# Pacers.com: "There is no Bender/Laker trade"



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Q. According to www.hoopsworld.com: "As originally revealed by Hoopsworld.com in April, Jonathan Bender is indeed on his way to Los Angeles along with the 17th pick in the draft. In return, the Lakers will send Devean George, Slava Medvedenko and a second-round pick. Loose ends: which Laker second-rounder goes to Indy? Did the Pacers convince the Lakers to send Brian Cook instead of Medvedenko? Expect the deal within a day or two of draft day, although it may not be triggered until June 28."
> 
> Is this true and this does not sound like a good deal at all for the Pacers as both Devean George and Slava Medvedenko are both unproven talents compared to a first-round pick and Bender? (From John in Indianapolis)
> 
> ...


http://www.nba.com/pacers/news/question_050620.html

Owners deny trades all the time, but we'll find out soon enough what's real and what's not.


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

eric, why did you have to lie?


----------



## Hov (Aug 12, 2003)

Drk Element said:


> eric, why did you have to lie?


He didn't lie.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Who's to say that this isnt true? Why would the Pacers wanna discuss this on a site anyways unless it was official?


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

OMG this is Carlos Boozer all over again.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

not quite...carlos boozer was said to be here by jack haley but jack haley lied


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Brian34Cook said:


> Who's to say that this isnt true? Why would the Pacers wanna discuss this on a site anyways unless it was official?


Brian,the trade really does not make sense from the perspective of the Pacers...It never did,unless Bender is 100% damaged goods..

The financial savings over 2 years was 6.9 million,plus the amount you have to pay the #17 pick..But it really isnt even 6.9 million as they still will have to sign 2 players in year 2, if the dont resign Sasha or George.Plus,they invested all that money in Bender..

And if they are so desparate for cash,just sell the #17 pick for 3 million and keep Bender and hope he finally gets it together.It took Jermaine Oneal 6 years...

And in responce to



> Your hating has grown pathetic. Clearly this trade does have "legs". You know, no one would care if you didn't post in here again...


The trade does not have legs,and you shouldnt believe everything you read.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

SoCalfan21 said:


> not quite...carlos boozer was said to be here by jack haley but jack haley lied


Enough with the Jack Haley lied ****.. That's being talked about again :rofl:


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

SoCalfan21 said:


> not quite...carlos boozer was said to be here by jack haley but jack haley lied


Umm, OKay.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

I don't think Haley lied, he just jumped the gun without knowing 100% that the deal was complete.

Before everyone gangs up on emplay with the torches and pitchforks, lets just wait and see what happens. As someone who's graduated with a degree in Journalism I know that a reporter's information is only as good as the sources they get it from. Hopefully the sources he got this information from were trustworthy and proven to be reliable before insisting it was a done deal. But like I said before, we all know owners regularly lie about trades. Who knows, even if this deal doesn't happen there could be something better in store that we don't know about yet.


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

Locke said:


> I don't think Haley lied, he just jumped the gun without knowing 100% that the deal was complete.
> 
> Before everyone gangs up on emplay with the torches and pitchforks, lets just wait and see what happens. As someone who's graduated with a degree in Journalism I know that a reporter's information is only as good as the sources they get it from. Hopefully the sources he got this information from were trustworthy and proven to be reliable before insisting it was a done deal. But like I said before, we all know owners regularly lie about trades. Who knows, even if this deal doesn't happen there could be something better in store that we don't know about yet.


These are my two cents: 
No I will not hang emplay just yet, after all owners do lie about trades all the time. However, if this thing does not go down after he said it was a sure thing then I will not hesitate to tell him what I think. It is a writer's job to know which sources to trust.


----------



## vandyke (Jan 8, 2004)

I really don't think that anyone in their right mind actually thought that Indiana would make that trade. Did they?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Donnie Walsh is not the owner. He's the CEO and General Manager of the team.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

vandyke said:


> I really don't think that anyone in their right mind actually thought that Indiana would make that trade. Did they?


If you look on the indiana board,they werent opposed to it...

if you examine the trade closely,it really makes very little sense from indianas perspective,even financially...

And yes,every laker lover believed it was a done deal....


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

Hov said:


> He didn't lie.


lol, i know, im just playin.:redface:


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

It makes perfect sense from Indiana's financial perspective.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

GM's deny things all the time... Carlos Arroyo anyone?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> It makes perfect sense from Indiana's financial perspective.




Are you factoring in the replacement cost of george and sasha when their contracts expire???Indiana has to sign two players in year 2.If George plays well,you dont think he gets the MLE from them??And then they still have another player to sign, as it was a 2 for 1 deal..

So thats another 6-8 million right there...The proposed deal only saves them 6.9 million and the savings is on the back end.Its a wash at best.

Now,they could save money by selling the #17 pick outright for 3 million,and still have the upside of bender. :cheers:


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

truth said:


> Are you factoring in the replacement cost of george and sasha when their contracts expire???Indiana has to sign two players in year 2.If George plays well,you dont think he gets the MLE from them??And then they still have another player to sign, as it was a 2 for 1 deal..
> 
> So thats another 6-8 million right there...The proposed deal only saves them 6.9 million and the savings is on the back end.Its a wash at best.
> 
> Now,they could save money by selling the #17 pick outright for 3 million,and still have the upside of bender. :cheers:


How do you know anyone would want to pay $3M for the 17th pick? You don't, you are just assuming that. If the Pacers could do that, they might consider it, but it hasn't been brought up, so I doubt anyone has offered.

The fact is that multiple sources have confirmed talks about this trade (one of them a Pacers source) and multiple sources have confirmed that it's going down. You simply saying, "this trade is BS" is more BS than any of these rumors. You are just making up ideas in your head and saying that they are reasons why the Pacers wouldn't do this trade, when virtually all the sources are saying it will go down.

You and your speculation vs. Informed people with sources

It's no contest. You lose. If it doesn't end up happening, it doesn't end up happening. However, I don't think there is any reason to doubt that the Pacers and Lakers have talked a lot about this trade.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> How do you know anyone would want to pay $3M for the 17th pick? You don't, you are just assuming that. If the Pacers could do that, they might consider it, but it hasn't been brought up, so I doubt anyone has offered.
> 
> The fact is that multiple sources have confirmed talks about this trade (one of them a Pacers source) and multiple sources have confirmed that it's going down. You simply saying, "this trade is BS" is more BS than any of these rumors. You are just making up ideas in your head and saying that they are reasons why the Pacers wouldn't do this trade, when virtually all the sources are saying it will go down.
> 
> ...


The trade makes no sense to me,and if you thought about it,you may agree.Either that or you believe everything you read.....

Why dont you break down the trade and that should answer your question if anyone would pay 3 mil for the # 17 pick..
Think about it..The lakers are taking on 6.9 million more over a 2 year period.Are they doing it because they believe Bender is going to break out,or are they doing it for the pick?

And dont you think indiana has better insight into bender??

The deal may go down,and it may not.I guess we will have to wait so you can read it in the papers  

Use you NOODLE ,instead of quoting sources..


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

truth said:


> Are you factoring in the replacement cost of george and sasha when their contracts expire???Indiana has to sign two players in year 2.If George plays well,you dont think he gets the MLE from them??And then they still have another player to sign, as it was a 2 for 1 deal..
> 
> So thats another 6-8 million right there...The proposed deal only saves them 6.9 million and the savings is on the back end.Its a wash at best.
> 
> *Now,they could save money by selling the #17 pick outright for 3 million,and still have the upside of bender.* :cheers:


The Pacers are probably well past the infatuation with Bender's "upside." The fantasy is dead. The reality of it is he's been there for a while and has contributed nothing. It may be in their best interest to cut their losses and move on. I know us Laker fans trash George regularly but he would contribute way more then Bender ever has for them. Plus, they can trade these guys again at the deadline or just let them expire and save some money.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

truth said:


> Are you factoring in the replacement cost of george and sasha when their contracts expire???Indiana has to sign two players in year 2.If George plays well,you dont think he gets the MLE from them??And then they still have another player to sign, as it was a 2 for 1 deal..
> 
> So thats another 6-8 million right there...The proposed deal only saves them 6.9 million and the savings is on the back end.Its a wash at best.
> 
> Now,they could save money by selling the #17 pick outright for 3 million,and still have the upside of bender. :cheers:


The Pacers save ~ $13M by doing this deal, and that's fact. Accept it and move on. 



truth said:


> If you look on the indiana board,they werent opposed to it...
> 
> if you examine the trade closely,it really makes very little sense from indianas perspective,even financially...
> 
> And yes,every laker lover believed it was a done deal....


When the deal gets done, promise you won't be pissed when I bump this thread?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

EHL said:


> The Pacers save ~ $13M by doing this deal, and that's fact. Accept it and move on.
> 
> 
> 
> When the deal gets done, promise you won't be pissed when I bump this thread?


EHL,you have already proven that you are not a numbers man,as i demonstrated the first go round you threw out numbers..You are making the naive assumption that there is only one alternative.Keep bender and the pick,or trade him for the 2 stooges and a second rounder..

What do you propose the Pacers do in year 2 when the contracts of Slava and George are up.They have to resign them,let them go and replace them..That is a cost you are not factoring.I also do not know how 6.9 million in savings grows to 13 million.I know you are skewing the trade as much as possible,but you still cant add.And stop with the 4th year.Its a joke.Who holds the option in the 4th year???The team or the player??Cmon dude,if you are going to break down a transaction,know your ****..



Why dont you stop for a second and realise there are alternatives..If indiana decides bender is worth a longer look,they could simply sell the #17 pick..
So your imaginary highly skewed 13 million dollar saving is now 6.9 mil-3 mil = 3.9 mil..And the 6.9 does not include the contracts they would have to sign if they let george and slava walk...Wake up..

Are you that blinded by emotions that you lose the ability to think logically?If i were you,I would bump the thread now..You seem to have a problem with numbers..



> When the deal gets done, promise you won't be pissed when I bump this thread?


I promise I wont be pissed..Promise you wont get pissed when you go over the numbers and realise you still cant calculate a simple transaction??


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

The 17th pick have a 3-year guaranteed money of about $4.5M-$5M, not $3M.


----------



## NOODLESTYLE (Jan 20, 2005)

who the heck is Conrad Bonner? and there's a disclaimer at the top and he says they want to improve on Bender that's like the Lakers saying they want to improve on Slava and Devean George. Oh well we'll just wait and see if it goes down or not, but let's keep it quiet guys...we all know what happened with Carlos Boozer.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

truth said:


> EHL,you have already proven that you are not a numbers man,as i demonstrated the first go round you threw out numbers..You are making the naive assumption that there is only one alternative.Keep bender and the pick,or trade him for the 2 stooges and a second rounder..
> 
> What do you propose the Pacers do in year 2 when the contracts of Slava and George are up.They have to resign them,let them go and replace them..That is a cost you are not factoring.


Er, that cost is minimal. It's up to management what they want to do with the roster slots, but they could quite easily sign two players to minimum contracts, or even keep resigning them to 10 day contracts. At best it makes little difference in my $13M figure (which, by the way, you never replied to). 



> I also do not know how 6.9 million in savings grows to 13 million.I know you are skewing the trade as much as possible,but you still cant add.And stop with the 4th year.Its a joke.Who holds the option in the 4th year???The team or the player??Cmon dude,if you are going to break down a transaction,know your ****..


Yawn, take out the 4th year if you want. That's still $6.9M plus a 17th pick (3 years), which is $4.1M (going by last year's numbers). That's a savings of over $11M. Add in two minimum contracts to replace Slava and George and that's still over $10M in savings. Include the 4th year and that's $12M and change in savings. 

Get over it, it's fact. 



> Why dont you stop for a second and realise there are alternatives..If indiana decides bender is worth a longer look,they could simply sell the #17 pick..


Except they haven't sold the pick as of today, and picks are very rarely sold, because very few teams buy picks period. It's fact, get over it. 



> So your imaginary highly skewed 13 million dollar saving is now 6.9 mil-3 mil = 3.9 mil..And the 6.9 does not include the contracts they would have to sign if they let george and slava walk...Wake up..
> 
> Are you that blinded by emotions that you lose the ability to think logically?If i were you,I would bump the thread now..You seem to have a problem with numbers..
> 
> I promise I wont be pissed..Promise you wont get pissed when you go over the numbers and realise you still cant calculate a simple transaction??


LMAO. This will be a fun thread to bump.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

NOODLESTYLE said:


> who the heck is Conrad Bonner?


Brunner. He's basically the only writer for pacers.com.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

EHL said:


> Er, that cost is minimal. It's up to management what they want to do with the roster slots, but they could quite easily sign two players to minimum contracts, or even keep resigning them to 10 day contracts. At best it makes little difference in my $13M figure (which, by the way, you never replied to).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


EHL,there is nothing to get over.I think you have to get over that I actually read your rhetoric and check your numbers.And after the THIRD try,you finally got it.Sadly,Daman still cant seem to figure this out :biggrin: 

Now,I fully agree with your *NEWEST REVISED NON BIASED* set of numbers..The savings would be 11 million,if you decided to keep bender and the Pick,and pick up 2 players for the minimum.

But that is the WORST case scenario or most expensive for the pacers.There are other options which you refuse to beieve could occur.We could go over other alternatives,but giving you guys math lessons is not my idea of fun..

I think you should bump the thread now as it will save future embarrasment :cheers:


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

truth said:


> EHL,there is nothing to get over.I think you have to get over that I actually read your rhetoric and check your numbers.And after the THIRD try,you finally got it.Sadly,Daman still cant seem to figure this out :biggrin:
> 
> Now,I fully agree with your *NEWEST REVISED NON BIASED* set of numbers..The savings would be 11 million,if you decided to keep bender and the Pick,and pick up 2 players for the minimum.
> 
> ...


lets not fight


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Drk Element said:


> edit


??????????????

drk,open your mind and maybe you can learn something.......


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

truth said:


> ??????????????
> 
> drk,open your mind and maybe you can learn something.......


i know, thats why im failing.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

_EHL,there is nothing to get over.I think you have to get over that I actually read your rhetoric and check your numbers.And after the THIRD try,you finally got it.Sadly,Daman still cant seem to figure this out 

Now,I fully agree with your NEWEST REVISED NON BIASED set of numbers..The savings would be 11 million,if you decided to keep bender and the Pick,and pick up 2 players for the minimum.

But that is the WORST case scenario or most expensive for the pacers.There are other options which you refuse to beieve could occur.We could go over other alternatives,but giving you guys math lessons is not my idea of fun..

I think you should bump the thread now as it will save future embarrasment_ 

Where did this rumor originate from?


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

LoyalBull said:


> _EHL,there is nothing to get over.I think you have to get over that I actually read your rhetoric and check your numbers.And after the THIRD try,you finally got it.Sadly,Daman still cant seem to figure this out
> 
> Now,I fully agree with your NEWEST REVISED NON BIASED set of numbers..The savings would be 11 million,if you decided to keep bender and the Pick,and pick up 2 players for the minimum.
> 
> ...


i think from one of the mods from either clublakers or lakergrounds.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> Where did this rumor originate from?


it initially started under a different thread.

http://web.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=175259

It took on a life of its own,and there were believers and disbelievers.Needless to say,I was a disbeliever.My contention was that there were more attractive options,especially if you placed any value on Benders upside.

Its been a struggle,but the believers and detractors have finally agreed on the finances of the trade..i think


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

erniejohnson said:


> Umm, OKay.


ok then


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

truth said:


> EHL,there is nothing to get over.I think you have to get over that I actually read your rhetoric and check your numbers.And after the THIRD try,you finally got it.Sadly,Daman still cant seem to figure this out :biggrin:


I already had it right, albeit a few hundred thousand dollars off, here. You never responded to it, for whatever reason. 



> But that is the WORST case scenario or most expensive for the pacers.There are other options which you refuse to beieve could occur.


The only other option you have listed is selling the pick. Unfortunately, since you seem not to have studied NBA history much, you don't quite realize that it's not easy to sell a pick, especially one that low. It doesn't happen often, which is why the Pacers are talking to the Lakers about this deal in the first place. 



> I think you should bump the thread now as it will save future embarrasment :cheers:


Naw, I'll bump it on draft day.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

FYI, this original trade rumor came from an insider over at LakersGround.net. He has broken stories before (revealed Lakers were talking to Coach K weeks before anyone in the national media sniffed it, and has been saying since last February that Jackson would be hired as head coach). He originally broke the Bender trade several months ago, and Hoopsworld has now published the exact details of this trade now that they've received additional confirmation of these talks. 

All in all, it looks like the Lakers will trade Slava, George, and the 37th pick for Bender and the 17th on draft day.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

> A rumor flying around the league Monday had the Pacers and Lakers ready to consummate a trade that would send Jonathan Bender and the No. 17 pick to the Lakers for Devean George, Stanislav Medvedenko and a second-round pick.
> 
> Insider talked to Pacers president Donnie Walsh about the rumor Monday, and he quickly shot it down.
> 
> "I don't know where this stuff is coming from," Walsh told Insider. "There's absolutely no truth to it. I've never even talked to the Lakers about a trade. I asked Larry [Bird, Pacers president], and he hasn't, either."


-espn


----------



## cmd34 (Jul 17, 2002)

The trade makes sense to me but I'm curious why the Pacers GM denied it so dramatically on the team's website. He specifically said there is no such deal in place and there are no trade talks with the Lakers

When the Clippers were confronted about promising to draft the Russian kid at #12, Dunleavy pretty much said no comment. "Of course we're not going to comment; we're not going to mention anything." He's not exactly denying it.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

EHL said:


> I already had it right, albeit a few hundred thousand dollars off, here. You never responded to it, for whatever reason.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You were close,but you included the team option on the 4th year,didnt account for signing players the second year,and if I am not mistaken,I think the #17 picks guaranteed money is around 4 million.So best case scenario they save 6.9 mil + 4 mil..Thats 10.9 mil..Its not chump change but its not 14 mil ...And in reality its less...

The Nets sold their pick last year,did they not???I am just saying you cant paint the worst possible scenario(or best).There are options.

Can we please bump this..You are exausting me


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

truth said:


> it initially started under a different thread.
> 
> http://web.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=175259
> 
> ...



Uhhh...wrong. That isn't where it originated. This originated from that same guy, Eric Pincuz (emplay) in April. He is the same guy who broke the Gary Payton trade last summer. He only said it was a done deal in the thread that you just posted.

His sources have 500x more credibility than your speculation.


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Uhhh...wrong. That isn't where it originated. This originated from that same guy, Eric Pincuz (emplay) in April. He is the same guy who broke the Gary Payton trade last summer. He only said it was a done deal in the thread that you just posted.
> 
> His sources have 500x more credibility than your speculation.


truth versus Damian, who will win?


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Drk Element said:


> truth versus Damian, who will win?


I *AM* the truth! :yes:


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> I *AM* the truth! :yes:


I think it was a guy named Lionel from lakersground.net that originally broke the story and not Pincus.


----------



## Cris (Jun 18, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> I *AM* the truth! :yes:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

truth said:


> You were close,but you included the team option on the 4th year,didnt account for signing players the second year,and if I am not mistaken,I think the #17 picks guaranteed money is around 4 million.


You can include the 4th year, it isn't a big deal. Two minimum contracts is hardly any money, we're talking under $1M total. Again, a small percentage, not a big deal. 



> So best case scenario they save 6.9 mil + 4 mil..Thats 10.9 mil..Its not chump change but its not 14 mil ...And in reality its less...


No, it's over $4M actually, do the math. The Pacers still save a huge chunk of change ($11M+) without having to give up any talent whatsoever. It makes all the sense in the world for the Pacers to do it, it's a no-brainer.



> The Nets sold their pick last year,did they not???I am just saying you cant paint the worst possible scenario(or best).There are options.


It doesn't happen often, and that's just fact. It really is. 



> Can we please bump this..You are exausting me


Draft day.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

erniejohnson said:


> I think it was a guy named Lionel from lakersground.net that originally broke the story and not Pincus.


Correct. Since then, Eric Pincus of Hoopsworld has confirmed it's validity based on his numerous other sources.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Drk Element said:


> truth versus Damian, who will win?


Damian will win the "who started the post"...

i will own him as far as the breakdown of the trade which has no legs


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

> No, it's over $4M actually, do the math. The Pacers still save a huge chunk of change ($11M+) without having to give up any talent whatsoever. It makes all the sense in the world for the Pacers to do it, it's a no-brainer.


#17 $1,058,400 $1,137,800 $1,217,200 53.6% 41.2%

OK...this is what the # 17 pick got in 2004-2005

The first 3 guaranteed years adds up to *$3,413,400....*
Adding that to the 6.9 mil would save you 10.3 mil,best case scenario..

That is it,It is NOT over 4 mil,unless you include the team option at a 53.6% premium.And EHL,you should be comparing apples to apples.If you are talking about the savings vs retaining Bender,you should not be looking at the 3rd year,even though it is guaranteed.He has 2 years left on his contract so you should look at the benefit /cost analysis for that equal duration.If you bring in the 3rd year,you need to add compensating salaries on the other side,which you lowball and place minimum salaries to.

Your numbers are still not correct unless you are assuming a 17% increase in comp for the upcoming season.I doubt that.

EHL,I know understand your argument,but it is not correct the way you are approaching it.I structure contracts and deals professionally and I can only say you are off a bit in the way you approach it.

If we really wanted to do it correctly using your approach,we should present value the cash flows as well as make some assumptions as to the replacement/resigning cost of george and slava.And the further in duration you go,the more the variables become less "predictable"..

I understand where you are going with this.My point is,depending on what "intrinsic" value you place on "bender",there may be a much better trade/non trade scenario that the deal that is proposed... :cheers:


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

truth said:


> #17 $1,058,400 $1,137,800 $1,217,200 53.6% 41.2%
> 
> OK...this is what the # 17 pick got in 2004-2005
> 
> ...


The 17th pick in the 2004 draft was Josh Smith. Per Hoopshype, he made $1,270,080 his first season (2004-2005), will make $1,365,360 next year (2005-2006), and in his 3rd year will make $1,460,640 (2006-2007). That's $4.096M, or about $4.1M as I originally said. Not $3.413M, I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from. 




> That is it,It is NOT over 4 mil,unless you include the team option at a 53.6% premium.


Where are you getting your info from? FYI, the newly agreed upon CBA has no effect on this year's draft, it doesn't go into effect until July 1, a couple days after the June 28th draft.



> And EHL,you should be comparing apples to apples.If you are talking about the savings vs retaining Bender,you should not be looking at the 3rd year,even though it is guaranteed.He has 2 years left on his contract so you should look at the benefit /cost analysis for that equal duration.If you bring in the 3rd year,you need to add compensating salaries on the other side,which you lowball and place minimum salaries to.


Say again?



> Your numbers are still not correct unless you are assuming a 17% increase in comp for the upcoming season.I doubt that.


What?



> EHL,I know understand your argument,but it is not correct the way you are approaching it.I structure contracts and deals professionally and I can only say you are off a bit in the way you approach it.


I'm not sure, specifically, what you mean. But even if that were the case, the point still remains that the Pacers save tons of money by making a deal that costs them absolutely no talent. It's a no-brainer. 



> If we really wanted to do it correctly using your approach,we should present value the cash flows as well as make some assumptions as to the replacement/resigning cost of george and slava.


George and Slava expire this year. It's up to them if they want to retain them. But if they're cost conscious like I'm guessing they are given how large their salaries will be once Tinsley's new extension is on the books, I bet they probably replace both of them with minimum contract players, which is very little money, even spread out over a few seasons. In fact, aren't they taking back one additional player they don't need, meaning they can drop a player? Actually, I think they changed that in the newly constructed CBA, from 12-man rosters to 14-man? That would change my previous estimates a bit. 

Though still, the point remains that the Pacers want to do everything possible to get out from under Bender's contract. It's just damn ugly considering how little he does for that team. 



> And the further in duration you go,the more the variables become less "predictable"..


There are all sorts of variables, sure. But all I'm doing is listing the most likely variables, just like I'm sure the Pacers are doing. 



> I understand where you are going with this.My point is,depending on what "intrinsic" value you place on "bender",there may be a much better trade/non trade scenario that the deal that is proposed... :cheers:


There may be, but I fail to see what other options are available that would make you believe the Pacers can get a better deal somewhere else other than the Lakers and that this deal isn't likely to go down as a result.


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

Posted by emplay over at LG



> Actually re-read the article on the Pacer site.
> 
> Anyone notice the following:
> 
> ...


This was the same guy who said he wouldn't trade Jalen Rose 2 days before he did.

Guess we'll see on draft day.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

EHL said:


> Though still, the point remains that the Pacers want to do everything possible to get out from under Bender's contract. It's just damn ugly considering how little he does for that team.


Not to mention, even if we don't save any money, just getting him off the roster is a good thing. Some of the Pacers' best players have attitude problems and I think getting rid of Bender would send the right message. If you're not helping the team, your *** is getting shipped out of town.

Bender is a useless player and the Pacers' investment in him has possibly cost us multiple championships. We traded an All-Star for him in Antonio Davis and let another All-Star in Brad Miller walk, because Bender's contract was too expensive. Time to get this bum off the roster so he doesn't hurt us any more than he already has.

When he finally gets traded, I'm going to celebrate by running around my apartment yelling and screaming, and then I'll go out to lunch.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

i think it will go down still


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

RP McMurphy said:


> When he finally gets traded, I'm going to celebrate by running around my apartment yelling and screaming, and then I'll go out to lunch.


:laugh: That's what I did when the Lakers let Mark Madsen walk, and what I'll do again when Chucky Atkins and Brian Grant are traded.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

I wonder if the Lakers actually have any interest in Bender, or if they are just making the deal for the draft pick.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

RP McMurphy said:


> Not to mention, even if we don't save any money, just getting him off the roster is a good thing. Some of the Pacers' best players have attitude problems and I think getting rid of Bender would send the right message. If you're not helping the team, your *** is getting shipped out of town.
> 
> Bender is a useless player and the Pacers' investment in him has possibly cost us multiple championships. We traded an All-Star for him in Antonio Davis and let another All-Star in Brad Miller walk, because Bender's contract was too expensive. Time to get this bum off the roster so he doesn't hurt us any more than he already has.
> 
> When he finally gets traded, I'm going to celebrate by running around my apartment yelling and screaming, and then I'll go out to lunch.


I feel the same way about certain bums on the Laker roster. Funny stuff. :laugh:


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

Laker Freak said:


> I wonder if the Lakers actually have any interest in Bender, or if they are just making the deal for the draft pick.


They better have interest in Bender....If I play devils advocate and follow EHL's numbers,you are paying over 11 mil for the #17 pick..

For the lakers to pull the trigger on this deal,they must think Bender has plenty of game left.Otherwise it is a verrrrrry questionable move


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

clien said:


> i think it will go down still



So does Balance, a new insider @ LG. His information can be confirmed as the same info that emplay got regarding thsi trade:

http://forums.lakersground.net/viewtopic.php?t=2695&start=0

*I may be the least credible source to report this but 
according to a Laker staff that I play basketball 
with on the weekends, the Bender deal is on.* Indiana 
is low on Bender and his salary and view him as a bust. 
Indiana would take George (whom they like for his defense and 
gives them flexibility to move Jackson to the 2), Slava (they view 
him as an offensive threat off the bench), and the 37th pick. The Lakers would get Bender and the 17th pick. The trade, however, will not be cosummated until after the draft. Indiana will pick #17 for LA most 
likely Vasquez, Bynum, Diogu in this order *basically whoemever is available*. Mitch is high on Bynum while Jackson prefers Vasquez and Diogu (P Jax is apparently high on Diogu's smarts, agrresiveness, and ability to contribute immediately). This trade we could at least count on while other trades are more dependent on being able to pick specific players and therefore not as likely. According to my buddy, Mitch was given the green light on moving anyone except Kobe and Lamar. Mitch is working the phones and apparently is counsulting with P Jax on all 
moves. This was part of the 'agreement' that Phil would take the job. P Jax likes Butler but feels that he can be replaced by a veteran swingmen hungry to win (in other words Butler is trade bait to get other quality players via the draft or through trades. Also, the Lakers are eyeing defensive minded guards who can handle the ball and shoot with their MLE. Somehow, they believe that they can trade for a serviceable big. 
More to come this weekend. I'll be seeing my buddy on Saturday, he'll have more to say as the draft approaches.


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

_The Lakers would get Bender and the 17th pick. The trade, however, will not be cosummated until after the draft. Indiana will pick #17 for LA most 
likely Vasquez, Bynum, Diogu in this order *basically whoemever is available*. Mitch is high on Bynum while Jackson prefers Vasquez and Diogu (P Jax is apparently high on Diogu's smarts, agrresiveness, and ability to contribute immediately). Vasquez, Bynum, Diogu_

Man I hope we end up with Diogu. 

If we land the #3 and take D. Williams, then Diogu via Indiana, we will have our PG and PF of the future AND the can contribute right away.


----------



## U reach. I teach (May 24, 2003)

truth said:


> They better have interest in Bender....If I play devils advocate and follow EHL's numbers,you are paying over 11 mil for the #17 pick..
> 
> For the lakers to pull the trigger on this deal,they must think Bender has plenty of game left.Otherwise it is a verrrrrry questionable move


so now it's the lakers that shouldn't make this move?
J/K

I'm sure the Lakers are at least a little optimistic, but I doubt they're counting on his contributions. Also, Benders contract is up the same year as Brian Grant's, both valuable trade peices at the deadline.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

U reach said:


> so now it's the lakers that shouldn't make this move?
> J/K
> 
> I'm sure the Lakers are at least a little optimistic, but I doubt they're counting on his contributions. Also, Benders contract is up the same year as Brian Grant's, both valuable trade peices at the deadline.


Oh no you dont

I said following EHL's biased logic(not mine) from the laker perspective,you better believe bender has value..What really confuses me after hearing Kupchak say that there are no impact players 10-20,WTF would you even think about that trade??if my math serves me correctly,17 falls inbetween 10 and 20.Check out Daman Necs post


----------

