JB7 wrote:ConSarnit wrote:Scase wrote:The same issue persists though, just cause you can, doesn't mean you should.
Nothing about Scotties rookie year gave even a slight impression he would be a first option on offence, he's beyond raw offensively. If the FO saw that and thought "We've got our #1, lets keep Siakam", sweet lord that is some bad judgment lol.
The only movable contracts there would be Jak, and OG. FVV woudl've been on a 4 or 5 year contract, Siakam the same. Aint no one trading for those. Either way, the end result would be a pretty mid team, so even if it works financially, still a terrible idea.
As for Scottie being a number 1, I’m sure they were hoping he’d grow into that role. In the meantime we wouldn’t be facing salary constraints because of Barnes rookie deal.
I don’t know how you think FVV wouldn’t be tradable on a 4/120ish contract. In his 3rd and 4th years of his deal he’d be making the equivalent of $24-25m this season. You don’t think FVV is tradable at $25m this year? And guess what Siakam’s deal would have been in his 3rd year: 28% of the cap. Care to guess what Siakam’s deal is as a percent of the cap this year? 28%. All of these guys projected contracts were tradable. They all would have been signed under the old cap environment and thus retained trade value. The problem wasn’t each individual number as much as it was having a bunch of guys making $30m+, which exhausts your cap space pretty quickly.
Siakam won’t be tradeable on that new deal. The Raps got relatively little for him and that was with him expiring. So the Pacers know they can keep him by giving him the max, or if it didn’t work out they could have walked away.
If Pacers decide to trade Pascal after resigning him, he’ll probably have negative value on that new max contract.
The Raps got relatively little because he was expiring. Expiring players don't fetch more in trades, they fetch less.
Also consider Siakam's new contract relative to the cap.
Siakam's current salary as % of the cap: 28%
Siakam's future salary as % of the cap: 29%
As an expiring on the the exact same deal he is about to get, Siakam got 3 1sts. We sold him at his lowest value. He'd have to have a huge decline in value to go from 3 1sts as an expiring to negative value. He
could be negative value by his 4th-5th year of his new deal but that wouldn't have precluded us from trading him before that point and as we've seen teams (stupidly) don't usually factor those possible decline years when trading for a player. As long as Pascal keeps playing near the same level he's playing at other teams aren't just going to assume he'll suddenly fall off in his 4th year. Over and over teams have shown they will take that risk.
Siakam's new deal will likely be tradable for positive (or neutral at worst) value. He's just barely going to turn 34 when his new deal ends. Maybe the 4th year gets rocky for the Pacers but by that time he's expiring.