Pacers Pass By Trade Deadline: Lots To Talk About Considering Nothing Happened

by Tom Lewis on Feb 19, 2009 10:56 PM EST in Indiana Pacers News

The Indiana Pacers didn't make a trade before the NBA trade deadline passed this afternoon. While there is no trade to discuss, three story lines emerged this that will continue to demand our attention in the coming months and possibly years.

First and foremost, Danny Granger's MRI results came back with bad news of a partial tendon tear in his right foot which will have him watching for 10 days to three weeks. Second, the Pacers were unable to traded Jamaal Tinsley with a labor grievance on the situation pending. And finally, the Pacers didn't trade players with expiring contracts in order to upgrade a position of need for the short term or big contracts in order to shape up the roster financially.

Today all three of these story lines intersected with each having at least a little impact on the other two. It's pretty easy to take shots at Larry Bird and David Morway for not getting anything done before the deadline, but there are circumstances involved which you must include in the equation for an honest appraisal. I want to take a closer look at the issues involved with each storyline and encourage you to add your own thoughts on the issues at hand.

Danny Granger's Injury

At 5:00PM this afternoon, Jim O'Brien opened his radio show admitting he wasn't doing fine, having spent the afternoon digesting the news that the Pacers couldn't get a trade done and, far worse, would be without their best player for at least a couple of weeks.

This changes everything doesn't it? Mike Dunleavy isn't even travelling with the team, and JOB sounded like he wasn't planning on Dun's services any time soon, so that puts the Pacers in development mode starting now. Unless the Pacers rattle off an unexpected string of wins, there is no reason to rush Granger back. Take the full three weeks to allow the foot to heal and in doing so, further rest that right knee bruise.

JOB talked bluntly about the team's needs and at the top of the list was developing the young talent on the roster, specifically Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert and Josh McRoberts. I was happy to hear mention of McRoberts in the mix, sounds like he may get some run in the coming weeks.

As for Rush, JOB mentioned he has to produce like they expect him to. He's now in line for at least 25 minutes per game for the rest of the season so he will plenty of opportunities to build up his game.

The other angle to the injury is how it impacted trade discussions. Any thoughts of trading for front court help to impact the team immediately were likely circle filed after finding out Granger would miss time. A deal of this type was unlikely anyway, but the injury had to be considered for any dealings since projected draft position is a major factor.

Jamaal Tinsley Remains a Pacer

The Pacers were unable to move Tinsley before the deadline so now the labor grievance filed on his behalf is in play. Despite several teams in desperate need of a point guard, none wanted to take on Tinsley's sketchy injury history or, more importantly, the final two years of his contract.

Will this really go to an arbitrator? If so, it won't be pleasant for either side but could be worse for Tinsley. The worst case for the Pacers is that they have pay all his salary in a buy out or release arrangement and the money stays on the cap. For Tinsley, he could be denied a favorable remedy while stories buried in the bowels of the Fieldhouse are exposed to support the Pacers' case which then further tarnish Tinsley's reputation and make him even a tougher sell to other teams.

According to Bruno's report, Bird claimed two deals were close to completion but the Pacers were unwilling to part with Jeff Foster and/or Brandon Rush. At face value, the reluctance to part with Foster in any deal seems short-sighted considering his current age and production along with the fact he won't have a long-term impact on the team. But keep in mind, while a deal may have been close, we have no idea what players and contracts would've been coming back to the Pacers.

Pacers Didn't Trade To Upgrade Talent

The Pacers had two valuable expiring contracts tied to Rasho Nesterovic and Marquis Daniels which surely drew plenty of inquiries. Since it's tough to rely on free agents signing in the offseason, why not use the expiring contracts to lure an upgrade at a need position with a longer term deal?

If only it were that easy. With the current financial situation around the NBA and specifically within the Fieldhouse, the Pacers were dealing with little to no cap space to take on a multi-year contract of any consequence. The deals completed last summer miraculously freed up a little cap space for this summer. But that was when the salary cap number was expected to grown not shrink.

With the Pacers divulging financial losses while prepping to negotiate a new agreement with the Capital Improvement Board (CIB), there's no way the Simons want to exceed the salary cap. They're looking to save money, not spend it. Sucks? Yes, but that's the economic state of the league right now and it had a massive impact on trading strategies throughout the league (including decisions on prodigal point guards making $7 million a year).

Plus, the league put a damper on deadline day with a memo warning teams about the shrinking salary cap next year, as J.A. Adande reported.

The salary cap is expected to drop next season, with a league memo suggesting a hypothetical number of $57.3 million, according to two team executives. Again, that is only hypothetical; the actual figure won't be finalized until this summer. The salary cap is determined by taking 51 percent of the league's basketball related income and dividing it among the 30 teams. The salary cap for the 2008-09 season is $58.68 million.

So if the Pacers let Rasho, Quisy and Jack expire they'll be bumping right around the projected cap. Keeping the roster fiscally sound with the ability to make a minor signing or two will create a far healthier long-term outlook for the franchise.

Listening to Jim O'Brien's blunt talk this afternoon, he and Larry Bird are well aware that the team needs more talent. There were no names used, but Danny and Roy Hibbert seemed like the two pieces he was willing to build around. To me the first priority is creating a roster around those guys with flexible and/or reasonable contracts for the key role players.

That's not currently the case with Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy combining for a third of the salary cap. But in two years their deals are up, along with Tinsley if he's not gone by then (can you imagine?). So if the team can maintain some fiscal sanity until then and develop the young talent they acquire to produce with a reasonable salary, the future horizon begins to brighten.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Outstanding Analysis

There isn’t a single thing to quibble qbout in you entire post. Thanks for painting the
picture so clearly.

by fanaticus on Feb 20, 2009 12:30 AM EST reply actions

Agreed.

My points:

1. To me, it is clear that there are financial issues which prohibited any deal with the majority of the expiring contracts. Let’s remember that this season the Pacers are scratching the “ceiling” of luxury tax and they extended Foster’s and Granger’s contract. Granger will make about 10 millions MORE next season than this year; i.e., the reason the Pacers traded for expiring contracts last year in the JO deal was not that they could have “assets” for another deal, but they wanted to have expiring contracts for the same reason other teams want them now: pay less. It must have been clear last year that JO HAS to be dealt to save some money in order to be able to re-sign Granger while still having some other players on the team.

2. Tinsley still being on the team is not so much Bird’s fault (some people commented that Walsh would have got a deal done) than the wrong moment’s fault. With so many teams in financial struggles, wanting to save money, they were ready to deal for players less talented than JT but with less years on the contract (Orlando trading for Alston, see Chad Ford at ESPN: (quote) “And I’m told they passed on a deal for a better point guard: Jamaal Tinsley.”) In this situation, Walsh also wouldn’t have been able to work out a reasonable deal.
As to the rumored offers, it was reported that a deal with Charlotte which would have included Foster and another player (Rush) and brought back Raymond Felton, together with another player (Sean May) and Nazr Mohammed. Well, the essence would have been that Tinsley would be gone, but an equally bad contract (Mohammed, who makes almost exactly the same money) would have been with the Pacers. Mohammed doesn’t get minutes on the Charlotte team and is simply beyond his prime. He would then be MORE diffcult to move then Tinsley, who at least can be argued to still have game in him left. So this would rather be a downgrade, since we would also have to give up Foster (and possibly Rush).

3. As I have said earlier, the best for the Pacers is miss this year’s playoffs and being lucky in the lottery. Only way to add a talented player. The outlook is not that bright, since some major contracts (Murphy, Dunleavy, Tins) only come off the books in the summer of 2011 (…), but it’s some sort of start.

4. As to arbitration, I think that is both understandable that JT and his agents go for it ( I would have filed the grievance, too, if I were Tinsley), and that the Pacers act the way they have. It surely was a situation that impacted a possible trade (other teams thinking he may be availbale cheaply at least after this season). Nevertheless, arbitration could also turn out to be positive for the Pacers.

by bodi on Feb 20, 2009 3:45 AM EST reply actions

I really hope they just ice Danny for the rest of the year.

I’m afraid he might be a bit over competitive and try and come back too soon from any injury just to play in a bunch of trash games that the organization is better off losing for lottery reasons. It’d be best for him to just sit and get back to 100% for next year.

by SethGrandpa on Feb 20, 2009 4:37 AM EST reply actions

Tinsley

In my opinion the Pacers erred on Tinsley casuing this “Fiasco”.

1. JOB shouldn’t have publicly declared that Tinsley was unreliable due to injuries, even if it was glaringly obvious.

2. They should have allowed Tinsley to play which would have increased his trade value if it was determined that they would not buy him out. I think the fear was if he played the fan base would further be eroded.

Opportunity is missed by most people because it comes dressed in overalls and looks like work.
-Thomas Edison

by W.Diesel on Feb 20, 2009 8:39 AM EST reply actions

You know what I don't get

Why the Knicks can trade Zach Randof and The Lakers can trade Valdimare Radmodavic (yeah yeah I know SP), but the Pacers can’t trade Tinsely. I mean come on, Tinsley can’t be anywhere near as bad as Radmodavic or Randoff.

Go Colts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by PatsR18*andDONEwithoutCHEATING on Feb 20, 2009 9:21 PM EST up reply actions

Sounds of an apologist

First off Cornrows let me preface this by saying I really enjoy the site.

That being said, I think you are WAY TOO easy on management in regards to the deadline.

Sure money is tight and the Pacers need to be fiscally conscience. But that being the case, why the insistence to extend and grasp to bit parts like Jeff Foster?

I think most smart fans understand that commiting to a full on rebuild is/would have been the smart way to go. Yet Bird and Co have stedfastly refused to admit it needed to be done. Instead, now we are a ship without direction. A 32-35 win Ceiling team. What kind of play is that? Look at the recent moves and decide for yourself what Bird is thinking.

1. Traded JO for an injury plagued PG and an expiring contract. Picks up a 1st rounder in the deal that he uses on a 23 year old Center

2. Has the steal of the draft in Jeryd Bayless, but trades him for a 23 year old with a much lower ceiling. Presumably because he can help you win now.

3. Trades PF prospect Ike Diogu in the Rush/Bayless deal and picks up a lesser Local Prospect with a much lower ceiling

4. Has allowed JOB to bury all the kids at the end of the bench while no future guys like Rasho,Baston,Diener and Graham played ahead of them.

5. Extended Jeff Foster (probably his best trading chip) when money is supposedly so tight.

And that is just accounting for this year. Not to mention the Artest,Harrington,SJax,Pollard/Miller swaps of the last few years.

It’s like Larry Bird keeps putting new carpet in a house without a roof. I just don’t like the direction he is taking the franchise. Hopefully he proves me wrong.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Feb 20, 2009 10:43 AM EST reply actions

You echo my sentiments exactly aaron.

by ThirtyOne on Feb 20, 2009 11:50 AM EST up reply actions

Pssst

The Pacers ARE rebuilding and remain in the demo phase. Since they have to field a team and attract fans they’ll put a positive spin on the current situation. But after hearing what JOB said last night and what Bird is quoted as saying, it doesn’t take much reading between the lines to realize they remain committed to starting over, worried only about shoring up the financial state of the roster and developing young talent. In three years, Granger will be the only player remaining from last year’s roster.

I love the dissent and always enjoy your contributions to the site AB, I enjoy this stuff. I’d consider myself more of a realist than apologist considering the current situation. My sympathy with Bird is that he has few attractive pieces to use and doesn’t have carte blanche from his owner to do whatever he’d like to remake the team. Under the circumstances, moving JO for anything was near miraculous and as I said at the time regardless of what players returned in the trade, breaking up that contractual strangle hold on the cap was huge. I understand your feelings on Bayless. Not with you on Ike, though. First it would be more fair to compare Ike in that trade to Jarrett Jack. This team would be even worse without Jack this year simply because he’s been able to play every game and again, they have to field a team. Plus, I think McRoberts is already on par with Ike which isn’t saying much, but certainly doesn’t have a lower ceiling than Ike. So I’ll agree to disagree on that one.

Indy Cornrows

by Tom Lewis on Feb 20, 2009 1:55 PM EST up reply actions

Fair enough CR

I just want to quote Bird on his comment from the paper. I think we both agree that this is shortsighted.

"Center Jeff Foster drew a lot of attention, especially from Denver and Charlotte.

“Any trade we had for Jeff we weren’t getting a center back,” Bird said. “If you traded for a power forward, you don’t have anybody in the middle. We know Jeff is very valuable to us. We listened to offers, but right now is not the time to even think about moving Jeff, if we ever would.”

So if money is so tight. Why hold onto Foster?

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Feb 20, 2009 2:50 PM EST up reply actions

I'm with you on Foster

I’d love to see the Pacers get something for him. I think they resigned him because he was relatively cheap and they weren’t expecting much from Roy this year. Plus, there’s no doubt loyalty played a role with Foster continuing to work hard through all the crap the team went through for a few years. Two more years though seems long now.

Indy Cornrows

by Tom Lewis on Feb 20, 2009 3:05 PM EST up reply actions

Well I dunno If I like the way Bird is doing things either

I agree with you on every thing but the JO and S.Jax trades. The pacers got the better end of the deal on both those trades because.

1.The Pacers knew JO sucked, because he had had too many injuries so they traded him for a PG in the same boat and got a first round pick out of it. And obvously Toronto didn’t think much of JO since they traded him last week.

2.Sure the GSW’s made the playoffs after they traded with the Pacers for Stephen “Just Soot Me” Jackson, Al Harrington, Sheronis Jesicavices, and some other loser. But look at them now, they just plain suck. The Gun Jack was solid for the GSW’s his first year just like when he played for the Pacers. But look at Stephen “Just Shoot Me” Jackson now, he’s the Gun Jack we all know who can’t hit the broad side of a barn and is ball hog and takes a bunch of stupid shots. + the GSW’s have already let Jesicavacis and the other loser in the Gun Jack trade go and traded away Al Harrington (getting the worst end of the trade just like they did when they made the Gun Jack trade with the Pacers). And look at the Pacer, today they have 2 guys (T. Murph and M. Dunleavy) left from the Gun Jack trade they made with the GSW’s. If you take Danny Granger away from the Pacers Murphy and Dunleavy are their 2 leading scorers.

Go Colts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by PatsR18*andDONEwithoutCHEATING on Feb 22, 2009 4:57 PM EST up reply actions