Pooh
08-26-2003, 04:34 AM
Mark Montieth: Pacers Q&A
Indianapolis Star sports reporter Mark Montieth answers your questions about the Pacers.
August 25, 2003
Question: I am really glad Reggie Miller finally signed a two-year contract to finish his NBA career with the Indiana Pacers. In all of the articles I have read about it, it doesn't seem to mention how much he is getting paid. Is he getting paid a lot or not too much at all that they didn't even want to tell his very own fans? (Melody from Sheridan, Ind.)
Answer: Many people have wondered how much Miller will receive. It's interesting how salaries are of much more interest than they used to be, although with factors such as the salary cap and luxury tax threshold they are obviously critical elements in piecing together a contending team.
The Pacers never release salary information. When we report them, as we usually are able to do, they generally come from agents or other informed sources. Sometimes, but not often, the players tell us. Miller's agent, Arn Tellem, is very difficult to even get on the telephone, and probably wouldn't give out the numbers if we got him. The same is true with Miller, so exact numbers have been difficult to obtain in this instance.
We can make a reasonable estimate of Miller's salary through some logical math. The Pacers had a roster payroll of about $51.5 million before signing Miller (and second-round pick James Jones, who signed for the minimum of $366,931). That left them about $5 million to give to Miller without exceeding the projected luxury tax threshold -- although some people believe the luxury tax won't have to be paid next year.
One usually reliable source says Miller will receive $5 million next season and $5,625,000 the following season. That's unconfirmed, however. I've also heard that there is an option for a third season, but I'm not sure of that. Nor am I sure whether it's a team option or a player option if indeed there is an option.
It will take some time for the details of this contract to come out. It's clear, however, that he's taken a major pay cut from last season's salary of about $12 million.
Question: What is the deal with Danny Ferry? I have not heard one thing about him. Are the Pacers going to release him or does he possibly figure into next season in some way? With his range he could become a nice X-factor off the bench late in critical games. (Fred from Noblesville, Ind.)
Answer: I reported when the Pacers made the three-way trade that they had no intention of keeping Ferry. He's probably still capable of helping a team off the bench, but I can't see how he could earn a spot in the Pacers' rotation. The Pacers have 14 players under contract and are likely very close to the luxury tax threshold, so they would have to be very selective if they are to add another player.
Question: Great column, Mark. I look for updates every time I get online. We keep hearing about what the Pacers can't spend on players, but look at what Dallas, LA and Sacramento are spending! The truth seems to be we simply refuse to be hit with a luxury tax. I have few complaints about the Simon family, but what is their status in the league? Are they too poor, too frugal, too bottom line? It seems that unlike football, basketball in Indiana would always bring in the huge bucks if we had a champion. (Gene from Connersville, Ind.)
Answer: Thanks, Gene. The Simons, like most NBA owners, have decided not to pay the luxury tax, although it's possible they would make an exception for the right player. I don't know the details of their financial situation, but I have no reason to believe they aren't doing very well. It's more of a philosophical approach. They have rarely if ever made a profit on the Pacers from what I'm told and aren't obligated to suffer major losses.
The loss of Brad Miller marked the first time they have refused to spend to keep a key player, but the decision to let Miller go -- or trade him, actually -- was based largely on the opinion within the franchise that he simply wasn't worth his market value.
It's important to remember that the teams that have spent wildly have not been rewarded with a championship. There's more to building a team than piling on talent. It has to make sense. Dallas might have reached the Finals last season if it had stayed healthy, however, and will certainly have a shot next season.
Question: For years the Pacers have urged patience with many of their young and, quite frankly, unproductive players. Why, then, is Jamaal Tinsley on such a short leash? It appears as though they'd love to replace him as a starter. I don't get to see the team nearly as often as I'd like, but Tinsley always strikes me as a young player with a lot more upside than down. Is that wrong? And doesn't all this talk of a trade for a point guard make it harder for him to do his job well?
To me, the most glaring weakness on this team is not at point guard, but at center. Is it a lock that the starter at the 5-spot is already on the roster? (Mike from Austin, Texas)
Answer: You make an interesting point. Tinsley improved last season from his rookie season, although not as much as many people expected. Some of that has to be attributed to his mother's illness and death, although it's impossible to measure how much.
He is one of the league's best passers, and ranked third in the league in assists last season when the stats are extrapolated over 48-minute appearances. I think most of the frustration with him relates to his lack of leadership and his unwillingness to maintain a high level of conditioning throughout the season. He's going to have to mature in those areas, because he hasn't earned his teammates' respect.
I don't know how all the conjecture about his place in the lineup will affect him. Isiah Thomas believes he has a survival mentality and will respond to challenges when his back is against the metaphorical wall. It will be interesting to see what happens next season.
I wouldn't say it's a lock that the starting center is on the roster, but it's a strong likelihood. I doubt the Pacers will be able to get a better center than Scot Pollard through trade.
Question: What ever happened to Tim Hardaway? (John from Lakewood, Ohio)
Answer: It's my understanding that Hardaway wants to play, but I don't believe the Pacers have shown interest in him. They have 14 players under contract as it is. Hardaway would indeed fill a need for veteran leadership in the backcourt. I thought he was excellent in that regard. But his knee is so bad that most people doubt he could get through a season. He's the type of player now a team would be more likely to sign late in the season for a playoff drive, as the Pacers did last season.
Question: I know the Pacers do not have a lot of money, but is there any chance they could sign Mark Jackson at a low salary? He is still available as a free agent and had good chemistry with the Pacers during their championship run. I hate to think that all we have at point guard is Tinsley. Do you see a possibility of trading him away? (Pat from Indianapolis)
Answer: I doubt the Pacers would sign Jackson. He would have a difficult time accepting a contract for the minimum, although he might not have a choice if he wants to continue playing. Jackson's relationship with Larry Bird became somewhat strained during their time together, so that could be a factor.
Jackson gets along well with Isiah Thomas, but it's generally believed that Jackson would have a tough time accepting a role as a backup. He's a very knowledgeable player who wants to be a coach, and has strong opinions on how things should be done. That could be a positive or a negative.
A trade involving Tinsley is possible, but I think the odds are that he'll be with the team when the season opens.
Indianapolis Star sports reporter Mark Montieth answers your questions about the Pacers.
August 25, 2003
Question: I am really glad Reggie Miller finally signed a two-year contract to finish his NBA career with the Indiana Pacers. In all of the articles I have read about it, it doesn't seem to mention how much he is getting paid. Is he getting paid a lot or not too much at all that they didn't even want to tell his very own fans? (Melody from Sheridan, Ind.)
Answer: Many people have wondered how much Miller will receive. It's interesting how salaries are of much more interest than they used to be, although with factors such as the salary cap and luxury tax threshold they are obviously critical elements in piecing together a contending team.
The Pacers never release salary information. When we report them, as we usually are able to do, they generally come from agents or other informed sources. Sometimes, but not often, the players tell us. Miller's agent, Arn Tellem, is very difficult to even get on the telephone, and probably wouldn't give out the numbers if we got him. The same is true with Miller, so exact numbers have been difficult to obtain in this instance.
We can make a reasonable estimate of Miller's salary through some logical math. The Pacers had a roster payroll of about $51.5 million before signing Miller (and second-round pick James Jones, who signed for the minimum of $366,931). That left them about $5 million to give to Miller without exceeding the projected luxury tax threshold -- although some people believe the luxury tax won't have to be paid next year.
One usually reliable source says Miller will receive $5 million next season and $5,625,000 the following season. That's unconfirmed, however. I've also heard that there is an option for a third season, but I'm not sure of that. Nor am I sure whether it's a team option or a player option if indeed there is an option.
It will take some time for the details of this contract to come out. It's clear, however, that he's taken a major pay cut from last season's salary of about $12 million.
Question: What is the deal with Danny Ferry? I have not heard one thing about him. Are the Pacers going to release him or does he possibly figure into next season in some way? With his range he could become a nice X-factor off the bench late in critical games. (Fred from Noblesville, Ind.)
Answer: I reported when the Pacers made the three-way trade that they had no intention of keeping Ferry. He's probably still capable of helping a team off the bench, but I can't see how he could earn a spot in the Pacers' rotation. The Pacers have 14 players under contract and are likely very close to the luxury tax threshold, so they would have to be very selective if they are to add another player.
Question: Great column, Mark. I look for updates every time I get online. We keep hearing about what the Pacers can't spend on players, but look at what Dallas, LA and Sacramento are spending! The truth seems to be we simply refuse to be hit with a luxury tax. I have few complaints about the Simon family, but what is their status in the league? Are they too poor, too frugal, too bottom line? It seems that unlike football, basketball in Indiana would always bring in the huge bucks if we had a champion. (Gene from Connersville, Ind.)
Answer: Thanks, Gene. The Simons, like most NBA owners, have decided not to pay the luxury tax, although it's possible they would make an exception for the right player. I don't know the details of their financial situation, but I have no reason to believe they aren't doing very well. It's more of a philosophical approach. They have rarely if ever made a profit on the Pacers from what I'm told and aren't obligated to suffer major losses.
The loss of Brad Miller marked the first time they have refused to spend to keep a key player, but the decision to let Miller go -- or trade him, actually -- was based largely on the opinion within the franchise that he simply wasn't worth his market value.
It's important to remember that the teams that have spent wildly have not been rewarded with a championship. There's more to building a team than piling on talent. It has to make sense. Dallas might have reached the Finals last season if it had stayed healthy, however, and will certainly have a shot next season.
Question: For years the Pacers have urged patience with many of their young and, quite frankly, unproductive players. Why, then, is Jamaal Tinsley on such a short leash? It appears as though they'd love to replace him as a starter. I don't get to see the team nearly as often as I'd like, but Tinsley always strikes me as a young player with a lot more upside than down. Is that wrong? And doesn't all this talk of a trade for a point guard make it harder for him to do his job well?
To me, the most glaring weakness on this team is not at point guard, but at center. Is it a lock that the starter at the 5-spot is already on the roster? (Mike from Austin, Texas)
Answer: You make an interesting point. Tinsley improved last season from his rookie season, although not as much as many people expected. Some of that has to be attributed to his mother's illness and death, although it's impossible to measure how much.
He is one of the league's best passers, and ranked third in the league in assists last season when the stats are extrapolated over 48-minute appearances. I think most of the frustration with him relates to his lack of leadership and his unwillingness to maintain a high level of conditioning throughout the season. He's going to have to mature in those areas, because he hasn't earned his teammates' respect.
I don't know how all the conjecture about his place in the lineup will affect him. Isiah Thomas believes he has a survival mentality and will respond to challenges when his back is against the metaphorical wall. It will be interesting to see what happens next season.
I wouldn't say it's a lock that the starting center is on the roster, but it's a strong likelihood. I doubt the Pacers will be able to get a better center than Scot Pollard through trade.
Question: What ever happened to Tim Hardaway? (John from Lakewood, Ohio)
Answer: It's my understanding that Hardaway wants to play, but I don't believe the Pacers have shown interest in him. They have 14 players under contract as it is. Hardaway would indeed fill a need for veteran leadership in the backcourt. I thought he was excellent in that regard. But his knee is so bad that most people doubt he could get through a season. He's the type of player now a team would be more likely to sign late in the season for a playoff drive, as the Pacers did last season.
Question: I know the Pacers do not have a lot of money, but is there any chance they could sign Mark Jackson at a low salary? He is still available as a free agent and had good chemistry with the Pacers during their championship run. I hate to think that all we have at point guard is Tinsley. Do you see a possibility of trading him away? (Pat from Indianapolis)
Answer: I doubt the Pacers would sign Jackson. He would have a difficult time accepting a contract for the minimum, although he might not have a choice if he wants to continue playing. Jackson's relationship with Larry Bird became somewhat strained during their time together, so that could be a factor.
Jackson gets along well with Isiah Thomas, but it's generally believed that Jackson would have a tough time accepting a role as a backup. He's a very knowledgeable player who wants to be a coach, and has strong opinions on how things should be done. That could be a positive or a negative.
A trade involving Tinsley is possible, but I think the odds are that he'll be with the team when the season opens.