This team's chemistry is unreal.
This team's chemistry is unreal.
Second, I believe TJ mentioned the possibility that he'll be traded in the offseason OR not re-signed after his deal runs out. He never said he'll 100% be traded this offseason. This is all pure speculation, on a internet forum, by Pacer fans.
And third, I'm not sure you know what irrational is. You can label him pessimistic all you want, but one thing you can't say is that he's being irrational (well you can but it doesn't make you look good doing so).
You said, thinking that Granger getting traded this summer is a possibility, was irrational. What is rational about that?
Last edited by Mackey_Rose; 02-28-2013 at 12:48 PM.
This article gave me a warm fuzzy. Seriously, got to love this team.
The money situation is pretty tough. Now, granted, the LT could very well be a bit higher in 2 years, but probably not by a lot.
Let's say it remains at what ShamSports currently reports it as, ~$70.3m.
I'll try to be somewhere in between realistic and rosey with my salary projections:
George Hill ($8m) / BackupPG
Paul George (~$14m) / Lance Stephenson (~$5m aka MLE range) / Orlando Johnson (~$0.9m)
Danny Granger (~$8m) / Gerald Green ($3.5m)
David West (~$12m) / Miles Plumlee ($1.2m)
Roy Hibbert (~$14.9m) / Ian Mahinmi ($4m)
That adds up to $71.5, over the tax.
Odds are we WILL NOT be willing to be a tax payer. There's a small chance; Simon allowed it in the past 10 years, but I wouldn't bet on it, either.
And that doesn't account for 2013 draft picks, 2014 draft picks, or even if we give those all away to save money you still need to sign some minimum salary guys to keep the roster at the minimum size of 13 players. (Though, someone remind me, do minimum salary guys still count against the cap, or not? Or am I thinking that the league or someone other than the team that is, pays for their salary but it still goes on the cap?)
So, if you think we'll give away all of our draft picks the next two years, AND Danny will take less than $8m per AND David will take less than $12m per AND Lance will take a minimum of $5m per... you might just get by.
These are the numbers that show how much money has already been committed for the Pacers. These are factual. I already stated why I think these numbers make trading Granger a possibility. That doesn't mean that there is 100% chance he will be. That means, it could happen. That is not irrational.
Those numbers are factual, and certainly more so than anything in that article. Why you are using this article to make any kind of claim that it is factual evidence that any thoughts of him possibly being traded are irrational, is beyond me.
This is all really weird.
Unfortunately this is a VERY good example. Harden was entrenched in OKC's culture but when it came to the money, he wanted more than OKC was going to be able to pay, and he was traded.
The only unknown when it comes to Danny is how much he expects to make. Harden was going into his first big contract, following his rookie deal. Danny is coming off his first big contract, and is going to be 31...not old, but definitely on the backside of his career.
I think it all comes down to what Danny feels he's worth, monetary wise.
We know that the Simons have been willing to go into the LT in the past for the right players. We know that Donnie is willing to pay our players (arguably too much at times) for their loyalty.
Though I don't agree, let's assume the story of Bird leaving because Simon wouldn't do something is somehow true. We know it wasn't that he wouldn't go over the cap - he went over the cap. He wouldn't have been able to go over the LT on players this year because he couldn't have signed the combination that would have that much pay THIS year (possibly could grow to it in the future if signed in the right order, but that's for another debate). To make this work at all, it would really need to mean that Simon didn't want to spend the money on players Bird wanted if it meant getting rid of certain players already on the team.
IF that is the case, there is every possibility that Simon would be willing to go over the LT to keep this core together. Now, that could be good or bad, considering that contracts which end up being too long can be devastating. However, IF we're in a Pistons Position, where one good well-fitting trade could push us over the top, keeping this core together for at least another two years might be worth the money.
"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh
You can expect Danny to at least get a deal comparable to West's IMO. 2/20
I have said something for several months now. And to an extent, this article supports my belief. It emphasizes comradery of the WHOLE team. And, this is something very rare in all of sports, perhaps unique in the NBA, wher the almighty dollar has ruled the roost.
So, is it hard to believe that both West and Granger recognize this and have a great appreciation of how rare it is? Rather than risk losing that with another team, would any of you now believe that West and Granger would be willing to sacrifice a little on thei next contracts to maintain the core of the team they currently have?
put me on record as saying that the team and the players will find a way to make it work.
Keep this team together. They are close as a team and fun to watch. Hill, Stephenson, Granger, West, Hibbert, Hansbrough, Mahinmi and most important of all Paul George all need to retire as pacers
I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say we are NOT signing him for anything close to what he's being paid now, and if someone offers it to him--we let him walk. So so we struggle financially for a year or two to keep this core together?
Obviously, the Tom Brady extension has been in the news lately, but I don't think that is a comparable situation. Brady has already won 3 titles. He's already a 1st ballot Hall of Famer. He's playing for legacy, and legacy alone. He didn't really "take less money," because the CBA allows NFL teams to be much more creative with their accounting than the NBA's CBA does.
This also doesn't even mention the fact that he is married to a woman who makes more money than Brady (or any other NFL'er ever has) by a wide margin. Basically, what I'm saying is, Tom Brady beats every other man at life.
Assuming we want to retain George, West, and Stephenson, I don't see how we have enough money for Danny. That said, I think it is highly unlikely we trade him next year. The Pacers are at a huge advantage in that his contract expires the same year PG is up for his first big contract. There would be very few if any contracts we could take back that would provide us with that kind of long-term financial flexibility AND production like Danny's does. Not retaining Danny is very, very possible, but the Pacers would be shooting themselves in the foot by trading him under almost all scenarios this offseason.
Don't obsess over ""we get nothing of value if we let Danny go for nothing." The value is you have more flexibility to sign Paul George (and hopefully Lance) long-term deals. If we trade Danny for some high-priced player with 3 years left on a similar contract I will be worried about this team's basic business sense.