# Should the Pacers pick up the option on Marquis Daniels?



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

I beleive the Pacers have the option to pick up the Daniels for the last year of his contract, and he has played pretty well this season. However, I think 7 million is a little too much to pay for him and they should either re-sign him for less money and if he doesnt want to let Brandon Rush get more minutes, plus Dunleavy is coming back next season so its not like they wont have enough Sg/SFs.

Meanwhile, Daniels could sign for less money with a contender and help get them to a new level or be one of the primary options on a lower level team....


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

He's too injury-prone, really. I'd say exercise it if he could play the entire season, but he's really not worth 7+ million and I'd rather give the time to younger players.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

We actually don't have plenty of SG/SFs. Dunleavy is gone till January. And thats the best case scenario, his situation could always wind up worse. If Dun was healthy i'd say let Daniels walk, but since he's not, and it is only a one year option i think we need to take it. Sure its a bit high priced but it is only one year so its not like it will hurt us long term. Plus, it would make him an expiring contract. So, it would have good tradeability for a team looking to dump $$$ for 2010. Maybe we could turn it into a decent young prospect 10 months from now.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> We actually don't have plenty of SG/SFs. Dunleavy is gone till January. And thats the best case scenario, his situation could always wind up worse. If Dun was healthy i'd say let Daniels walk, but since he's not, and it is only a one year option i think we need to take it. Sure its a bit high priced but it is only one year so its not like it will hurt us long term.


We can always sign a guy like Kareem Rush or draft someone like Gerald Henderson. We have a bunch of options, still, and I'd rather pick up someone like Rush or Henderson than give Daniels 7 mil.



> Plus, it would make him an expiring contract. So, it would have good tradeability for a team looking to dump $$$ for 2010. Maybe we could turn it into a decent young prospect 10 months from now.


Well, that's what we expected with Daniels and Rasho this year, but nothing happened, and usually, like in the case of Jamaal Tinsley, if your salary and injuries both increase, your value decreases. I don't think we'll get any more for Daniels than we would've this year, which is probably next to nothing.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> Well, that's what we expected with Daniels and Rasho this year, but nothing happened, and usually, like in the case of Jamaal Tinsley, if your salary and injuries both increase, your value decreases. I don't think we'll get any more for Daniels than we would've this year, which is probably next to nothing.


I think your missing the value of a 7mil expiring. It has very little to do with the actual on the court value of a player and everything to do with trimming the cap to get the Free Agent you want. And the 2010 crop is the biggest in years, its going to be twice as big as this coming off season.

For example, the grizzles/Kwame/Gasol deal. Do you honestly think the Griz really wanted kwame brown? Of course not. He was the largest expiring contract of the year. That was his true value. Granted that move didn't involve positioning for a Free Agent, but the principle is still basically the same.

According to last years rumors, Hinrich would have been moved for all expirings and a late round pick. I honestly would have loved Kirk on this team.

And regarding Tinsley, he will actually have some decent value in the last year of his contract. Just not before.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> I think your missing the value of a 7mil expiring. It has very little to do with the actual on the court value of a player and everything to do with trimming the cap to get the Free Agent you want.


Well, the thing is, no one wanted him this year. Who's going to this year? I mean, sure, teams are going to prepare for the 2010 free agent class, but it's not going to be as big as people are hyping it just because some players will re-sign. Most teams who want cap space are going to already have it, and others, like us, might be better letting players expire. Sure, if we can pre-arrange a deal where we trade Daniels for someone like Jamal Crawford, that'd be great, but I wouldn't want to bank an entire season of Daniels on the chance that the move can be made.



> For example, the grizzles/Kwame/Gasol deal. Do you honestly think the Griz really wanted kwame brown? Of course not. He was the largest expiring contract of the year. That was his true value. Granted that move didn't involve positioning for a Free Agent, but the principle is still basically the same.


Well, the move is great for anyone who wants to cut cap in general, whether it be to spend more or save more. In our case, we really need to save more. We can't afford to pay the luxury tax.



> According to last years rumors, Hinrich would have been moved for all expirings and a late round pick. I honestly would have loved Kirk on this team.


With Ford and Jack?


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

Pacers Fan said:


> Well, the thing is, no one wanted him this year. Who's going to this year? I mean, sure, teams are going to prepare for the 2010 free agent class, but it's not going to be as big as people are hyping it just because some players will re-sign. Most teams who want cap space are going to already have it, and others, like us, might be better letting players expire. Sure, if we can pre-arrange a deal where we trade Daniels for someone like Jamal Crawford, that'd be great, but I wouldn't want to bank an entire season of Daniels on the chance that the move can be made.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1. Maybe the best deals just didn't fit our needs at the time. Wings are significantly easier to find than Bigs. And at the time of the deadline we didn't know the true status of Dunleavy.

2. I would actually love to have jamal crawford. GS would part with him very easily, but probably not for a SG. Basically any other position would be okay. A three team deal with someone wanting to cut cost might work.

3. We are no where near the luxury tax line. last years cap was 58.8 and its expected to be go down maybe a mil or two. counting Daniels 7mil we're at 57.8 with only a draft pick worth maybe 1.5mil. Even if we resign jack i doubt we're anywhere near the luxury tax.

4. Hinrich is a hard guy to gauge. he can play both guard positions and guard SFs despite being only 6'3. He did a great job on Pierce in the playoffs. If we really want to get out and run, i think we could find a way to make him work. He's just a smart versatile ball player. Chicago had other taller players who could have been put on pierce, but they specifically chose hinrich, so i dont' buy that he's too short to be a 2 guard.

5. Is Jack even coming back?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> 1. Maybe the best deals just didn't fit our needs at the time. Wings are significantly easier to find than Bigs. And at the time of the deadline we didn't know the true status of Dunleavy.


I highly doubt we would've kept 'Quis just because we weren't certain about Dunleavy, especially if it was a deal worth taking.




> 3. We are no where near the luxury tax line. last years cap was 58.8 and its expected to be go down maybe a mil or two. counting Daniels 7mil we're at 57.8 with only a draft pick worth maybe 1.5mil. Even if we resign jack i doubt we're anywhere near the luxury tax.


Heh. We're at almost 58 mil already headed into next year. Our draft pick makes that 60. An MLE moves it to 66 and then Jack will probably command 4-5 million as well, which puts us very close to 71 million. I guess you can choose whether you want Daniels or an MLE. I'd rather have someone more likely to play over 60 games. 



> 4. Hinrich is a hard guy to gauge. he can play both guard positions and guard SFs despite being only 6'3.


He really can't guard SF's. He can try, but being 6'3", he'd be abused.



> He did a great job on Pierce in the playoffs.


For a short guy, sure, but Pierce scored on him with ease many times.



> If we really want to get out and run, i think we could find a way to make him work.


See, Jack and Ford would be better fits for a running team. They're both faster and better in the passing lanes, although Hinrich probably picks his man better.



> Chicago had other taller players who could have been put on pierce, but they specifically chose hinrich, so i dont' buy that he's too short to be a 2 guard.


John Salmons guarded Pierce much more than Hinrich did because he could actually put a hand in his face.

I think you're forgetting that we already do the same thing by playing Jack at SG. I mean, it works in spurts, but not full-time, and we'd essentially have a guard rotation of Rush/Hinrich/Jack and Ford/Jack/Hinrich, where we're always undersized unless Rush is in the game.



> 5. Is Jack even coming back?


No idea. I hope so.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

In my opinion, Pacers should let him go. Your team can move Tinsley this offseason for some band-aid replacement (Matt Carroll and Marko Jaric are examples) even if it doesn't change their salary situation, at least until Dunleavy is back.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Daniels is easily replaceable, and most definitely not worth the money.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> Daniels is easily replaceable, and most definitely not worth the money.


Yeah I totally agree. Im glad they decided not to pick up his option.


----------

