Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 94 of 94

Thread: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

  1. #76
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,950

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    I'm surprised to see the projected LT is over $75M, considering it's barely moved over the last 5 seasons. Hopefully that's true, because I believe Simon when he says we're not going to be a tax team.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Kegboy For This Useful Post:


  3. #77
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kegboy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm surprised to see the projected LT is over $75M, considering it's barely moved over the last 5 seasons. Hopefully that's true, because I believe Simon when he says we're not going to be a tax team.
    yeah, I'll believe that jump when I see it

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  5. #78
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,443

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Kegboy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm surprised to see the projected LT is over $75M, considering it's barely moved over the last 5 seasons. Hopefully that's true, because I believe Simon when he says we're not going to be a tax team.
    The BRI projection is higher as revenue continues to recover.
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  6. #79
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by BillS View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The BRI projection is higher as revenue continues to recover.
    and like two thirds of the league, or whatever they cried, "loses money"

  7. #80
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,181

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    and like two thirds of the league, or whatever they cried, "loses money"
    They'll do so again in 3 years, when the current CBA has an opt out. Fun times.

  8. #81
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,708

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Even though the national TV contract doesn't expire until after 2016, but there could be a significant bump up after this season and that could account for the luxury tax spike. I don't know, but that is possible.

  9. #82
    Administrator Unclebuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    32,708

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    and like two thirds of the league, or whatever they cried, "loses money"
    Let me first say I don't know if what I am suggesting here is true at all.

    But revenues could be increasing thus increasing the BRI. Howver that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the NBA aren't losing money. For example the Lakers huge local TV deal kicks in this year (I forget the exact amount but I think the lakers get like $150m per year from their local TV contract. So that increases the BRI, but that doesn't help the pacers any.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Unclebuck For This Useful Post:


  11. #83
    future dragon trainer Heisenberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    12,044

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me first say I don't know if what I am suggesting here is true at all.

    But revenues could be increasing thus increasing the BRI. Howver that doesn't mean that 2/3 of the NBA aren't losing money. For example the Lakers huge local TV deal kicks in this year (I forget the exact amount but I think the lakers get like $150m per year from their local TV contract. So that increases the BRI, but that doesn't help the pacers any.
    It actually does. Well, far as we know, there's a lot of legalese that I assume gives big profit teams plenty of outs. The new CBA instituted new revenue sharing protocols that calls for money maker franchises to contribute up to 50% of their franchise profit into a pot to be divvied up to the net negative franchises, at least the way I understand it. I'll buy a handful of franchises lose money on a yearly basis, the Pacers included, but there's not a chance in hell the league as a whole loses money.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Heisenberg For This Useful Post:


  13. #84
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    7,920

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    and like two thirds of the league, or whatever they cried, "loses money"
    Revenue isn't profits. Revenue can go up, but you still lose money because you spent more than you made.

    In most cases I doubt the teams are losing very much money, probably $10 million or less per team. So the league as a whole can still make a profit if the other 1/3rd makes enough to make up for 2/3rds of the teams. Considering that a team like the Lakers have local TV deals 20 times bigger than the Pacers it isn't far fetched for a combination of the Lakers, Chicago, New York, Houston, and whoever else is making money to make enough to cover the costs of the other teams.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Eleazar For This Useful Post:


  15. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,900

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If Lance makes the all-star team I would bet that Lance is a Pacer next year and there are other players who didn't make the all-star team who are not Pacers. It's not going to happen unless Lance gets more shots or he continues to shoot 65% from 3. He's scoring at a pretty incredibly rate so far this season.
    I think the odds of Lance making are all star team are astronomically low and it's more likely we're seeing a good but inconsistent player put together a few great games and anyone is getting way ahead of themselves if they're talking about an all star appearance based of 3 games. If it does happen though then there is almost no chance that we keep him. This team can not afford 3 max contract players and while moving some payroll out is possible unless you want either PG or Hibbert traded then taking on another big contract can't happen.

  16. #86
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,499

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the odds of Lance making are all star team are astronomically low and it's more likely we're seeing a good but inconsistent player put together a few great games and anyone is getting way ahead of themselves if they're talking about an all star appearance based of 3 games. If it does happen though then there is almost no chance that we keep him. This team can not afford 3 max contract players and while moving some payroll out is possible unless you want either PG or Hibbert traded then taking on another big contract can't happen.
    We actually could afford another max contract by waiving Scola (4.3 million), and sending out either Mahinimi (4 million) or Copeland (3 million) for cap relief. Even if we need to give him a big contract, I doubt it would be another max. I figure his top contract will be in the 8-10 million range, and we will give him a flat-rate contract to make sure there's room for PG and hibbert's contracts to grow.

    Our 3 "max" contracts would be worth something like 18 million dollars less than Miami's 3 max contracts.

    Anyway, I don't think he's make the ASG, I was just speculating based on the current conversation.

  17. #87
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,900

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    We actually could afford another max contract by waiving Scola (4.3 million), and sending out either Mahinimi (4 million) or Copeland (3 million) for cap relief. Even if we need to give him a big contract, I doubt it would be another max. I figure his top contract will be in the 8-10 million range, and we will give him a flat-rate contract to make sure there's room for PG and hibbert's contracts to grow.

    Our 3 "max" contracts would be worth something like 18 million dollars less than Miami's 3 max contracts.

    Anyway, I don't think he's make the ASG, I was just speculating based on the current conversation.
    A lot depends on how much PG will rake in next year. If he makes an all nba team again and nets the higher max then our payroll with just adding PG would come to about 70 mil with 4 spots left to fill to hit the minimum 13 players. Even if we fill 3 of those with min. contract players then we're at 73 mil without Lance or Granger. We know we're only keeping 1 of them and it's most likely Lance but almost all of what he makes would have to come from trading other players while taking back only min. contract players. I guess we could dump George Hill and Scola while taking back only 2 mil in payroll to fill those spots and that would free up 10.5 mil or we could dump West but I don't think I would do that.
    We still don't know how Granger will end up this season but if he comes back and plays well I think he's still a consideration. At the end of the season if both players are playing well I think we'll end up with the player that cost less and I still think there's a good chance that it will Lance.
    Last edited by Pacerized; 11-04-2013 at 09:45 PM.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Pacerized For This Useful Post:


  19. #88
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,499

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    A lot depends on how much PG will rake in next year. If he makes an all nba team again and nets the higher max then our payroll with just adding PG would come to about 70 mil with 4 spots left to fill to hit the minimum 13 players. Even if we fill 3 of those with min. contract players then we're at 73 mil without Lance or Granger. We know we're only keeping 1 of them and it's most likely Lance but almost all of what he makes would have to come from trading other players while taking back only min. contract players. I guess we could dump George Hill and Scola while taking back only 2 mil in payroll to fill those spots and that would free up 10.5 mil or we could dump West but I don't think I would do that.
    We still don't know how Granger will end up this season but if he comes back and plays well I think he's still a consideration. At the end of the season if both players are playing well I think we'll end up with the player that cost less and I still think there's a good chance that it will Lance.
    First off, I was incorrect that we could afford a max contract. But not incorrect that we can't afford a big one. And we don't have to give up a starter.

    If the projected salary cap is correct, the cap will be $62.1M. If that's the cap, the tax level will be $75.7M.

    The total salary of Hibbert, West, Hill, Scola, Mahinmi, Copeland, Watson, S. Hill, Sloan, and OJ (10 players) is at $52.2M. That means you have $23.5M to sign a minimum of 3 players. Or, you can waive Scola, which saves you $4.4M, leaving you with $27.9M to sign 4 players.

    If Paul makes the all-NBA team, he can make anywhere between 25% and 30% of the cap--that is, between $15.53M and $18.63M. I'm already assuming he's going to get the supermax, but he's already said in interviews he didn't get the absolute max. Let's be conservative and say he got $18M for the first year.

    If you keep Scola, you have roughly $23.5M - $18M = $5.5M to sign 2 players after George.
    If you waive Scola, you have roughly $27.9M - $18M = $9.9M to sign 3 players after George.

    On top of that, you can ship out either 1 of or a combination of Scola, Mahinmi, and Copeland for further cap relief, even if you only save enough money on the deal to pick up another veteran's minimum contract. We're actually in a pretty good cap situation considering the increasing number of large contracts on our team.

  20. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,900

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    If you're at 52.2 mil without PG, then wouldn't adding him put you over 70 mil. leaving only 5 mil to sign 3 players? We'd still need to send out 12 mil in contracts while taking back only 2 mil in min. contract players to take on another high dollar player. It's not impossible just all but impossible. Cutting payroll when teams know you're in a pinch is tough to do in the new cba. The only way I see it happening would be if we want to send out a player more valueable to the team then Lance and I don't see that happening. I could see Larry paying a penalty to dump either Scola, Ian or Copeland but that would only give us 6-7 mil to spend. If either Lance or Danny cost more then that then I just don't see us keeping them.

  21. #90
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,499

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you're at 52.2 mil without PG, then wouldn't adding him put you over 70 mil. leaving only 5 mil to sign 3 players? We'd still need to send out 12 mil in contracts while taking back only 2 mil in min. contract players to take on another high dollar player. It's not impossible just all but impossible. Cutting payroll when teams know you're in a pinch is tough to do in the new cba. The only way I see it happening would be if we want to send out a player more valueable to the team then Lance and I don't see that happening. I could see Larry paying a penalty to dump either Scola, Ian or Copeland but that would only give us 6-7 mil to spend. If either Lance or Danny cost more then that then I just don't see us keeping them.
    Paul George actually is our 11th player. We will have 11 players under contract, PG included, next season. You only need 13.

    I said at the top we can't do a max contract. We could definitely sign Lance to an 8 million a year contract if we have to. Also, we don't have to pay a penalty to dump those players . Scola only has 440K guaranteed and with the other two I was saying you could get a player back for them.

    I actually feel a lot better about our cap situation than I did before I went through all the numbers.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-04-2013 at 11:12 PM.

  22. #91
    Redemption. docpaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Noblesville, IN
    Posts
    1,685

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you keep Scola, you have roughly $23.5M - $18M = $5.5M to sign 2 players after George.
    If you waive Scola, you have roughly $27.9M - $18M = $9.9M to sign 3 players after George.

    We're actually in a pretty good cap situation considering the increasing number of large contracts on our team.
    Maybe it's me, but these data are exactly what I'm worried about. We're going to need Scola. We're unlikely able to sign Lance for 5.5 mil/year.

    Out of the people you suggest we can ship, the only one that is expendable at this moment in time is Copeland, and if he continues to be the 5th big all season, it'll require sending out an additional asset to move him.

    Mahinmi and Scola are our backup bigs. They are part of our core identity.

    Perhaps he (and his agent) might be open to a "balloon" type contract that grows disproportionately bigger in subsequent years.
    Last edited by docpaul; 11-04-2013 at 11:16 PM.

  23. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Dillon, Co
    Posts
    3,900

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I said at the top we can't do a max contract. We could definitely sign Lance to an 8 million a year contract if we have to. Also, we don't have to pay a penalty to dump those players . Scola only has 440K guaranteed and with the other two I was saying you could get a player back for them.
    Scola definitely has positive trade value but we gave up 2 first round picks for him so I'd hate to take back less then 1. Ian might cost us something to move and I think Copeland may have negative value. The thing is if we wait until next summer to move them then teams know we're desperate to dump payroll and will demand a premium versus teams coming to us wanting to pick one of them up just as we did when we pursued Scola. I'd agree with you that I think finding a way to come up with 6-8 mil is possible but it will be difficult. What I was saying was that in the unlikely event that Lance were to end up on an all star team I can't see anyway we keep him. He wouldn't sign for 6-8 mil if that happened.

  24. #93
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,181

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If Paul makes the all-NBA team, he can make anywhere between 25% and 30% of the cap--that is, between $15.53M and $18.63M.
    Actually it's between $14.6m (25%) and $17.5m (30%). The reason for this is that the salary cap used for calculating max salaries is slightly different from the actual salary cap. As Larry Coon states in his FAQ:

    2 They use a different cap calculation to determine the maximum salaries, which is based on 42.14% of projected BRI rather than 44.74%. In 2005 the sides negotiated a different formula for setting the salary cap but not maximum salaries, so the two became decoupled, and this continued in the 2011 agreement. For this reason the maximum salaries are not actually 25%, 30% or 35% of the cap, and instead are a slightly lower amount.

  25. #94
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,343

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: "I'm staying with the Pacers."

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacerized View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If you're at 52.2 mil without PG, then wouldn't adding him put you over 70 mil. leaving only 5 mil to sign 3 players? We'd still need to send out 12 mil in contracts while taking back only 2 mil in min. contract players to take on another high dollar player. It's not impossible just all but impossible. Cutting payroll when teams know you're in a pinch is tough to do in the new cba. The only way I see it happening would be if we want to send out a player more valueable to the team then Lance and I don't see that happening. I could see Larry paying a penalty to dump either Scola, Ian or Copeland but that would only give us 6-7 mil to spend. If either Lance or Danny cost more then that then I just don't see us keeping them.
    I have a feeling that Copeland+OJ will be packaged for an Expiring and some future 2nd round pick to clear capspace.

    However, I also think that Bird is more of a "we're all in with current roster, if we can deal Copeland for an expiring...great...if not, we have a deeper bench for a championship run and let the chips fall where they may come the Summer of 2014" mentality.
    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.

Posting Permissions

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