RealGM

?s=21&t=QFq3SWmWcLXxrA_yUsd8Zg

?s=21&t=QFq3SWmWcLXxrA_yUsd8Zg



Very unlikely to be converted to a S&T due to Brooklyn hard cap concerns. Somewhere between a vet minimum and the taxpayer MLE of $6.479m for one year.


Farewell! If he’s healthy, it’s a great signing. The foot caused him to miss 2 seasons, but it was largely the only injury he had with us in his time.

Happy for him. Hope he has healthy and can continue his career and as a big Warren, I believe it’s the absolute right call for the Pacers to move on from him.

If we were concerned with wins, Warren could have been the missing piece. We aren't so he's gone but the problem is we really don't have a natural SF other than Brown to give his minutes to. perhaps we just have to let Brissett sink or swim at the 3 even though at this point he's more of a 4. Smith, Jackson, Taylor, and Theis can cover the 4.

Finally another piece to the Pacer’s puzzle in place. Glad to not have to wonder.

Only weird twist left would be if we’re included into a BKN multi team trade of Durant where we take on Warren

if I'm counting right, this takes us to 21. I hope we can still redirect some of the Boston players by adding a third team to the Brogdon deal, but worst case we can waive one of them and eat a minimum guarantee.

Wizop wrote:If we were concerned with wins, Warren could have been the missing piece. We aren't so he's gone but the problem is we really don't have a natural SF other than Brown to give his minutes to. perhaps we just have to let Brissett sink or swim at the 3 even though at this point he's more of a 4. Smith, Jackson, Taylor, and Theis can cover the 4.

His injury history shows he might never be considered a missing piece. You’ll always wonder about availability. He’s missed 150 out of the last 154 games and prior to that his other leg was keeping him out of games. He’ll be 29 when the season begins.

Pacers Forever wrote:Finally another piece to the Pacer’s puzzle in place. Glad to not have to wonder.

Only weird twist left would be if we’re included into a BKN multi team trade of Durant where we take on Warren

Warren can’t be dealt away from Brooklyn until mid December.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Pacers Forever wrote:Finally another piece to the Pacer’s puzzle in place. Glad to not have to wonder.

Only weird twist left would be if we’re included into a BKN multi team trade of Durant where we take on Warren

Warren can’t be dealt away from Brooklyn until mid December.

Good then his Indiana career is final and we can move on just like from Brogdon.

Grang33r wrote:

Wizop wrote:If we were concerned with wins, Warren could have been the missing piece. We aren't so he's gone but the problem is we really don't have a natural SF other than Brown to give his minutes to. perhaps we just have to let Brissett sink or swim at the 3 even though at this point he's more of a 4. Smith, Jackson, Taylor, and Theis can cover the 4.

His injury history shows he might never be considered a missing piece. You’ll always wonder about availability. He’s missed 150 out of the last 154 games and prior to that his other leg was keeping him out of games. He’ll be 29 when the season begins.

I'd feel differently if he were going to be 26. the injury risk could be handled with non-guarantees, but there's no getting around what his age will be when we're ready.

on the numbers game, we can also get to 20 by renouncing Lance. if we don't plan to sign him, there may be no reason not to let him go.

Wizop wrote:

Grang33r wrote:

Wizop wrote:If we were concerned with wins, Warren could have been the missing piece. We aren't so he's gone but the problem is we really don't have a natural SF other than Brown to give his minutes to. perhaps we just have to let Brissett sink or swim at the 3 even though at this point he's more of a 4. Smith, Jackson, Taylor, and Theis can cover the 4.

His injury history shows he might never be considered a missing piece. You’ll always wonder about availability. He’s missed 150 out of the last 154 games and prior to that his other leg was keeping him out of games. He’ll be 29 when the season begins.

I'd feel differently if he were going to be 26. the injury risk could be handled with non-guarantees, but there's no getting around what his age will be when we're ready.

on the numbers game, we can also get to 20 by renouncing Lance. if we don't plan to sign him, there may be no reason not to let him go.

Unsigned players don’t count against the 20 man limit. Only players actually signed do. Renouncing him makes no impact, positive or minus, in this regard. He’s unrestricted. We only have non Bird rights. Renouncing him does not let him go, nor does not renouncing him keep him.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Grang33r wrote:
His injury history shows he might never be considered a missing piece. You’ll always wonder about availability. He’s missed 150 out of the last 154 games and prior to that his other leg was keeping him out of games. He’ll be 29 when the season begins.

I'd feel differently if he were going to be 26. the injury risk could be handled with non-guarantees, but there's no getting around what his age will be when we're ready.

on the numbers game, we can also get to 20 by renouncing Lance. if we don't plan to sign him, there may be no reason not to let him go.

Unsigned players don’t count against the 20 man limit. Only players actually signed do. Renouncing him makes no impact, positive or minus, in this regard. He’s unrestricted. We only have non Bird rights. Renouncing him does not let him go, nor does not renouncing him keep him.

All these exhibit 10 contracts don’t really mean Jack towards the roster unless we offer them a standard contract or two way ? Don’t they just become free agents if we don’t act and mean nothing to the cap or roster ?

Pacers Forever wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

Wizop wrote:
I'd feel differently if he were going to be 26. the injury risk could be handled with non-guarantees, but there's no getting around what his age will be when we're ready.

on the numbers game, we can also get to 20 by renouncing Lance. if we don't plan to sign him, there may be no reason not to let him go.

Unsigned players don’t count against the 20 man limit. Only players actually signed do. Renouncing him makes no impact, positive or minus, in this regard. He’s unrestricted. We only have non Bird rights. Renouncing him does not let him go, nor does not renouncing him keep him.

All these exhibit 10 contracts don’t really mean Jack towards the roster unless we offer them a standard contract or two way ? Don’t they just become free agents if we don’t act and mean nothing to the cap or roster ?

If they’re already fully signed, they count toward the offseason 20 man limits. If they’re unsigned, but just committed to sign, they don’t factor in, at all.

Scoot McGroot wrote:Unsigned players don’t count against the 20 man limit. Only players actually signed do. Renouncing him makes no impact, positive or minus, in this regard. He’s unrestricted. We only have non Bird rights. Renouncing him does not let him go, nor does not renouncing him keep him.

So where are we now?

last year 15 - Brogdon, Rubio, Warren, and Stephenson = 11 + Mathurin, Nemhard, Brown, Theis, Nesmith, Stauskas, Fitt, and Morgan = 19 + 4 Ex 10's =23. but that omits the 2 ways. I have Brown replacing one of the 2 ways so getting down to 15+2 should require cutting or trading Stauskas, Fitt and Morgan.

Does this mean we need to waive them or get a third team into the Boston trade this week? Do we also need to waive some of the Exhibit 10s or last year's two ways before Summer League?

Wizop wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Unsigned players don’t count against the 20 man limit. Only players actually signed do. Renouncing him makes no impact, positive or minus, in this regard. He’s unrestricted. We only have non Bird rights. Renouncing him does not let him go, nor does not renouncing him keep him.

So where are we now?

last year 15 - Brogdon, Rubio, Warren, and Stephenson = 11 + Mathurin, Nemhard, Brown, Theis, Nesmith, Stauskas, Fitt, and Morgan = 19 + 4 Ex 10's =23. but that omits the 2 ways. I have Brown replacing one of the 2 ways so getting down to 15+2 should require cutting or trading Stauskas, Fitt and Morgan.

Does this mean we need to waive them or get a third team into the Boston trade this week? Do we also need to waive some of the Exhibit 10s or last year's two ways before Summer League?

At this moment, we are at 12. The Boston deal hasn’t been consummated yet, and the exhibit 10 guys haven’t legally signed yet, I believe. If they have, we’re at 16. Jalen, Nembhard and Brown haven’t signed yet, either. Those signings can just be held off until after completing the trades and such.

At this time, we could just complete the Boston deal, waive those guys we don’t want, and then complete our signings. This is where order of operations moratorium comes in to play. We may have committed to those players, but we don’t have to count them until, we actually execute those deals and they are on the books.

Scoot McGroot wrote:At this time, we could just complete the Boston deal, waive those guys we don’t want, and then complete our signings. This is where order of operations moratorium comes in to play. We may have committed to those players, but we don’t have to count them until, we actually execute those deals and they are on the books.

I think we need to deal with the Exhibit 10s and draft picks before Summer League but we can wait to consummate the Boston trade until after that ends. didn't we read somewhere that the Boston trade needs to wait to become official for a few more days so that one of the players can become trade eligible?

Wizop wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:At this time, we could just complete the Boston deal, waive those guys we don’t want, and then complete our signings. This is where order of operations moratorium comes in to play. We may have committed to those players, but we don’t have to count them until, we actually execute those deals and they are on the books.

I think we need to deal with the Exhibit 10s and draft picks before Summer League but we can wait to consummate the Boston trade until after that ends. didn't we read somewhere that the Boston trade needs to wait to become official for a few more days so that one of the players can become trade eligible?

Don’t have to. Players don’t have to be signed to play in summer league. Oftentimes, they’re not.

Juwan Morgan can’t be traded until 7/9 (which also ruins using the Doug McDermott TPE in this swap as it expires 7/7).

Scoot McGroot wrote:Don’t have to. Players don’t have to be signed to play in summer league. Oftentimes, they’re not.

so ignoring injury risk, which is huge, couldn't Boston allow Nesmith to play on our summer team even before the trade? maybe no need though as he could join us a few days in.

Scoot McGroot wrote:Juwan Morgan can’t be traded until 7/9 (which also ruins using the Doug McDermott TPE in this swap as it expires 7/7).

I thought it was Morgan but I think I've seen it reported as the 9th and the 6th. we'll learn the truth soon enough.

Wizop wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Don’t have to. Players don’t have to be signed to play in summer league. Oftentimes, they’re not.

so ignoring injury risk, which is huge, couldn't Boston allow Nesmith to play on our summer team even before the trade? maybe no need though as he could join us a few days in.

No. The NBA does not allow player loans as you’ve kind of described and Nesmith is totally under contract with Boston. There’s no mechanism to allow that to happen. Remember, we weren’t allowed to play Jackson or even announce him as part of summer league until after his trade was completed.

Scoot McGroot wrote:Juwan Morgan can’t be traded until 7/9 (which also ruins using the Doug McDermott TPE in this swap as it expires 7/7).

I thought it was Morgan but I think I've seen it reported as the 9th and the 6th. we'll learn the truth soon enough.

It’s Morgan. And he’s trade restricted until 7/9, because he didn’t sign his current contract with Boston until 4/9, and he can’t be dealt for 3 months after that signing.

?s=21&t=PaUu8PoaCfO0zZuCLyQAGw

“missed all of last season due to consecutive stress fractures in his left foot.”

There it is. I guess he did re break the foot again last year when he was ramping up. They’ve really danced around that in reporting.

Scoot McGroot wrote:There it is. I guess he did re break the foot again last year when he was ramping up. They’ve really danced around that in reporting.

which explains why we didn't even offer him a minimum deal.