Image

ESPN take on FA class of 09

Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow

HicksvsKnicks08
Senior
Posts: 515
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 23, 2008

ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#1 » by HicksvsKnicks08 » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:56 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... nts-080915


2. Danny Granger, Pacers
Granger slipped on draft night three years ago because of concerns about a knee injury. But he's proven he should've been a top-six pick. Granger averaged more than 23 ppg for the Pacers over the last few months of last season. He's the Pacers' brightest hope right now, which means they'll likely have to give him a contract in the same ballpark as what Luol Deng or Josh Smith got this summer
.

I hope Bird saves his money. Outside of Bynum , no one I would really want us to puruse( obviously Kobe's going nowhere)
FreeRon
Analyst
Posts: 3,147
And1: 5
Joined: Jan 17, 2005
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#2 » by FreeRon » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:03 am

I have no interest in Bynum. He reminds me a bit of Jonathan Bender asking for a huge contract when we don't know about his knees.
User avatar
DannyGranger
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#3 » by DannyGranger » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:31 am

what about David Lee? Marvin Williams? Charlie V? Marion? Odom? Wilcox? Gooden? and Boozer? Theres a lot of big man talent
User avatar
khensley308
Ballboy
Posts: 28
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 14, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#4 » by khensley308 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:57 am

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm very pleased with the offseason moves we made and our draft choices, even though we haven't been able to trade Tinsley but every one knows he is very untradable especially with the money he's getting paid and his off-court issues. I believe that we are going to win 40-45 games this season with the sqaud we have and if we can get something out of Tinsley maybe win a couple more. I disagree with the idea of tanking the season and no making the playoffs and getting a high draft pick, especially with the quality of free agents thats going to be available. IMO its always better to make the playoffs then miss them and make fans upset.

With the quality of players becoming unrestricted free agents at the end of next season and Foster, Daniels, Rasho and possibly Jack coming off the books, I believe we could make a big splash in the offseason. The talent of next year's draft class should be comparable to this past years class maybe even better, there is alot of young talent out there. With around 10 mil to work with after the season is over maybe even more depending on what we do with Tinsley and how much we give Danny on his extension which NEEDS to happen sooner then later. The good unrestricted free agents should be cheaper to sign now that most of them are in the later part of their careers. Rasheed would be a good pick up to come in and teach Hibbert some things and be a nice contributor on the offense and defense, IF we could get him. Shawn Marion could play the 4 spot since that is what he did in Pheonix and since his production has slightly dropped he will be cheaper than what he's getting paid now. I'd really like to see us make a run at Boozer, but the Jazz can match the offer and I don't think we would have enough money to pay him but thats just wishful thinking since I'm a big Duke fan.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that every year I am always happy with the team we have and have high expectations but this year I'm even more excited to see what this team can do. Its going to be tough to make a run in the playoffs if we can get there. Although we did get better in the offseason and so did the other east teams but only time will tell what this team can do. Hopefully TJ stays healthy (knock on wood, we don't need another JO or JT on the team) and runs this offense extremely well and Rush can play up to his potential. I mean all the experts said he was the most NBA ready player in the draft. Maybe Roy can win the ROY award, he definetely has the size and the work ethic. This could be a break through season for out guys. GOOD LUCK PACERS.
BOOOOOOOOM BABY!!!!!!!!.......ITS MILLER TIME.
HicksvsKnicks08
Senior
Posts: 515
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#5 » by HicksvsKnicks08 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:14 am

[quote]The talent of next year's draft class should be comparable to this past years class maybe even better[quote]

Who are the Top 5 in your order?
User avatar
Gremz
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 36,278
And1: 6,143
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Location: I am a Norwegian Fisherman
Contact:
         

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#6 » by Gremz » Tue Sep 16, 2008 8:13 am

Boozer is about the only one who interests me atm. Marion could be a good for an up tempo offense at the 4, provided he come with a reasonable contract, and i just don't see that happening.
Image
User avatar
DannyGranger
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#7 » by DannyGranger » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:20 am

Gremz wrote:Boozer is about the only one who interests me atm. Marion could be a good for an up tempo offense at the 4, provided he come with a reasonable contract, and i just don't see that happening.

Boozer is definately on the top of my list. But i beleive hes going to get a huge contract. Hes been relatively injury free this season, so his stock has gone up for sure. Boozer is making $11,593,817 this season. Hes going to want more than that next season. Can we afford it? RIght now, depending on how much we pay Granger and if we can move Tinsely, we're pretty much on the border line of the luxury tax. Depending on what the luxury tax is next season (Ive heard its going to be around $65 million), I think we'll be a bit over if we sign Boozer and re-sign Granger (about 8 million ish, which is bad at all). Boozer and Hibbert would be a good front court.

Imagine this lineup for our future;
Ford/Jack
Rush
Granger/Williams
Boozer
Hibbert
User avatar
Gremz
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 36,278
And1: 6,143
Joined: Jun 25, 2006
Location: I am a Norwegian Fisherman
Contact:
         

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#8 » by Gremz » Tue Sep 16, 2008 9:52 am

^^^
We probably won't be able to afford him, nor will we really be in the market to GET him, just saying he's the only one i'm interested in. He'll get his big contract, and i sincerely doubt we'll be the ones to provide it.
Image
FreeRon
Analyst
Posts: 3,147
And1: 5
Joined: Jan 17, 2005
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#9 » by FreeRon » Tue Sep 16, 2008 11:09 am

Whoa...I'm not sure I'd touch Rasheed with a 10-foot pole. I don't want him teaching Hibbert anything. He's worked out lately, but he definitely is not the kind of character we need on this team.
User avatar
DannyGranger
Sophomore
Posts: 126
And1: 0
Joined: Apr 16, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#10 » by DannyGranger » Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:24 pm

Gremz wrote:^^^
We probably won't be able to afford him, nor will we really be in the market to GET him, just saying he's the only one i'm interested in. He'll get his big contract, and i sincerely doubt we'll be the ones to provide it.

I also agree. But we have to also realize, will Boozer leave the Jazz? They have arguably have the 2nd best PG in the league and Boozer has been playing well with his counter-big-man, Okur
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,726
And1: 13,975
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#11 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:32 pm

I think if we look at anybody in the offseason, it's going to be only for the MLE unless we have to sign and trade Granger, which I'm sure none of us want.

The guys that seem to fit the MLE are possibly the Drew Gooden's and Chris Wilcox's of the world (Wilcox only if he has a bit of a letdown this season).
User avatar
mizzoupacers
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 6,120
And1: 12
Joined: May 27, 2004

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#12 » by mizzoupacers » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:47 pm

Exactly...all we're going to have to work with next summer is the MLE. Forget about guys like Boozer.

The guy on that list I'd like to see us get somehow is David Lee. I think he does some things really well--like rebound, take good shots, and make his free throws--without being a big liability in any particular aspect of the game. And we could use a power forward. Not sure what he is going to cost though, or what his availability will be.

Mildly interested in someone like Kleiza. I'm mostly interested in the power forwards, since I don't think we can afford a high-impact free agent and we seem to be fairly well set with decent options at the other four positions. Projected 2009 roster:

Ford/Jack
Dunleavy/Rush
Granger/TBD (or Dunleavy)
???/Murphy
Hibbert/either Foster or Rasho (we'll keep one of them, I think)

We'll have the MLE and a first-round draft pick at our disposal. Figure on the draft pick needing time to develop. That leaves power forward to be solved in free agency.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,726
And1: 13,975
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#13 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:48 pm

The ONLY reason I'm not too interested in David Lee is due to his agent's posturing that David is going to deserve/need a maximum contract, and that if he gets traded, he's not going to re-sign with that new team.

He simply strikes me as a bargaining nightmare that will demand too much money, and even if he doesn't get the full contract he wants but signs with someone like us because we're offering him the most, he doesn't seem like he'll play nice.


If he comes at an affordable price and fits in with the environment, he'd seem to be a perfect alternative at PF to Murphy and a perfect match to a Roy Hibbert at center.
User avatar
count55
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,431
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2005
Location: In Memoriam: pf

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#14 » by count55 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:50 pm

OK...Here's how I understand the Pacers cap situation for next summer (sources are Shamsports and Larry Coon's CBA FAQ).

Guaranteed Salaries: $41,778

Includes guaranteed contracts of Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Tinsley (or his replacement), Rush, and Hibbert, as well as Player Option for Travis Diener

Cap Holds: $39,255

Rasho $12,600 (150% of this year's salary)
Foster $8,250 (150%)
Baston $3,409 (150%)
Granger $6,989 (300%)
Jack $6,008 (300%)
Graham $1,074 (130%)
McBob $925 (130%)

Cap holds count against the cap for FA signing purposes, but don't count against the tax or anything else. Therefore, the Pacers "Cap Number" entering next summer's FA period would be $81,033.

Here's Coon's explanation of why:

31. Why do free agents continue to count against a team's cap?

It closes another loophole. Teams otherwise would be able to sign other teams' free agents using their cap room, and then turn their attention to their own free agents using the Bird exceptions. This rule restricts their ability to do that. It doesn't close this loophole completely -- for example, in 2005 Michael Redd's free agent amount was $6 million, even though the Bucks intended to re-sign him for the maximum salary. By waiting to sign Redd last, the Bucks were able to take advantage of the difference by signing Bobby Simmons. Had they signed Redd first, they would have had no cap room to sign Simmons.


However, they can (and we expect that they will) reduce that cap number by renouncing the rights to some of these players. (If they renounce the rights to the players, they could only re-sign them (a) if they had cap room or (b) to a minimum contract. They could "sign-and-trade" the player using the Bird rights, but they could not use the Bird rights any longer to just sign him.)

It seems obvious that they'd almost certainly renounce Rasho, Baston, Graham, and McBob, reducing their cap hold by $18,008. However, that still leaves $21,247 in cap holds related to Jeff Foster, Danny Granger, and Jarrett Jack.

Therefore, assuming that, they'd have a "cap number" of $63,025 with 7 players under contract, and retaining the rights to the three I mentioned. The cap (at 5% growth) would probably be somewhere around $61-62 mm. (These numbers, BTW, completely ignore the holds for our 1st rounder, which would probably be about $2mm, and our MLE, which would be about $6mm).

So, how do they maximize their capspace for next summer, and what would that figure be?

By my calculations, the lowest "Cap Number" the Pacers could have would be about $50,000, leaving them $11 to $12mm below the cap. However, to do that, they'd have to renounce the rights to everyone except Danny.

If they were to renounce everyone except Danny and JJ, they'd be at around $56mm, but then the MLE cap hold would kick in and probably put their "cap number" over the cap.

They could re-sign JJ sooner (extension this summer or new contract early next summer) and probably save $1-2mm, which would likely negate the MLE caphold and leave them at $7-8mm under the cap. Let's say they did that...after signing Danny and a $7mm FA, they'd probably look like this:

Guaranteed: $41,778 (7 Players)
Danny: $ 9,000 (Conservatively 6/68, 1 player)
FA: $ 7,000 (1 player)
JJ: $ 4,500 (Conservatively, 1 player)
1st Rounder: $ 1,600 (1 player)

Total $63,878 on 11 players, roughly $11mm left under the tax to sign the last four. I guess it's do-able, but who are we going to get for $7-$8mm? If we let everybody go, who's the $11mm prize that's gonna sign with the Pacers? What if somebody offers Danny a higher contract?

It seems like an awful big crap shoot to me.

I have the suspicion that the Pacers are actually just being "cautious". I kinda think they wanna see one more year before they pony up for Danny. The idea of "maximizing cap space" is kind of convoluted, and not as productive as some might believe. Honestly, unless we want to completely gut our team next summer (which we might), we aren't going to have any real cap space.

I guess that's an OK strategy, but I'm not overly comfortable with it.

Bottom line is...we don't really have cap space next summer. Scoot's right...if we sign a FA, then it will likely be using the MLE.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
HicksvsKnicks08
Senior
Posts: 515
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#15 » by HicksvsKnicks08 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:30 pm

I kinda think they wanna see one more year before they pony up for Danny.



I think they want to wait to re-sign Granger so that if they sgn another FA next year, they can go over the cap to re-sign Granger (Bird Rights). If they extended him now, then they can't go over the salry scap to sign a FA.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,726
And1: 13,975
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#16 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:40 pm

Look above at how count55 explained the cap holds. As it currently stands, we couldn't sign another player and then sign Granger unless we used the MLE, which we would still be able to do if we signed Granger first.

As count55 put it, our only possibility for signing a free agent other than through the MLE would be to renounce our rights on every free agent we have other than Danny, thus making them all unrestricted and meaning we couldn't use Bird rights to re-sign and keep them, but would have to use cap space, meaning, they're gone. Even then, we'd only be able to sign a guy for like $8 million, only $3 million over the MLE.


So, keep a shot at Granger, Jack, Foster, Rasho, etc and have the MLE or have a shot at only Granger and sign a $8 million free agent, but let Jack, Foster, Rasho, etc. all walk?
User avatar
count55
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,431
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2005
Location: In Memoriam: pf

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#17 » by count55 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 6:14 pm

Put more simply...Danny, unsigned, will count as $7mm against our cap going into the 2009 FA signing period. If we extend him this, it's safe to assume that his first year salary would probably be somewhere between $9mm (assuming max raises over 5 years) and $11mm (assuming a flatter contract).

The mistake everyone is making is that they think that, if we don't extend Danny, that he'll have a $0 impact on our cap, allowing us to play in the free agent market. The only way Danny will have a $0 impact on our 2009 capspace is if we renounce our rights to him, effectively letting him walk. If we intend to re-sign him, then he'll have a cap hold.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
HicksvsKnicks08
Senior
Posts: 515
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#18 » by HicksvsKnicks08 » Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:01 pm

if we don't extend Danny, that he'll have a $0 impact on our cap, allowing us to play in the free agent market.


I might be incorrect, but I think if we let Granger become a restricted FA after this season, then his cap number only counts off his rookie salary. So we can sign another FA , be at the salary cap limit, then extend Grangerbeyond the cap because of the Bird rights. If we sign him before October, then his cap hit is immediate
User avatar
count55
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,431
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2005
Location: In Memoriam: pf

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#19 » by count55 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 am

HicksvsKnicks08 wrote:
if we don't extend Danny, that he'll have a $0 impact on our cap, allowing us to play in the free agent market.


I might be incorrect, but I think if we let Granger become a restricted FA after this season, then his cap number only counts off his rookie salary. So we can sign another FA , be at the salary cap limit, then extend Grangerbeyond the cap because of the Bird rights. If we sign him before October, then his cap hit is immediate


You're incorrect. If we let him become a RFA, his cap hit will be 300% of his last year salary, or just a tick under $7mm. If we sign him before October, his cap hit will be whatever his 1st year salary of his new contract is, which probably will be a minimum of $9mm, perhaps a little more. Therefore, not signing him probably only give us $2-4mm extra under the cap vs. signing him.

Then, to actually have that cap space, we'd have to renounce our rights to ALL of our other free agents: Rasho, Foster, Jack, Baston, Graham, & McBob. While that may be fine for Baston, McBob, Graham, and probably/possibly Rasho, I have trouble seeing the Free Agents we might be able to sign above the MLE being worth giving up all of those guys, plus Foster and Jarrett Jack.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
HicksvsKnicks08
Senior
Posts: 515
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 23, 2008

Re: ESPN take on FA class of 09 

Post#20 » by HicksvsKnicks08 » Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:41 am

Count55,

Appreciate your dillagence, I just remember from the Mike Wells article( I think it was him) that Bird was saying something about it being advantages to wait and sign Danny. I was trying to find the article, but can not locate it

Return to Indiana Pacers