RealGM

Brown is on a 1+1 contract, next season is a team option. What do the Pacers do? He's paid $22 million this year and $23 million next year. Why was he given a contract like that? Should the Pacers look to trade him at the Deadline? Is there a player out there with a longer contract who would be better suited to help the Pacers given the size of Brown only 6'4''. He's a very good defender from what I hear. He's not a good shooter at 31.3% this season and 33.7% career from 3 pt range. I like him at SG but his poor shooting for an SG is problem and $23 million seems like a lot.

What kind of deal could be made to bring in a bigger player to play SF? I'd like to move Nesmith to SG and have a 6'8'' SF who can shoot and play some D.

I'm kinda drawing a blank on who this might be. Gordon Hayward if he was not so injury prone comes to mind he's expiring and I see no reason for the Hornets to trade him.

Would it be better to use Brown's contract to take some player with a longer contract? The Pacers have between $8.6 and $10 million cap space depending how and who says. Is there a tax team who wants to save some money this season who would Pay for a player like Brown and give a more expensive longer contract. I'm thinking about getting a #1 out about 2027 or 28.

Tax paying teams:

Golden State
Miami
LA Clippers
Boston
Philly
Phoenix

basketballwacko2 wrote:Why was he given a contract like that?

I assume it was structured to get us to the required minimum this year while maintaining flexibility for next year. if we want to make a run at Siakim next summer, we could let Brown and Hield go to get cap space. trading him now for someone on a long term contract would reduce our ability to play in next summer's free agent market.

Wizop wrote:

basketballwacko2 wrote:Why was he given a contract like that?

I assume it was structured to get us to the required minimum this year while maintaining flexibility for next year. if we want to make a run at Siakim next summer, we could let Brown and Hield go to get cap space. trading him now for someone on a long term contract would reduce our ability to play in next summer's free agent market.

There is a good chance that is the way they do renouncing Hield and dropping Brown would give them a lot of cap space. But there is also Toppin's cap hold, Jalen Smith's player option, and TJ McConnell's partial guarantee.

I personally can't stand the idea of giving Siakam $45 million a year. That's paying him like a superstar when he is not one.

I've had the Hayward thought too. Right size. There's been interest between the Pacers and Hayward before. He's at the end of his career and probably looking to win more importantly than getting paid, and joining a team with Haliburton might seem conducive to that goal.

I can’t see bringing Bruce Brown back even if he agreed to a discount restructured $15 mil year contract for 3-4 years.

Why you say ? I believe next season Brown would be blocking Mathurin from starting which I think he’ll be ready next season to start at the 2.

I also don’t think Brown would want to be a backup here either.

I tend to feel Nwora will want to go elsewhere to get more minutes.

I think they resign Jalen Smith to a Nesmith type deal, TJ McConnell at a team friendly extension since Nembhard is the future pg backup, Obi Toppin on the cheap because he still has room to grow his game.

I also think Buddy is gone as Nesmith can shoot the 3 ball. They might sign another 3 point threat unless Sheppard makes huge strides to see minutes.

Renouncing Brown and Hield gives the team some flexibility to sign or trade for a young power forward.

basketballwacko2 wrote:

Wizop wrote:

basketballwacko2 wrote:Why was he given a contract like that?

I assume it was structured to get us to the required minimum this year while maintaining flexibility for next year. if we want to make a run at Siakim next summer, we could let Brown and Hield go to get cap space. trading him now for someone on a long term contract would reduce our ability to play in next summer's free agent market.

There is a good chance that is the way they do renouncing Hield and dropping Brown would give them a lot of cap space. But there is also Toppin's cap hold, Jalen Smith's player option, and TJ McConnell's partial guarantee.

I personally can't stand the idea of giving Siakam $45 million a year. That's paying him like a superstar when he is not one.

Siakim is pretty close to a superstar. It’s not easy to find 20/6/5 guys with 60% TS. At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who? The reality is Indy doesn’t attract star-level players often.

Assuming Siakim gets the 4 year max they’ll be paying him through to 33, which is ok, and with the cap rises the actual number will get better over time. I don’t necessarily love the fit of Siakim in to Indy’s system but at some point you have to take a swing.

jarryd3107 wrote: At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who?.

Maybe Wiggins at half the price.

Pacers Forever wrote:I can’t see bringing Bruce Brown back even if he agreed to a discount restructured $15 mil year contract for 3-4 years.

Why you say ? I believe next season Brown would be blocking Mathurin from starting which I think he’ll be ready next season to start at the 2.

I also don’t think Brown would want to be a backup here either.

I tend to feel Nwora will want to go elsewhere to get more minutes.

I think they resign Jalen Smith to a Nesmith type deal, TJ McConnell at a team friendly extension since Nembhard is the future pg backup, Obi Toppin on the cheap because he still has room to grow his game.

I also think Buddy is gone as Nesmith can shoot the 3 ball. They might sign another 3 point threat unless Sheppard makes huge strides to see minutes.

Renouncing Brown and Hield gives the team some flexibility to sign or trade for a young power forward.

I have to agree with most of what you say here.

The team is playing well, but I don't think they are contenders this season. There could be a dead line deal for Buddy and Brown going to a tax team who is a contender that sends back more salary and a player who could be a PF/SF type. Who IDK? But if we're saving them tax money I'd expect to get a pick, problem is most of the tax teams don't have much to send out in the way of picks since they traded them all off for the parts they have.

I do think Nwora will probably go elsewhere. And it depends on what Smith and Toppin do the rest of this season what happens with them.

jarryd3107 wrote:

basketballwacko2 wrote:

Wizop wrote:
I assume it was structured to get us to the required minimum this year while maintaining flexibility for next year. if we want to make a run at Siakim next summer, we could let Brown and Hield go to get cap space. trading him now for someone on a long term contract would reduce our ability to play in next summer's free agent market.

There is a good chance that is the way they do renouncing Hield and dropping Brown would give them a lot of cap space. But there is also Toppin's cap hold, Jalen Smith's player option, and TJ McConnell's partial guarantee.

I personally can't stand the idea of giving Siakam $45 million a year. That's paying him like a superstar when he is not one.

Siakim is pretty close to a superstar. It’s not easy to find 20/6/5 guys with 60% TS. At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who? The reality is Indy doesn’t attract star-level players often.

Assuming Siakim gets the 4 year max they’ll be paying him through to 33, which is ok, and with the cap rises the actual number will get better over time. I don’t necessarily love the fit of Siakim in to Indy’s system but at some point you have to take a swing.

Siakam is what I call a "b-list" star. He's good but he's 29 and I don't want to give that guy $45 million. That's the kind of money you pay a all out 1st team all nba player. How many guys in the NBA make that kind of money? Right now there are 11 players making that kind of money. If I can have a guy who is that 1st team All Nba player then $40 million is ok, but not for a tier 2 player.

Wizop wrote:

jarryd3107 wrote: At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who?.

Maybe Wiggins at half the price.

Surely not, he has been horrible this year. The cost of Siakim is probably Brown + Hield + 2 firsts. Windy is reporting that the Pacers aren’t offering Walker or Mathurin because they believe they can get Siakim for free in the summer, so the offer for Siakim will be something like this.

Having said all of that I think GS will panic and surrender a Moody or Kuminga and probably out bid Indy.

basketballwacko2 wrote:

jarryd3107 wrote:

basketballwacko2 wrote:
There is a good chance that is the way they do renouncing Hield and dropping Brown would give them a lot of cap space. But there is also Toppin's cap hold, Jalen Smith's player option, and TJ McConnell's partial guarantee.

I personally can't stand the idea of giving Siakam $45 million a year. That's paying him like a superstar when he is not one.

Siakim is pretty close to a superstar. It’s not easy to find 20/6/5 guys with 60% TS. At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who? The reality is Indy doesn’t attract star-level players often.

Assuming Siakim gets the 4 year max they’ll be paying him through to 33, which is ok, and with the cap rises the actual number will get better over time. I don’t necessarily love the fit of Siakim in to Indy’s system but at some point you have to take a swing.

Siakam is what I call a "b-list" star. He's good but he's 29 and I don't want to give that guy $45 million. That's the kind of money you pay a all out 1st team all nba player. How many guys in the NBA make that kind of money? Right now there are 11 players making that kind of money. If I can have a guy who is that 1st team All Nba player then $40 million is ok, but not for a tier 2 player.

$40m will soon be the going rate for good but not great players. The contract will still be very tradeable in years 2 and 3 if need be.

Also, worth considering that Siakim can actually get his own shot, he’d be one of three players (Hali and Mathurin being the others) that have that skill. Thats big in a playoff series.

basketballwacko2 wrote:Brown is on a 1+1 contract, next season is a team option. What do the Pacers do? He's paid $22 million this year and $23 million next year. Why was he given a contract like that? Should the Pacers look to trade him at the Deadline? Is there a player out there with a longer contract who would be better suited to help the Pacers given the size of Brown only 6'4''. He's a very good defender from what I hear. He's not a good shooter at 31.3% this season and 33.7% career from 3 pt range. I like him at SG but his poor shooting for an SG is problem and $23 million seems like a lot.

What kind of deal could be made to bring in a bigger player to play SF? I'd like to move Nesmith to SG and have a 6'8'' SF who can shoot and play some D.

I'm kinda drawing a blank on who this might be. Gordon Hayward if he was not so injury prone comes to mind he's expiring and I see no reason for the Hornets to trade him.

Would it be better to use Brown's contract to take some player with a longer contract? The Pacers have between $8.6 and $10 million cap space depending how and who says. Is there a tax team who wants to save some money this season who would Pay for a player like Brown and give a more expensive longer contract. I'm thinking about getting a #1 out about 2027 or 28.

Tax paying teams:

Golden State
Miami
LA Clippers
Boston
Philly
Phoenix

For me,.. I think he was given that contract because, 1. The Pacers had to spend almost that Money to get over the salary floor; 2. Brown has a skillset that fits well with the Pacers, both offensively and defensively. He wasn't going to drastically improve the Pacers ceiling, but he is going to improve their floor, and give the young players a 'target' for improving their games. They need to beat out Brown to get more PT. 3. In last years playoffs Brown showed a talent as a clutch player that seemed like he might yet have more upside in his game.

The way the contract was structured, it essentially committed the Pacers to nothing, and helped improve their potential to grow this year, and if needed into next. It was also constructed to give the Pacers more flexibility if they wanted to use it in a trade. This years 20 mill deal, is the 15 mill year from 21-22,.., a contract that won't generally be viewed as a toxic or underwater contract, but has enough value that you don't have to include 2 or 3 or 4 players to make up a trade for high value player.

I think Brown's contract is positioned to give the Pacers maximum flexibility. Yeah, if they see a guy they think is a long-term player for us,... they could move brown as part of the deal & take on longer money. If they don't, and they want to collect assets, they could move him to take on a contract for picks. They could keep him? They could let him go? None of which would really cost the Pacers anything?

It' worth noting, that for Brown, Buddy, & OB1; we didn't really trade anything for them. So, if they left for nothing,... what are we really losing? (besides the players themselves of course, all of whom I like.) Brown,.. 1 years salary, that we had to spend anyway? Buddy? His performance after coming over from Sac has been exceptional, much better than Sac gave him a chance to be, but we didn't really trade anything specifically for him in that deal. OB1,.. 2 x late 2nd's that were already replaced with others in our draft stash?

I agree that we now have to start looking at forwards, but I don't think Hayward is one. His play this last year (when he played) hasn't been up to his usual standard. He's been good, but at 33, I don't think he is capable of taking over games like he once could? Not sure that he would bring other intangibles that would help with the growth of the young players?

When he was last a free agent (ended up with a sign & trade to Charlotte), the other team that wanted him was the Pacers. He wanted to come home. When the Pacers didn't outbid the Hornets for the sign & trade with Boston, He said some things in the press. Then 2 months later sold him home in Noblesville (he bought it just after signing his rookie deal with Boston), and seemingly hasn't been back? Not certain he wouldn't come back,. but not certain he would, even if their were value for both player and team?

boomershadow wrote:I've had the Hayward thought too. Right size. There's been interest between the Pacers and Hayward before. He's at the end of his career and probably looking to win more importantly than getting paid, and joining a team with Haliburton might seem conducive to that goal.

There was a time when I was thinking OG, Siakum, even PG13. Those possibilities seem to coming off the board. Looking at 2nd level alternatives and Hayward is an interesting guy. Who’s the better reclamation project Wiggins or DeAndre Hunter? If Siakum winds up in Philly that would make Tobias Harris a relocating free agent. Of Hayward, Harris, Hunter and Wiggins I see Hayward as the best potential option 2. What’s he got left and can his availability be better?

jarryd3107 wrote:

Wizop wrote:

jarryd3107 wrote: At some point Indy needs to give Haliburton some established help and if not Siakim, who?.

Maybe Wiggins at half the price.

Surely not, he has been horrible this year.

I'd ask our players starting with Ty. many have posted that Wiggins has some personal issues. we have a bunch of player that care for each other. I'd trust our players to know the story and to judge whether they could help him.

LOL - Man,.. this next calendar year is going to be fun!! =}

JMaster5K wrote:LOL - Man,.. this next calendar year is going to be fun!! =}

it's fun now

Wizop wrote:

JMaster5K wrote:LOL - Man,.. this next calendar year is going to be fun!! =}

it's fun now

LOL = +100 =}

Wizop wrote:

jarryd3107 wrote:

Wizop wrote:
Maybe Wiggins at half the price.

Surely not, he has been horrible this year.

I'd ask our players starting with Ty. many have posted that Wiggins has some personal issues. we have a bunch of player that care for each other. I'd trust our players to know the story and to judge whether they could help him.

You can’t make cap decisions like this though. I’m sure the players would be supportive but it’s still an immense risk. If GS can’t get the best out of him with their infra, how could Indy? I get the appeal of Wiggins as a two way player but Indy isn’t in a position to take a flyer on an $86m player who seemingly isn’t interested in playing.

Taking on his contract also means that moves for players like Siakim can’t happen.

jarryd3107 wrote:Taking on his contract also means that moves for players like Siakim can’t happen.

Which is fine by me. If I had magic wand, I'd wave it over Walker.

Wizop wrote:

jarryd3107 wrote:Taking on his contract also means that moves for players like Siakim can’t happen.

Which is fine by me. If I had magic wand, I'd wave it over Walker.

and call his Shrek,.. as Donkey said,.. 'he may not look like much now, but one day, he could be the king!',..... (ok,... a bit much,... ) 8/