basketballwacko2 wrote: Pacers_Freak wrote:
I think it is really about getting out of the tax this year and not wanting to end up in the tax next year.
Disagree. I think it was knowing Vic wasn't coming back and getting a suitable replacement for him. Levert is a really good player and has 2 more years left.
Ok let me expand on what I meant. I said 2 months ago that I though Victor would play 20 games or so for the Pacers and if he played well his value would go up. He's played pretty well so far. Then with him playing well he'd become more expensive to sign, assuming he could be signed $30-34 million a year is pretty tough to do on this team with the current payroll. This is the main issue I had with the Gordon Hayward thing. It would make next years payroll hit the tax. The pacers want to remain under the tax line. Benefits of not being in the tax are huge from the rebate to the MLE.
So I said that if Vic played well he'd be traded by the trade dead line because of the tax issue. The fact that we were $500k into the tax this year and now we are not can't be over looked. It's not just the $750K we would have to pay in tax or what ever it is, but the other implications of being in the tax.
I also like that getting out of having to overpay Vic means it's going to be easier for the team to bring back Doug and T-Mac, if necessary
And without the Vic's max contract looming over the team, Pacers can also now consider taking on a long term contract via trade
Specifically, I'm thinking about something like Doug + Lamb + sweetener for Harrison Barnes, if the Kings are looking to jettison his contract
The team needs big-ish forward who can slide over to PF when one of Domas or Myles sits, and Barnes fits that role. He will also be a good replacement SF this year while Warren is out