan or real desire to get a superstar. They might have had Harden as I said earlier. Houston didn't hesitate when a star became available even when they had a good player to put in that position. I see the Pacers being a mediocre playoff team for several years and then they will go through the rebuilding process all over again and take four to five years to get back to what they are now. ...
Id say 'Prime" is 25 to 30. Definitely doesn't mean they cant be great after that point though.
That's a 2 way street. I guess your assumptions are more relevant and others who disagree with your view are just wrong.
Where are the Pacers going to get the money to re-sign Paul George since you didn't mention him?
Did he tell you what his opinion is? No, he just said your opinion is 100% baseless, and it is. There is no reason to believe West wants to leave.
This space for rent.
You know this how? Relative or friend of DWest? Clairvoyant? Crystal Ball? Yet, my opinion is baseless! Unless you know for a fact how DWest feels your statement is without merit.
Paranoia? WOW! I never mentioned Dwight Howard, talk about irrelevant tripe. How DWest felt prior doesn't mean 2 years later he won't change his mind. Things change in people's lives and their prioities change.
If you weren't paranoid you wouldn't be assuming he wants to leave. Yes people's opinion can change, but what he thought one year ago is more relevant then any assumption based on....well what is your opinion based on? No you didn't say anything about Dwight, I never said you did. I was making a comparison.
If West really doesn't want to come back then we need to get rid of him as soon as possible, but at this moment we do not know. The only people who can know are the Wests and the Pacers, not you, not me, not any of us. To make assumptions, and to hold onto those assumptions as strongly as you do is irrational. You are assuming your assumption is truth, and you are infallible. While it is possible you are right, at best you have a 33% chance of being right.
So please stop being so emotional, and taking things so personal. It just makes you look the fool.
Last edited by Eleazar; 12-13-2012 at 01:08 AM.