Stuckey says he wants to re-sign

chube · Post #1 » by **chube** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 2:35 am

On the wiretap, he was quoted as saying he wants to re-sign. Gave the usual reasons of liking the organization, likes his teammates (specifically playing with an all-star in Paul George), likes the fans...but he really pointed out how much he likes the city. Indy may seem like a more boring big city, but chalk it up to another person loving Indianapolis once they actually get there.

Anyway, let's hope his happens. Obviously, it's a business and he's setting himself up for a nice paycheck. But I take his word for than Lance. Stuckey is a veteran who wants to win, not necessarily looking for his first big payday.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Jermainevent · Post #2 » by **Jermainevent** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:12 am

The guy has been great during this impressive run by the Pacers. He and Hill have played well together, both keeping the other involved. He turns 29 next month, so he still has some tread on the tires. Three-year deal sound fair?

EuroPacer · Post #3 » by **EuroPacer** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:22 pm

a 3 year deal would be great. I am a bit concerned about the cap raise though, at the moment a 3/20 would be the top of the range I'd want to go and I'd much prefer a 3/15...

Wizop · Post #4 » by **Wizop** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:29 pm

a smart agent would want a player option in the summer where the cap is going way up. as for what makes a city a good destination, the club scene is a whole lot less important when you have kids to go home to every day.

pacers33 · Post #5 » by **pacers33** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:32 pm

3/15 would be ideal. His good play has flown under the radar around the league it seems.

Post #6 » by **boomershadow** » Sat Mar 14, 2015 7:47 pm

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that Stuckey has been playing better than Lance was last year. And we offered him more money than is being suggested here. Combine that with the rise in salary cap, I think some of the numbers thrown out here may be a bit conservative.

Obviously, anything we do will likely be affected by who opts in/out of their contracts next year

Post #7 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 12:16 am

Anything over $1m (roughly), would require the usage of cap space or our MLE or BAE to sign Stuckey. We will have no Bird Rights on him.

pacers33 · Post #8 » by **pacers33** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:54 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:Anything over $1m (roughly), would require the usage of cap space or our MLE or BAE to sign Stuckey. We will have no Bird Rights on him.

Stuckey is worth the MLE in my eyes.

Wizop · Post #9 » by **Wizop** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 6:58 pm

I think someone else will offer him the MLE so we will have to go that high to keep him. there could be some clever contract terms coming up as players try to be able to benefit from the coming higher cap.

Post #10 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:48 pm

pacers33 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:Anything over $1m (roughly), would require the usage of cap space or our MLE or BAE to sign Stuckey. We will have no Bird Rights on him.

Stuckey is worth the MLE in my eyes.

I wouldn't disagree.

Just, we can't offer things like 3/$20m, as that's more than the MLE. Unless we have cap space and use it on Stuckey. We may be topped out at the MLE in terms of what we could ACTUALLY offer, legally.

pacers33 · Post #11 » by **pacers33** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:56 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
pacers33 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:Anything over $1m (roughly), would require the usage of cap space or our MLE or BAE to sign Stuckey. We will have no Bird Rights on him.

Stuckey is worth the MLE in my eyes.

I wouldn't disagree.

Just, we can't offer things like 3/$20m, as that's more than the MLE. Unless we have cap space and use it on Stuckey. We may be topped out at the MLE in terms of what we could ACTUALLY offer, legally.

I can't tell if you think Stuckey's coming back or not. :lol:

Post #12 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:11 pm

pacers33 wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
pacers33 wrote:Stuckey is worth the MLE in my eyes.

I wouldn't disagree.

Just, we can't offer things like 3/$20m, as that's more than the MLE. Unless we have cap space and use it on Stuckey. We may be topped out at the MLE in terms of what we could ACTUALLY offer, legally.

I can't tell if you think Stuckey's coming back or not.

Ha! I'm good at this, right?!?!

I'm not expecting anything, though. If he can get more than the MLE, and wants that money, we can't match. If he wants the MLE or less, I'd love to keep him. There's a lot that can happen this summer, though.

pacers33 · Post #13 » by **pacers33** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 10:18 pm

Ha. So basically, you don't give a **** either way. I'm with you. I think Stuckey is replaceable...I'm hoping we can get Scola on the BAE(?) as a backup big. I think he's finally getting it now.

Post #14 » by **pacers33granger** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:11 am

I'd be more than fine giving Stuckey the full MLE for three years. He'd still be a bargain at that price. He's given us something we've lacked the past few years from our bench. He's been huge as a scorer and a vet with a bit of an edge. Last guy we had like that was Jack, but now we have two in Stuckey and Miles.

At this point I'm really hoping we can bring him back and I'd also be fine giving the BAE to Scola. He's been a lot better this year. I'm not sure about Watson. Still like him a lot as a backup PG, but not sure I'd want to pay him much more than he's getting now. Maybe we can pick up someone like Tyus Jones in the draft. I think I'm fine with Rudez as a 9-10 man since lately he's been what we hoped to get with Copeland.

Post #15 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 2:54 am

pacers33 wrote:Ha. So basically, you don't give a **** either way. I'm with you. I think Stuckey is replaceable...I'm hoping we can get Scola on the BAE(?) as a backup big. I think he's finally getting it now.

I'd love to keep Stuckey. Just not sure how everything will work out, and not investing all of my time and thought in him.

As for Scola, we have full bird rights on him, so we can save the BAE for someone we don't have bird rights on, and pay Scola essentially the equivalent of the BAE, but using Bird rights. I would like to keep him too. I just think that when Bird spoke passionately about getting younger this summer, that he was likely speaking to the PF spot. Ultimately, I think that either West or Scola leaves this summer. I'd like to keep both for at least one more year, but I think that we'd like to keep West, and would probably like to replace Scola with someone a little younger; an heir apparent to David, if you will.

basketballwacko2 · Post #16 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:30 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:Anything over $1m (roughly), would require the usage of cap space or our MLE or BAE to sign Stuckey. We will have no Bird Rights on him.

Give him a 3yr deal $3-4 million with a player option in y2 an team option in y3. Assuming that's legal.

basketballwacko2 · Post #17 » by **basketballwacko2** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:34 am

I have a feeling were gonna be looking for a PF in the draft. I would not be shocked if we made a deal at the draft and moved Roy to move up or get a 2nd pick.

Wizop · Post #18 » by **Wizop** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 4:28 pm

I'd be shocked if we moved Roy. now I wouldn't be shocked if we shopped Ian although I think you need 3 players who can be centers. that can include players whose more natural position is the 4 so Lavoy Allen counts as a third 3 now.

will Lavoy be back? I'd guess not. I think Cope goes too. Damo has shown some promise even though the available minutes for him this year have been at 3. if we can keep Stuckey and Miles and PG returns, then Damo probably moves back to 4. a summer of weight lifting could make Whit a credible 5. I see that puttng us in need of a big going into the draft.

pacers33 · Post #19 » by **pacers33** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 5:39 pm

I don't approve of trading Roy. The entire team identity would change if we didn't have Roy. Our defense has been Hill on the perimeter, and leading whoever drives into Hibbert.

chube · Post #20 » by **chube** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:48 pm

Agreed that we can't trade Roy. He's obviously inconsistent at best on offense but he's still very strong on defense (and his blocks per game don't do him justice this year) and is a rock on the team. He needs to embrace a Bogut-like role, which he seems to have - anchor the defense, eat up the paint, and bug scoring games are a bonus.

Bigs get paid in the league and there aren't a ton of quality ones...which Roy still definitely is

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums