RealGM

I am a Celtics fan.

Are the Pacers looking to move Troy Murphy in a salary dump? Does he figure into the Pacers plans?

Thanks.

The Pacers are looking at a minimum return for him in a salary dump and could very easily be interested in a package that involves Glen Davis or Kendrick Perkins. Only problem is that if Rasheed Wallace becomes part of the deal, I'd like some assurances that he is retired and will stay retired so the Pacers would only be liable for 20% of his contract.

I think the pacers are looking for more than a min. return. If nothing else we can just wait until next year and let the salary dump itself.

Murphy for a future 1st. Boston won't need it.

A minimum return means the $$$ of the salaries coming back would be 9 million which is the combined salaires of Davis and Wallace combined.

Once Wallace retires, his contract goes to insurance making the Pacers only liable for 20% of his 2010/2011 salary under the CBA, and I think null and voids the player option.

A 3 million return on trade, combined with a TJ Ford trade should open up the nessessary salary space for Indiana to play a significant for player wishing to pull off a Mo Taylor and could get a better payday with the Pacers.

DWCP2 wrote:The Pacers are looking at a minimum return for him in a salary dump and could very easily be interested in a package that involves Glen Davis or Kendrick Perkins. Only problem is that if Rasheed Wallace becomes part of the deal, I'd like some assurances that he is retired and will stay retired so the Pacers would only be liable for 20% of his contract.

Think we would be interested in Perkins with his pending surgery?

DWCP2 wrote:A minimum return means the $$$ of the salaries coming back would be 9 million which is the combined salaires of Davis and Wallace combined.

Once Wallace retires, his contract goes to insurance making the Pacers only liable for 20% of his 2010/2011 salary under the CBA, and I think null and voids the player option.

A 3 million return on trade, combined with a TJ Ford trade should open up the nessessary salary space for Indiana to play a significant for player wishing to pull off a Mo Taylor and could get a better payday with the Pacers.

If he retires, the only salary owed him for future years is whatever the team deems they should pay.

When Reggie retired, Indy paid out his last year as a gesture. Much the same as when guys like Worthy retired.

However, when other guys retire, there's no necessary reason for any team to pay them anything.

Somebody fill me in just because this same idea keeps coming up...since when does a team want to get rid of an expiring contract to DUMP salary? Everyone does realize that we have to take comparable contracts back, which could only be the same number of years or longer. Unless, that is, there's a trade exception coming back, which I haven't seen in any deals. If we could trade him for two smaller expiring contracts, why not? If we can get a player worth that money in return, of course we do it. I just don't see why we would want to dump an expiring deal.

FreeRon wrote:Somebody fill me in just because this same idea keeps coming up...since when does a team want to get rid of an expiring contract to DUMP salary? Everyone does realize that we have to take comparable contracts back, which could only be the same number of years or longer. Unless, that is, there's a trade exception coming back, which I haven't seen in any deals. If we could trade him for two smaller expiring contracts, why not? If we can get a player worth that money in return, of course we do it. I just don't see why we would want to dump an expiring deal.

The only ways I would dump an expiring deal is to get a young guy with great potential, or a proven star who can have a big impact right away. There's two reasons right there.

Instant cap relief. Because Sheed is retiring his money will come off the books now, not after the season. Miami is giving away Beasley to create this type of cap-space. Chicago is giving away first rounders too.

Murphy would do real well in Boston.. imo.

Of course Indy would need some incentive. Bradley?

Say we could pull the Sheed deal off, I'd pursue Beasley and absorb him from Miami. Following that I'd pursue a pg with what is left in the kitty.

If Indy could turn Troy into Bradley/Beasley/ Foye/ Livingston I'd $h*t. It could be done if we create the space to do it. Beasley 5 mill / Bradley 1.5/ Foye 3.5 mill/ Livingston 2.0 = equals 11 million.

It could be done,
1. Trade Murphy(11.9) for Sheed(6.3) and Bradley(1.2) We save 4.4 million.
2. Trade Sheed(6.3) for Beasley(4.9) We save 1.4 million.
Our salary before was 67.4 million. Now it is 61.6 million.(Without Rolle and Stevenson)
MLE is around 5.8 million.
3. I think Foye can go for more than 3.5, but maybe not.
4. Give Livingston whatevers of our MLE.
I really wanna see this done too.

Thanks, Paceristas, for the feedback. I think the Cs might do Sheed (assuming he is retiring) and Big Baby. Unless Perk's knee injury is career threatening (and I do not think it is) I do not think the Cs will trade him unless it is to get an all-star. His low-post D and team play have been foundational to the team's success. And he is only 25. He is the sort of player you have to watch to appreciate; the Hollinger stats crowd always dump on him and sing the praises of guys Perk beats.

Would Celtics do Murphy for Sheed and Bradley.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:Would Celtics do Murphy for Sheed and Bradley.

Bradley is having or just had ankle surgery...anyone know how long he is going to be out?

Bradley is the insurance policy against Allen's return. Doubtful they'd give him up unless getting some quality SG in return.

Remember how trades go per the rules. It's 125% + 100K. But in this case to figure minimum return it's simple algebra.

x * 1.25 + 100,000 = 12 million (Murphy's upcoming salary rounded per example)

So what's x?

12M - 100,000 = 11.9 million

11.9 million / 1.25 = 9.52 million

Okay so what? Wallace and Davis combine for 9.22 million = NOT ENOUGH!!!

Not true, Wallace has a 15% trade kicker and would only need to wave all but 300,000 of it to make the trade work.

Question my judge in talent via trades all you like, but question my math and it's on! LOL! JK!

I'm sorry, but we do not need to get rid of salary or trade a double-double big with three point accuracy for some other expiring contract. Big Baby doesn't fit into our plans at power foward(even though he's sweet come post time). If we trade Murphy it needs to be in a package for another proven or dominating pf or pg. Then if we get a pg, we need to make sure we get Ford/Dunleavy traded to get the other position covered. Ultimately we want a proven who can lead possibly the next 2 years minimum and at the same time help mold our 3 draft choices into the future of the team.




ALL HAIL REGGIE!!!!!

If Bosh leaves, what would toronto package with calderon to get murphy?

you know they'd be looking to shed salary, and their frontcourt would be bargnani, johnson, ed davis.... reggie evans?

So Murphy would be useful to them for a year as a minutes soaker as they develop their young guys, and they hand the reins to jarret jack and save a ton of money.

So what would they give us along with calderon? Would they be desperate enough to dump calderon/bargnani/turkoglu in one fell swoop for murphy, dunleavy, ford??? We'd certainly get some amazing talent out of that, and they basically get to start fresh with jack, bellinelli, derozan, davis, johnson.

calderon/bargnani for murphy/ford/george

Just say no to Jose Calderon's contract.

If we thought it was necessary to dump JO and Tinsley's contracts, just wait until you see Calderon's contract. He essentially ends any chance at the summer of 2011 plan of cap space almost by himself with his 3 years remaining at $29.5 million.

How many of you would like Dunleavy at his salary from last year for 3 more years on the books? How many of you would like a PG who's less talented on that same contract?

Didn't think so.

I understand the instant cap relief. I even understand this trade. I don't understand the comment that we are looking to dump Murphy. That doesn't make sense.