2021 Free Agency & Off-season

[Scoot McGroot]

Arguably this is the last opportunity to obtain any value for Beal. Take it a step further and his value is already compromised in that he is only under contract for one more year. What superstar stays in a situation like Washington for anything other than a supermax contract? And, is Beal really a supermax player?

Beal is a super max player, especially to Washington. He still has a LOT more value on the market, even if “compromised”, than just Sabonis and Lamb. That’s nowhere close. And if it was, we would do that in a second, no take backsies.

Really, you would trade Sabonis and his three years of cost control for a guy who will be unrestricted at the end of this year? Based on what I've observed from big time players actions over the last several years I would not risk an asset of pretty substantial value for a guy with one year on his deal. Make a Sabonis for Beal trade, I say the odds of that making us a championship contender maybe 1 in 20, the odds of resigning maybe 1 in 5. And, if we did resign him the deal would be crippling.

Whether or not I would, the market absolutely would. Beal, even at a depressed value, is simply worth more than Sabonis.

[Tom White]

What do you guys think of Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk

When I see a name like that, I miss Slick again. Instead of trying to pronounce that name, he would have given him a nickname like "Slavy" or similar. HA!

[8305]

Beal is a super max player, especially to Washington. He still has a LOT more value on the market, even if “compromised”, than just Sabonis and Lamb. That’s nowhere close. And if it was, we would do that in a second, no take backsies.

Really, you would trade Sabonis and his three years of cost control for a guy who will be unrestricted at the end of this year? Based on what I've observed from big time players actions over the last several years I would not risk an asset of pretty substantial value for a guy with one year on his deal. Make a Sabonis for Beal trade, I say the odds of that making us a championship contender maybe 1 in 20, the odds of resigning maybe 1 in 5. And, if we did resign him the deal would be crippling.

Whether or not I would, the market absolutely would. Beal, even at a depressed value, is simply worth more than Sabonis.

You are probably right if we are viewing the market in general.

As to the supermax issue. I'd argue very few players are so good as to merit the supermax. The way that level of compensation limits other moves and the rest of the roster would be pretty scary. Simmons has the potential to be a supermax guy. Beal with his defensive limitations does not.

[Scoot McGroot]

Really, you would trade Sabonis and his three years of cost control for a guy who will be unrestricted at the end of this year? Based on what I've observed from big time players actions over the last several years I would not risk an asset of pretty substantial value for a guy with one year on his deal. Make a Sabonis for Beal trade, I say the odds of that making us a championship contender maybe 1 in 20, the odds of resigning maybe 1 in 5. And, if we did resign him the deal would be crippling.

Whether or not I would, the market absolutely would. Beal, even at a depressed value, is simply worth more than Sabonis.

You are probably right if we are viewing the market in general.

As to the supermax issue. I'd argue very few players are so good as to merit the supermax. The way that level of compensation limits other moves and the rest of the roster would be pretty scary. Simmons has the potential to be a supermax guy. Beal with his defensive limitations does not.

For Washington, he’s a super max guy. If we dealt for either of Simmons or Beal, the players would be ineligible to receive a super max going forward. Only a team that employed a player during his rookie contract (and has employed him continually since then) can offer a super max to said player. If Simmons or Beal switch teams, they cannot receive super maxes going forward.

[8305]

Whether or not I would, the market absolutely would. Beal, even at a depressed value, is simply worth more than Sabonis.

You are probably right if we are viewing the market in general.

As to the supermax issue. I'd argue very few players are so good as to merit the supermax. The way that level of compensation limits other moves and the rest of the roster would be pretty scary. Simmons has the potential to be a supermax guy. Beal with his defensive limitations does not.

For Washington, he’s a super max guy. If we dealt for either of Simmons or Beal, the players would be ineligible to receive a super max going forward. Only a team that employed a player during his rookie contract (and has employed him continually since then) can offer a super max to said player. If Simmons or Beal switch teams, they cannot receive super maxes going forward.

Understand,
my point, a player getting a monster contract be it supermax or something slightly less has to impact both ends of the floor. I can see Simmons doing that, Beal not so much.

[Scoot McGroot]

You are probably right if we are viewing the market in general.

As to the supermax issue. I'd argue very few players are so good as to merit the supermax. The way that level of compensation limits other moves and the rest of the roster would be pretty scary. Simmons has the potential to be a supermax guy. Beal with his defensive limitations does not.

For Washington, he’s a super max guy. If we dealt for either of Simmons or Beal, the players would be ineligible to receive a super max going forward. Only a team that employed a player during his rookie contract (and has employed him continually since then) can offer a super max to said player. If Simmons or Beal switch teams, they cannot receive super maxes going forward.

Understand,
my point, a player getting a monster contract be it supermax or something slightly less has to impact both ends of the floor. I can see Simmons doing that, Beal not so much.

What about Dame? Not worth a super max? Sometimes, being such a dangerous offensive weapon to the extent of one of the best in the league makes you worth such a massive contract. We might not personally agree, but the market clearly does. As such, we just have to respect that and admit “I’m not willing to pay near the cost it would require to make a fair offer” and move on.

[8305]

For Washington, he’s a super max guy. If we dealt for either of Simmons or Beal, the players would be ineligible to receive a super max going forward. Only a team that employed a player during his rookie contract (and has employed him continually since then) can offer a super max to said player. If Simmons or Beal switch teams, they cannot receive super maxes going forward.

Understand,
my point, a player getting a monster contract be it supermax or something slightly less has to impact both ends of the floor. I can see Simmons doing that, Beal not so much.

What about Dame? Not worth a super max? Sometimes, being such a dangerous offensive weapon to the extent of one of the best in the league makes you worth such a massive contract. We might not personally agree, but the market clearly does. As such, we just have to respect that and admit “I’m not willing to pay near the cost it would require to make a fair offer” and move on.

Or James Harden. Not sure what the market will bear Beal or Dame. No one flinched when Boston signed Kemba Walker.

[Tom White]

No one flinched when Boston signed Kemba Walker.

I did. Still can't believe anyone would pay him that kind of money. Just dumb.

[Topofthekey]

No one flinched when Boston signed Kemba Walker.

I did. Still can't believe anyone would pay him that kind of money. Just dumb.

True. Plenty people thought it was a dumb move. Not sure about this no one flinched narrative

[Tom White]

What really scares me about this off-season is the persistence of talk about us trading the #13 pick for Eric Gordon plus whatever from Houston. That would be a disaster.

[Wizop]

What really scares me about this off-season is the persistence of talk about us trading the #13 pick for Eric Gordon plus whatever from Houston. That would be a disaster.

I'd hate it too. I just took a look at Houston in the trade machine and EG is making 18 so we can't just get him for a pick. probably nothing real.

[Tom White]

I'd hate it too. I just took a look at Houston in the trade machine and EG is making 18 so we can't just get him for a pick. probably nothing real.

So, they are over the cap then? What about after the draft and when it rolls to the next years numbers?

[Wizop]

I'd hate it too. I just took a look at Houston in the trade machine and EG is making 18 so we can't just get him for a pick. probably nothing real.

So, they are over the cap then? What about after the draft and when it rolls to the next years numbers?

I don't know where Houston is but we're over the cap and about 4mm under the tax. it's the Pacers that would have to move a big contract to absorb EG.

[Wizop]

I'd hate it too. I just took a look at Houston in the trade machine and EG is making 18 so we can't just get him for a pick. probably nothing real.

So, they are over the cap then? What about after the draft and when it rolls to the next years numbers?

I don't know where Houston is but we're over the cap and about 4mm under the tax. it's the Pacers that would have to move a big contract to absorb EG.

[Scoot McGroot]

What really scares me about this off-season is the persistence of talk about us trading the #13 pick for Eric Gordon plus whatever from Houston. That would be a disaster.

I think people are mixing two separate rumors. 1, that we would be willing to move 13 in a trade down, or possibly trade entirely, for a more immediate impact player. And 2, that we’ve talked to Houston about possible trades. At no point was there anything rumored that Gordon for 13 could work, or Gordon/23/24 for Lamb/Aaron/13 were possibilities. What has been reported is the value Indy places on keeping Warren, and turning Lamb/Aaron’s expirings (both would be necessary for salary matching EJ) into Gordon’s long-term deal would put us in a position where we can’t keep Warren next year. Also, adding salary like this would not allow us to re-sign McConnell this year, as we’d be adding over $3m to the books in this deal.

Take heart in this: If Indy was remotely amenable to that deal, it would’ve already happened. Houston would’ve jumped ALL OVER that deal.

[Scoot McGroot]

I'd hate it too. I just took a look at Houston in the trade machine and EG is making 18 so we can't just get him for a pick. probably nothing real.

So, they are over the cap then? What about after the draft and when it rolls to the next years numbers?

Houston would be under the cap, but the problem is with us. We’re not under the cap, so we have to salary match for Eric, which means sending out within $5m of his $18.3m type salary.

[Tom White]

Houston would be under the cap, but the problem is with us. We’re not under the cap, so we have to salary match for Eric, which means sending out within $5m of his $18.3m type salary.

Yes, yes, you are right about that. For some reason I was thinking about it backwards. Thanks.

[Pacers Forever]

Why would you even want 6-4 shooting guard E Gordon ? So I get he’s a local product who can shoot but can’t stay healthy. To me he’s just a duplicate player of Justin Holiday or Caris LeVert. Only way I would take him is if we could get him for Lamb plus Aaron and not over pay with much else in assets. I’d rather have a younger player who is on the rise if we could pry them away.

[Topofthekey]

So one of the shortcomings of the Pacers, at least in recent years, has been player development

Assuming that they don't make any trades and start the season with what they have, I want to see Goga, Brissett, Sumner, and Aaron get plenty of minutes

More importantly, I want to see them get a role that suits their abilities, instead of being on standby and simply tossed into the game during garbage time or when someone is in foul trouble

I think they are all ready to take on a bigger role, too

Goga, Brissett, and Sumner all showed they can contribute if given the opportunity. Aaron is probably looking to redeem himself after a down year under Bjorkgren

I like these 4 playing significant roles off the bench

The problem is, we also have Justin and Lamb, we'll most likely re-sign TJ, and whoever we draft at #13 will need playing time as well

That's a staggering 8 players waiting for playing time off the bench

And this is me assuming Stanley and our SRPs play in the G League, and we don't re-sign Doug

I think having 8 players fighting for bench minutes is just such difficult situation for any of them to really shine. Ideally we need to trim that number down to 4 or 5 players. I suppose we could try to give Lamb and Aaron away to any teams that want to absorb them into cap space, but that's just such a waste of assets. But the problem is, even if we do that, we'll still have SIX players (Goga, Brissett, Justin, Sumner, TJ, #13) fighting for bench minutes

Sadly, as long as this situation persists, it's going to hinder our player development

At this point, I'm quite ready to grossly overpay for a consolidation trade, if there is an opportunity for one

Take the supposed Simmons trade for example

I'm ready to offer Domas + Brogdon + LeVert to get it done

I feel that's a gross overpay, so hopefully we can also get some future picks in return together with Simmons

Myles, Warren, Justin, Sumner, Simmons
Goga, Brissett, #13, Lamb, Aaron, TJ

Something like that. If not Simmons, then maybe Beal if Wizards choose to trade him

[8305]

No one flinched when Boston signed Kemba Walker.

I did. Still can't believe anyone would pay him that kind of money. Just dumb.

True. Plenty people thought it was a dumb move. Not sure about this no one flinched narrative

I too, thought that was a lot of money for Kamba. But, the prevailing thought was Boston made a great acquisition. My point was I’d be hesitant to throw Kamba + money at Beal.