Let's talk Lance

[EuroPacer]

Lance seems to be taking the opportunity afforded by Danny being out with both hands. He has been impressive in that he seems to be carrying on where he left off last year. Are we going to see Lance go through a season the way we saw PG24 go through his season last year?

And if we are going to see that... what next?

[Scoot McGroot]

And if we are going to see that... what next?

Then, he'll play his way out of fiscal range for us, but we may get a championship out of it before that....

[8305]

And if we are going to see that... what next?

Then, he'll play his way out of fiscal range for us, but we may get a championship out of it before that....

Agree, if Lance can command more than say 10 mil/year.

But do we have any contracts that could be moved without taking back players? Chris Copeland comes to mind. He appears to be pretty unnecessary right now and might serve a purpose someplace else. Can't recall, is there any positive cap play in not bringing back Scola? And finally, Mahamni is a respectable backup center being paid like a respectable backup center. Move him on draft day for a late 1st or early 2nd?

Its one thing to insist you won't pay the luxury tax. It would be another to break up a championship over 5 mil or so of luxury tax.

[Scoot McGroot]

And if we are going to see that... what next?

Then, he'll play his way out of fiscal range for us, but we may get a championship out of it before that....

Agree, if Lance can command more than say 10 mil/year.

But do we have any contracts that could be moved without taking back players? Chris Copeland comes to mind. He appears to be pretty unnecessary right now and might serve a purpose someplace else. Can't recall, is there any positive cap play in not bringing back Scola? And finally, Mahamni is a respectable backup center being paid like a respectable backup center. Move him on draft day for a late 1st or early 2nd?

Its one thing to insist you won't pay the luxury tax. It would be another to break up a championship over 5 mil or so of luxury tax.

We can save $2.3m by waiving Scola. Copeland may be able to be moved, but probably not for cap space (without paying a 1st we don't have), but having to take back relatively matching contracts. Mahinmi may be movable, but again, possibly not for cap space, but matching salaries. Even then, we may do one, maybe 2 of these, probably not all 3. Even then, there are minimum roster restrictions, and cap holds that we'd have to replace. Say you waive Scola, and keep the other 2 while re-signing Lance, well, you still have to sign 2 more guys (adding $1.2m back to the cap) just to meet league minimums. Move Cope for nothing, and sign 3 roster guys (adding around $1.8m).

However, $5m of luxury tax doesn't sound like much, until you figure out what else it impacts. Not only do you pay more salary, and pay a luxury tax on that $5m, but you also miss out on luxury tax payment redistribution, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, you don't get ANY revenue sharing. Indy is one of the biggest "net receivers" of revenue sharing, and that could be $25m in just revenue sharing given up.

So, going $5m over the luxury tax level would actually cost us around $40m. $5m in extra salary, $7.5m in luxury tax payments, loss of $25m in revenue sharing received, and anywhere from $2.5m to $7m in luxury tax payments redistributed.


It's not just $5m. It's more like $40m in cost to the Pacers.

[8305]

Honestly didn't realize the revenue sharing number was that big. Wonder if it will be that big next year when L.A. in theory returns to the rest of the pack in terms of cumulative salary? Not saying it will be a remarkably lower number but the new CBA certainly creates some incentives for fiscal responsibility. And, if the league collectively becomes more responsible any idea how much that will impact the revenue sharing amount?

[Scoot McGroot]

Honestly didn't realize the revenue sharing number was that big. Wonder if it will be that big next year when L.A. in theory returns to the rest of the pack in terms of cumulative salary? Not saying it will be a remarkably lower number but the new CBA certainly creates some incentives for fiscal responsibility. And, if the league collectively becomes more responsible any idea how much that will impact the revenue sharing amount?

Revenue sharing is reportedly around $25m for us....much less for other teams in bigger cities.

Spreading around the luxury tax payments is much less and will come out to roughly around $2-4m for each team under the tax. Hope I didn't confuse you with the two different totals.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Chicago76]

You might be right about this, but below is my understanding of this.

1) The Pacers are expected to get roughly $20 million to maybe $25 million in revenue sharing.
2) Teams forfeit the portion of revenue sharing under the current formula that would push their profit over $10 million. The Pacers have claimed losses of approx. $30 million per year for the past few years, but it's not unreasonable to assume that given recent success, increased regular+season ticket sales and other revenue will push those losses back to the $5 to $10 million range, in which case their portion of the revenue sharing could drop to $15 to $20 million.
3) Total luxury tax payments of teams this year is roughly $150 million, or $6.5 million per team for the 23 non-tax paying teams. Only up to 50% of the tax payments can be actually disbursed, so the true payment for non-tax paying teams is somewhere between 0 and $3.25 million.
4) This is the big one. I have seen nothing to suggest that tax paying teams forfeit their revenue sharing portion. It's not on Coon's site and it's not part of the NBA CBA 101 document. Most documents actually make very clear distinctions between the luxury tax payments and revenue sharing receipts. Are you sure that luxury tax payors forfeit revenue sharing? 19 times out of 20, luxury tax payors will be net payors into the revenue sharing system anyway, so the point is generally moot there. It might be that income calculated under the revenue sharing formula adjusts the cost side for teams going over the luxury tax such that payroll costs are reduced to the luxury tax amount, thus increasing income and reducing the revenue sharing receipt (or increasing rev sharing payments). Indirectly, the LT would still have an impact on revenue sharing, but it wouldn't be "all or nothing". Ex: the team might claim losses of $15mm, but be $5mm over the LT. Their adjusted losses would be $10 million, which might reduce their revenue sharing by $5 million.

That would suggest that going over $5 million is still a big deal, but not as big of a deal. $5 million of extra salary + $7.5 million of LT + $5 million of lost revenue ($17.5 million total) sure beats $32.5 to $37.5 million of cost if the Pacers lost the entire revenue sharing component.

[FortyDaysThree]

I hope and think crow will be on my plate this year.

[Starkiller]

Per RealGM wiretap, Lance isn't going anywhere. =)

[Wizop]

Per RealGM wiretap, Lance isn't going anywhere. =)

the full story is on pacers.com.

http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/future-can-wait-stephenson-giving-pacers-great-present

[Grang33r]

Very telling quotes by Stephenson. He has his head in the right place.

I remember the day after our opener, i was either reading some piece or listening to one of the Indianapolis sports stations online, but they were talking about Stephenson and Granger. And they quoted Frank Vogel saying that Lance was the most disappointed from hearing Granger would miss time with an injury because he really likes Granger as a teammate but also Lance really was looking forward to working with the 2nd unit full time. This guy is all about winning.

[Wizop]

I think we can make it work if Lance will accept a contract up to George Hill's level. if he wants DWest type money now, that could break the bank.

[EuroPacer]

The problem that is developing is of course that if we keep him for... let's say 8 million per, we completely shut down the options to work the bench over at the same time we would be giving away some relevant pieces to create that 8 million per... we could end up with a great starting five patched up by a load of vet-min pieces that are going to be a question mark game-in and game-out...

[Wizop]

I think of 8 million per as starters money. I think you can build a team under the tax with 3 players getting starters money and 2 players getting max money - having 3 max contracts does not work unless you pay tax or have no players getting starters money. but we have DWest getting what you might call all star money about half way between starters and max money. Scola is also getting more than backup money but it isn't clear how much of that is guaranteed for future years because of the amnesty waiver. We may have to let Scola or Mahinmi go to keep Lance. however, I'd like to think you can go 8 to 10 quality players deep before you have to fill out the roster with minimum and rookie deals as long as you don't have too many max deals.

[8305]

I think of 8 million per as starters money. I think you can build a team under the tax with 3 players getting starters money and 2 players getting max money - having 3 max contracts does not work unless you pay tax or have no players getting starters money. but we have DWest getting what you might call all star money about half way between starters and max money. Scola is also getting more than backup money but it isn't clear how much of that is guaranteed for future years because of the amnesty waiver. We may have to let Scola or Mahinmi go to keep Lance. however, I'd like to think you can go 8 to 10 quality players deep before you have to fill out the roster with minimum and rookie deals as long as you don't have too many max deals.

I too would like to think if Lance could be had for starter money (say 8 mil/yr) we would figure out a way to accomodate that. Not renew Scola, maybe move Copeland for cap space (I could see this costing us a future first). Or, moving Mahamni for in a deal that creates cap space. I think any of those moves could create another 2-3 mil of cap space and isn't that all we would need to do to pay Lance 8 mil per year?

Bigger worry is that it could take closer to 10 mil per year to keep him. If he continues to play as he has early on this year that's where we could be headed. He'll say all the right things during the season. I'm sure both the team and his agent are coaching him on this. But, its tough seeing any young player who to this point in his career hasn't been paid walking away from 2-4 mil per year.

[Chicago76]

I think of 8 million per as starters money. I think you can build a team under the tax with 3 players getting starters money and 2 players getting max money - having 3 max contracts does not work unless you pay tax or have no players getting starters money. but we have DWest getting what you might call all star money about half way between starters and max money. Scola is also getting more than backup money but it isn't clear how much of that is guaranteed for future years because of the amnesty waiver. We may have to let Scola or Mahinmi go to keep Lance. however, I'd like to think you can go 8 to 10 quality players deep before you have to fill out the roster with minimum and rookie deals as long as you don't have too many max deals.

It depends upon where on the "max contract" continuum a player's salary falls. George will probably get the Rose exception for next year's deal. This means those two max deals (George and Hibbert) will end up costing the Pacers $32 million. Add in $24 million of starters money, and the Pacers are coming in too high (at $56 million). $14 million to build the rest of the roster is not enough. Three decent bench guys will run $11 million minimum, which leaves less than league min for the rest of the roster.

[GeneralNbaFan1]

Lance is tooooooo inconsistent... these type of players are made for the 6th man role....
I hope Granger comes healthy and then watch out!

[Wizop]

Here is an excellent discussion of the numbers with a nod at the end to Coon's great CBA FAQ.

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2013/11/the-lance-stephenson-contract-faq/