ConSarnit wrote:JB7 wrote:ConSarnit wrote:
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.
Normally, a player on an expiring deal generally has less value, but Pascal's situation is a bit more unique, as part of the deal was clearly him ending up on a team willing to extend him at the max, and probably for 5 years, since that is that added bonus a team that has him can offer the 5th year.
The likelihood of Siakam taking the Sixers offer is less, if he wants that 5th year, and resulted in him forcing himself to a team willing to pay it, which it looks like Pacers will.
So the Pacers knew they were getting Siakam most likely for a long-term situation, and still offered relatively little. I think that was for two reasons:
1) If it didn't work out with Pascal for the rest of the season (bad fit on the team), the Pacers could walk away and not sign the extension, and not have given much of value off the current roster.
2) The extension for Siakam was not seen as a net benefit, and probably actually an anchor on his future value, with respect to any potential future deals if they wanted to flip him for other assets, especially since it will most likely be a 5 year contract.