Pacers Strategy and Contract Dumps

pad300 · Post #1 » by **pad300** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:29 pm

All right, this is a question by a non-pacers fan about team intentions. IMO, the pacers are not competing for a championship in 09/10 nor 10/11 as currently constructed. They are in a rebuilding phase, which will center around Granger, Rush, Hibbert, and TJ Ford. As they are in a rebuilding phase, are they interested in dumping salary for the 2010 FA class, while filling out the 09/10 roster on the cheap? There are 2 major contracts (and 2 smaller) that stick out beyond 09/10 on your roster; Dunleavy and Murphy (the two smaller are Foster and Tinsley). Would the Pacers consider moving either Murphy, Dunleavy, or Foster for expiring contracts to make room for a 2010 FA move? (I haven't included Tinsley because I know they would like to move him. I'm just not sure who'd be willing to take him...)

An example of such a move would be

IND out Murphy (the most expensive of the 3)
SAS out Bonner, Finley, Mason

SAS gets a quality big man for 3 decent roleplayers.

IND gets salary space in the summer of 2010 & 3 practical bodies for the 09/10 season - which fills out their roster relatively cheaply, saving ownership money. Finley is a veteran mentor for Granger. They also probably get a lottery pick in 09/10. Is it worth it?

C - Hibbert, Foster
PF - Dunleavy, Bonner, Mcroberts
SF - Granger, Finley
SG - Mason, Rush
PG - Ford, Jack, Diener

+ Pick # 13

Granger da OG · Post #2 » by **Granger da OG** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:32 pm

I was actually just thinking about this but was thinking more Brad Miller for Murphy. At least Miller would have some use.

Dunthreevy · Post #3 » by **Dunthreevy** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:35 pm

I realize that you're not a Pacers fan so you may not know as much about the team as a fan. So, I'll just point out a few things.

1 - Danny Granger doesn't need a mentor at this stage in his career.

2 - T.J. Ford isn't in our future plans.

3 - Dunleavy plays SG/SF

4 - Rush would start over Mason

fienX420 · Post #4 » by **fienX420** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:41 pm

Um... yeah - what Dunthreevy said.

pad300 · Post #5 » by **pad300** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:42 pm

Dunthreevy wrote:I realize that you're not a Pacers fan so you may not know as much about the team as a fan. So, I'll just point out a few things.

1 - Danny Granger doesn't need a mentor at this stage in his career.

2 - T.J. Ford isn't in our future plans.

3 - Dunleavy plays SG/SF

4 - Rush would start over Mason

More that fair, but the concept is what I am getting at. Are the Pacers interested in going cheap next year with an eye to getting into the 2010 FA races, in return for shedding older talented players? How much do you value Murphy/Foster/Dunleavy?

Post #6 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:42 pm

Sure you wouldn't want to entertain a Lorbek/Splitter swap to go in that deal?

pad300 · Post #7 » by **pad300** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:52 pm

Gremz wrote:Sure you wouldn't want to entertain a Lorbek/Splitter swap to go in that deal?

That particular deal, maybe. But as I said above, it's the concept I am getting at. Is IND interested in going cheap for 09/10 and getting into the 2010 FA sweeps in return for older talented players?

Post #8 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:54 pm

The Pacers aren't all that close to winning a championship, but they're maybe pretty close to getting back to being a playoff team, and, well, you have to go one step at a time.

Being close to a playoff team, I don't think the Pacers are too interested in dumping Murphy's salary this summer. It probably still wouldn't cut payroll enough for the team to do anything much in free agency next summer anyway.

2011--that's when it will get interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that Tinsley, Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, and Foster's contracts all expire in 2011. That's a lot of cap space...

Dunthreevy · Post #9 » by **Dunthreevy** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 8:54 pm

pad300 wrote:
Dunthreevy wrote:I realize that you're not a Pacers fan so you may not know as much about the team as a fan. So, I'll just point out a few things.

1 - Danny Granger doesn't need a mentor at this stage in his career.

2 - T.J. Ford isn't in our future plans.

3 - Dunleavy plays SG/SF

4 - Rush would start over Mason

More that fair, but the concept is what I am getting at. Are the Pacers interested in going cheap next year with an eye to getting into the 2010 FA races, in return for shedding older talented players? How much do you value Murphy/Foster/Dunleavy?

I honestly don't think that the Pacers have any plans to jump into the great free agent race of 2010. The team has enough financial problems currently and with the core players that we're building around (Granger, Rush, Hibbert, #13) we'll have plenty of money being invested in them in the not too distant future. I could see us picking up maybe a MLE type of contract that summer but not going after one of the big names.

granger05 · Post #10 » by **granger05** » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:12 pm

I'll attempt to answer your question about the Pacer's intent, although what do I know since I'm just a fan. I do think they want to get back to the playoffs, and they are under the tax for now. I could see them moving Ford, Murphy, really anyone outside of Granger, Rush, and Hibbert if they got back a good young prospect, but not just a straight salary dump. They do want to remain competitive, and just having a bunch of salary space hasn't really helped small market teams. You have to target good young players you can lock in. I think if they trade Ford or Murphy it would be in a deal that included either a mid-round pick or a young player with potential. Otherwise, why bother?

MillerTime101 · Post #11 » by **MillerTime101** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:17 am

If you are asking if we are interested in doing what the Nets and TWolves are doing the answer is no. We are not interested in ripping our team apart and rebuilding. We already did that, we have our prospects, a good young core and a young superstar. We are building our team into a contender the way a small market team does, by building it from the ground up year by year.

Hope that answers your question.

basketballwacko2 · Post #12 » by **basketballwacko2** » Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:57 am

Trading Murphy is impractical because we can't get fair value for him. He's a nearly 12 rebounds a game guy while getting you 14 points and shooting something like 44% from 3 pt line? How do you replace all that, who is gonna give us enough to make moving him good for us? Around the league most people think Murph is way over paid and don't really look at what he brings to the team.