RealGM

GREAT value for the Pacers. We need his production back and there's no way we could've replaced him at this price.

Love the deal. Nice bargain for the Pacers.

Also, this is significant:



Means we could potentially add another player in free agency.

Very nice, welcome back Justin

Seeing the contracts being doled out 6 per is excellent value. 3&D achieved.

First great news of the signing season.

Hopefully, there's more coming.

Love this deal. Love it love it.

And, as pointed out, this is the largest deal he could get with his non bird rights (20% raise from current salary with 5% raises yearly), so the MLE is untouched (if we ever get low enough under the tax to use it).

Ah. Indy writers are reporting 3/18.8, which would mean its carved out of the MLE. 3/18.02 is about the highest we could offer using his non bird rights and retain the full MLE.

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

Wizop wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

The Indy reporters are saying $18.8m, which would put it above the non bird rights and into the MLE. We’ll find out in a couple days for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Bold play would be if we fit it into His non bird rights, and keep the MLE open and tell Hayward, “Danny won’t deal with us. If you want to be here, you gotta take the MLE.” ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC! But bold!

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

The Indy reporters are saying $18.8m, which would put it above the non bird rights and into the MLE. We’ll find out in a couple days for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Bold play would be if we fit it into His non bird rights, and keep the MLE open and tell Hayward, “Danny won’t deal with us. If you want to be here, you gotta take the MLE.” ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC! But bold!

I can see us staying at 13 and giving Stanley a two way. Alize also eligible for a two way. Hammonds goes to Ants.

This assuming no cost cutting in Hayward deal. I'd prefer trading Vic to Turner for lots of reasons including higher salary.

Sent from my phone.

Wizop wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

The Indy reporters are saying $18.8m, which would put it above the non bird rights and into the MLE. We’ll find out in a couple days for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Bold play would be if we fit it into His non bird rights, and keep the MLE open and tell Hayward, “Danny won’t deal with us. If you want to be here, you gotta take the MLE.” ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC! But bold!

I can see us staying at 13 and giving Stanley a two way. Alize also eligible for a two way. Hammonds goes to Ants.

This assuming no cost cutting in Hayward deal. I'd prefer trading Vic to Turner for lots of reasons including higher salary.

Sent from my phone.

14 is the minimum. You can dip down to 13 for no more than 2 weeks at a time in season, and have to start the season with 14. You can go down to 13 with trades.

If Alize is to take a demotion to a 2 way, it would be history if he did it with the Pacers. No player ever has gone from an NBA contract to a 2 way with the same team. It would clearly show you’re not in the teams plans long term.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

The Indy reporters are saying $18.8m, which would put it above the non bird rights and into the MLE. We’ll find out in a couple days for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Bold play would be if we fit it into His non bird rights, and keep the MLE open and tell Hayward, “Danny won’t deal with us. If you want to be here, you gotta take the MLE.” ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC! But bold!

Bold. I love it

Reportedly, his wife has been bugging him about relocating back to Indiana

Come on Gordie, happy wife = happy life!

Topofthekey wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Sent from my phone.

The Indy reporters are saying $18.8m, which would put it above the non bird rights and into the MLE. We’ll find out in a couple days for sure, but something to keep in mind.

Bold play would be if we fit it into His non bird rights, and keep the MLE open and tell Hayward, “Danny won’t deal with us. If you want to be here, you gotta take the MLE.” ABSOLUTELY UNREALISTIC! But bold!

Bold. I love it

Reportedly, his wife has been bugging him about relocating back to Indiana

Come on Gordie, happy wife = happy life!

Wife would also have to be happy with having given up $25m too

Scoot McGroot wrote:14 is the minimum.

Then we're not done dealing.

Wizop wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:I can see us staying at 13 and giving Stanley a two way. Alize also eligible for a two way. Hammonds goes to Ants.

This assuming no cost cutting in Hayward deal. I'd prefer trading Vic to Turner for lots of reasons including higher salary.

Sent from my phone.

14 is the minimum. You can dip down to 13 for no more than 2 weeks at a time in season, and have to start the season with 14. You can go down to 13 with trades.

If Alize is to take a demotion to a 2 way, it would be history if he did it with the Pacers. No player ever has gone from an NBA contract to a 2 way with the same team. It would clearly show you’re not in the teams plans long term.

Then we're not done dealing.

Sent from my phone.

Correct. Assume we’re in a holding pattern until something happens with Hayward, but we have to have other moves.

Realistically though, I don't see how Celtics have any leverage in this, at all

If it's about money, I'm sure one of those cap space teams (Hornets? Pistons?) would be willing to give him 4 years/$100m

If it's about his preference on where to play, he obviously wants out from Celtics, and prefers to play with the Pacers

The Celtics' only role is to facilitate a S&T to the Pacers, and common sense dictates that they would want to do that as well, as the alternative means they lose Hayward for nothing

Topofthekey wrote:Realistically though, I don't see how Celtics have any leverage in this, at all

If it's about money, I'm sure one of those cap space teams (Hornets? Pistons?) would be willing to give him 4 years/$100m

If it's about his preference on where to play, he obviously wants out from Celtics, and prefers to play with the Pacers

The Celtics' only role is to facilitate a S&T to the Pacers, and common sense dictates that they would want to do that as well, as the alternative means they lose Hayward for nothing

Pistons are all out of space. Hawks have cap space, but no roster role. Knicks have cap space and roster role. But they’re about it. Charlotte has space, but I don’t think they have $25m. Okc could have space after making all their moves if they renounce their TPE’s, but they’re just in value acquisition mode, not quite talent acquisition. And they won’t possibly renounce those for awhile and after the market is essentially over.

Boston has leverage with teams like us and Dallas, since we absolutely cannot acquire him this offseason without them playing along. Let’s be honest about that. And they have team needs in terms of roster space and fits themselves.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Topofthekey wrote:Realistically though, I don't see how Celtics have any leverage in this, at all

If it's about money, I'm sure one of those cap space teams (Hornets? Pistons?) would be willing to give him 4 years/$100m

If it's about his preference on where to play, he obviously wants out from Celtics, and prefers to play with the Pacers

The Celtics' only role is to facilitate a S&T to the Pacers, and common sense dictates that they would want to do that as well, as the alternative means they lose Hayward for nothing

Pistons are all out of space. Hawks have cap space, but no roster role. Knicks have cap space and roster role. But they’re about it. Charlotte has space, but I don’t think they have $25m. Okc could have space after making all their moves if they renounce their TPE’s, but they’re just in value acquisition mode, not quite talent acquisition. And they won’t possibly renounce those for awhile and after the market is essentially over.

Boston has leverage with teams like us and Dallas, since we absolutely cannot acquire him this offseason without them playing along. Let’s be honest about that. And they have team needs in terms of roster space and fits themselves.

The thing is, Hayward to us is like a treat

It'll be nice if we can add him cheaply

But he's not our bread and butter

We are absolutely fine moving on without him

In fact, as has been discussed, taking him on while Warren is still on the team actually represents a problem, instead of a solution

If he wanted to go to Indiana, the negotiations should have been between him and the Celtics

The fact that he has opted out, before a deal is in place, is on him - I don't want us to be the one cleaning up his mess

Topofthekey wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Topofthekey wrote:Realistically though, I don't see how Celtics have any leverage in this, at all

If it's about money, I'm sure one of those cap space teams (Hornets? Pistons?) would be willing to give him 4 years/$100m

If it's about his preference on where to play, he obviously wants out from Celtics, and prefers to play with the Pacers

The Celtics' only role is to facilitate a S&T to the Pacers, and common sense dictates that they would want to do that as well, as the alternative means they lose Hayward for nothing

Pistons are all out of space. Hawks have cap space, but no roster role. Knicks have cap space and roster role. But they’re about it. Charlotte has space, but I don’t think they have $25m. Okc could have space after making all their moves if they renounce their TPE’s, but they’re just in value acquisition mode, not quite talent acquisition. And they won’t possibly renounce those for awhile and after the market is essentially over.

Boston has leverage with teams like us and Dallas, since we absolutely cannot acquire him this offseason without them playing along. Let’s be honest about that. And they have team needs in terms of roster space and fits themselves.

The thing is, Hayward to us is like a treat

It'll be nice if we can add him cheaply

But he's not our bread and butter

We are absolutely fine moving on without him

In fact, as has been discussed, taking him on while Warren is still on the team actually represents a problem, instead of a solution

If he wanted to go to Indiana, the negotiations should have been between him and the Celtics

The fact that he has opted out, before a deal is in place, is on him - I don't want us to be the one cleaning up his mess

You and I may view him as a treat, but we don’t know what Simon and Pritchard feel, and it’s only them that matter. Clearly we want him. We’re working on him. How much? To be determined by us and Danny Ainge.