1. Welcome to Georgia Tech Swarm! JOIN US and be a part of the SWARM! GO JACKETS! THWg!

Why Pastner is likely to be here at least 5 years

Discussion in 'Georgia Tech Basketball' started by RamblinRed, Apr 28, 2019.

  1. RamblinRed

    RamblinRed Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    3,236
    This seems to come up in threads alot so I thought I would explain why it is extremely unlikely Pastner would be fired before year 5.

    First, you have to think like an AD, not a fan. An AD's most important job is running the AA and managing its budget. Wins and losses are a part of that, but mainly the AD wants to make sure the budget isn't running in the red. So a big part of the question becomes, can I fire this coach and hire a new coach and my budget doesn't get blown out of the water. Often the answer is no. That is why Danny Manning and Jim Christian were both retained for a 6th year even though their records are significantly worse than Pastner's both overall and in the ACC.

    Second, they have to weigh whether making the change has an outcome that is likely better than if they do not make a change. This is also a case where the answer is often no and this is related to how attractive your job is and how much money you have to spend. If you are going to have to pay a big buyout where you won't have funds to pay a new coach, then you are likely to end up with a coach that is the same or worse than what you have. Even if you do have money is your position attractive enough to get your first choice. VT is a good example of this. Buzz jumps to A&M, so VT does not have to pay a buyout. They reportedly missed on their top 2 targets and ultimately hired Mike Young from Wofford. While Young is considered a very good mid major coach, keep in mind he has never worked at a power conference school in his career spending the last 30 years at Wofford as an asst and HC. Also, he went from making less than $200K at Wofford to getting $2M his first year at VT (more than Pastner will make at GT next season) and has a 6 years contract that avg $2.5M per yr.

    Ultimately the decision usually comes down to money which is also why Pastner is likely to be at GT for 5 years with a decision made after that season.
    His initial contract was for 6 years starting at $1.6M and topping off at $2.2M in yr 6. The buyout was 100% guaranteed for the first 3 yrs, 75% in years 4 and 5 and 60% in year 6.
    After his first year which wildly exceeded expectations TStan made modifications to the contract.
    A 7th yr was added at $2.4M. A $500K retention bonus was added after year 5 and the buyout was pushed a year so the contract is 100% guaranteed though yr 4, dropping to 75% in yrs 5 and 6 and 60% in yr 7. One note about these changes. None of them increased Pastner's salary in the short term and all of the changes basically go into effect after Hewitt's buyout is off the books. His Salary for the rest of his contract is

    Yr 4 - $1.9M

    Yr 5 - $2.0M

    Yr 6 - $2.2M

    Yr 7 - $2.4M


    one other important item that comes into play. GT AA has a "rainy day' fund. As of last fall it reportedly had about $6M in it. Helpful if you want to pay a buyout. That fund was raided to pay for the new coaching staff and now reportedly has $1M left in it, greatly impacting the ability to make coaching changes in the short term.


    Finally lets look at how Pastner's contract affects when to make a decision.

    If you decide to replace Pastner after year 4, he would be owed 100% of his remaining contract or $6.6M. That is a big hit and would likely significantly impact how much money you have to hire a new coach causing you to go the "inexpensive" route again. Keep in mind right now Pastner is the second lowest paid coach in the ACC with only Jim Christian being paid less (In that sense I guess he has outperformed his salary). If you want to hire a 'better' coach you need to be thinking of offering $3M+ per year avg to have a shot at that.

    If he is here at the end of season 5 - the buyout would drop to $3.45M. If you retain him he is owed a $500K retention bonus and he has only 2 yrs left on his contract likely meaning a fire or extend decision needs to be made. By waiting until year 5 to make a decision the AD is effectively saving the AA over $1M (not including the $500K he would not pay out) and also allowing the rainy day fund to be replenished some.


    All these reasons are why imo Pastner will be here through year 5 and then a decision will be made after the end of Yr 5.
     
  2. TheSilasSonRising

    TheSilasSonRising Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,907
    Absolutely.

    Besides - CJP will turn this thing into something very good. He needs to make the one great first sale.
     
    Bogey404 and New Old Guy like this.
  3. YlJacket

    YlJacket Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,793
    The only "con" to that logic is if GT fans essentially fire CJP as they did Gailey and not show up for games. We were second lowest in the ACC last year at 5,671 per game - just above BC. And I don't know if that was tickets sold or buts in the seats. But with a capacity of only 8,600 that is already pretty bad. If we play better as we have the capability to do then we should be above this number and this becomes background noise. If we come out of the box playing poorly and this number goes down into the 4,000s or so then I don't know how Todd reacts. On the one hand he will have all the issues laid out by Red - especially the rainy day fund - and on the other side he will have a major drain on his budget from BB attendance.

    At that point he will have to either ride it out and hope for increased revenue from the ACC Network or hopefully find that FB revenue is up enough to muddle through - or go really cheap with a new hire. Or possibly find a pocket(s) deep enough to pay it out but that is unlikely IMHO. No good choices in reality.

    My personal expectation is that we do improve our play enough to get that attendance number into the 6,000s per game and we get through to year 5. However, even on this board of more intense fans, there are posts about giving up season tickets for next year. I can only imagine it is more widespread with the casual fans. IMHO this is the only risk to CJP going the full 5 years and Todd may already be steeled to go distance regardless of attendance.
     
  4. GTNavyNuke

    GTNavyNuke Helluva Engineer Featured Member

    Messages:
    6,679
    Nice post Josh (tic).

    I like Pastner a lot and give him a bye last year from the bogus legal problems. I'd give him another two years.

    The fan support is concerning, but win and they will come.
     
  5. slugboy

    slugboy Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    You don’t even have to win a lot to attract fans—just play good exciting ball. Playing good, exciting, WINNING ball is better.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     
  6. orientalnc

    orientalnc Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,168
    I actually do not think Pastner has done a bad job. Clearly, I wish we had done better the past two years, so my expectations and wishes were clearly not perfectly aligned.

    He over-achieved the first year and set expectations for years two and three higher than the talent on hand should have warranted. In 2017-18, Lammers played injured most of the ACC schedule. Alvarado and CGB both missed a bunch of games due to injuries. Okogie and Jackson were suspended for six and three games respectively. We played inconsistently and our season ended on a rather down note when Josh unexpectedly declared for the NBA draft. Last year I think Josh actually did a better job than the did the first year. Our guys played competitively most of the season against a very strong ACC schedule. Jose, Devoe and Moses all improved a bunch and we were actually a decent middle of the conference team at the end. Granted, the ND game in the tournament was a disappointment, but, overall, the season went about as I predicted.

    Next season we return eight of the 12 scholarship players we had this past season. None of the four we lost were a factor in the final games of the season when we began to come together as a team. I think we have the nucleus of a pretty good ACC team for 2019-20. Assuming the waiver for Parham is granted, we have eight guys who can give us quality minutes. And only one of them will be a senior. And, right now, none of the underclassmen look likely to declare for the NBA at the end of the season.

    This is a critical season for Pastner. He has the makings of a pretty good team. If he cannot bring in a recruiting class next year that enables GT to take the next step into the top half of the conference, maybe that five year mark will be the end. But I did not expect much more than what we have seen so far.
     
  7. Backstreetbuzz

    Backstreetbuzz Ramblin' Wreck

    Messages:
    132
    I also think CJP has a chance to turn it around. He has had incredibly bad luck the past two years. Yes, some of it was his own making, but much was just horrible luck from injuries, to unexpected loss of Okogie, to recruits having coaching cousins, to bonehead moves by his staff. I think he can coach, however, I am not sold on his recruiting staff.
     
  8. yjfan

    yjfan Georgia Tech Fan

    Messages:
    20
    Agree not sure how likable and relatable his assistants are to recruits
     
  9. Peacone36

    Peacone36 ACCBasketballReport.com Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    8,847
    Next season is **** or get off the pot for me. You should be getting the tournament with this roster if everyone gets their waivers.
     
    TaxJacket, Wrecked, Jacketman and 2 others like this.
  10. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,157
    We have only won more than half our ACC games 3 times in 30 years and you need that to get into NCAAT. You think next year we’ll pull that off?
     
  11. mstranahan

    mstranahan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,195
    Looking at our conference opponents, I can see us winning 6 or 7 home games and going 10-10 overall in ACC. Will need to play well and up to our potential, but that should get us into the dance, especially if we can beat Arkansas and Big10 opponent. The ACC will be down next year relative to this past year and we will have an opportunity to move up
     
  12. Peacone36

    Peacone36 ACCBasketballReport.com Contributing Writer

    Messages:
    8,847
    Next year is going to be a pretty down year for the ACC. Clemson, VT, BC, Wake will all be really bad. There is a chance Syracuse is kinda bad as well. Pitt? Eh. I expect Notre Dame to be better but they need the kiddos to grow up. If Nwora leaves Louisville will be young and not great. FSU loses a ton. UVA lost two tons

    Long story long, yeah... we should quite honestly
     
    sidewalkGTfan likes this.
  13. LibertyTurns

    LibertyTurns Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,157
    You guys are going to get me looking forward to basketball season again.
     
  14. orientalnc

    orientalnc Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    4,168
    I do not care what the other teams are doing. We need to show some qualitative improvement next year. The pieces are in place and CJP needs to play the effectively.
     
  15. YlJacket

    YlJacket Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,793
    I'll take ACC wins however we get them. Us improving or them going through the floor. At the most basic level I am tired of being 10th in the league with little hope of moving up. If it takes the ACC going totally suck *** I am all in.
     
    sidewalkGTfan likes this.
  16. sidewalkGTfan

    sidewalkGTfan Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,138
    QFT...assuming everybody gets to play and they stay healthy, no reason to not get in the big dance next season.
     
  17. YlJacket

    YlJacket Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,793
    I will say if he doesn't make a major move next year, that 5th year will be a real PIA.
     
    Peacone36 likes this.
  18. lv20gt

    lv20gt Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    2,271
    Beyond the money, the timetable was always 5 years barring a complete bottoming out. The reason was because of the state of the roster at the time of the coaching hire. We were returning 7 players (8 if you count Jorgenson who would give up basketball before the new year) none of whom were even consistent role players the previous year. On top of that the only PG we had was Heath who wasn't an ACC level PG. While it is true that a very high level recruiting class can turn around a program quicker, there was no real reason to think we were going to land those types of classes regardless of who we hired. Our path to rebuilding was always to develop a solid core of experienced players and augment that with either high profile transfers, or instant impact recruits.

    However, look at the roster inherited. Lammers, Q, and Jackson were the only potential looking ACC level players, and they were all juniors and seniors. Turns out Gueye joined that group through development, but barring an insane transition class, it was a complete rebuilt. Unless we wanted to go heavy in the transfer department, it was always going to be year 4, when the new coach's first class were juniors, that we were first likely to see a well put together roster, and so it would be year 5 that we would be likely able to look towards adding instant impact pieces to take an already solid foundation over the top.

    Going forward, right now it looks like we will have the following going into year 5 by position.

    PG - Jose (Sr), Parham (Sr)
    SG - Devoe (Jr) Price (Soph)
    SF - Usher (Sr) Moore (Jr) Sjolund (JR)
    PF - Wright (Sr) Cole (Sr)
    C - ???

    Right now we have two spots open for next year, and ideally we would bring in perhaps a recruit big for the future, and a grad transfer big for immediate depth. In terms of additions for year 5, that would be a good opportunity to basically tell the best C in the class he can step in, start right away, and still have a good supporting cast around him. The issue is as it stands we already have 5 seniors in that class, and adding a one and done would kill class balance, force us to go to transfers to try and correct it, and probably see a step back.
     
  19. GTHomer

    GTHomer Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    622
    While your projected 2021-2022 lineup looks strong to us as fans, I wonder how that will be perceived by 2021 recruits. By that I mean, with the exception of the center position, I don't see many opportunities for immediate minutes as we will have 2-4 year starters in the other positions.

    Many higher rated recruits will want to sign with programs where they play right away and not redshirt. They may be willing to 'sit' for the bluebloods because of their track record in getting to the Big Dance however I'm not sure if they would want to wait their turn for a program like ours. It will be interesting to see how the recruiting goes for the 2021 class. OTOH, it could set up for a strong 2022 recruiting class, especially if we have continued success, given at least 5 openings by that time.
     
  20. YlJacket

    YlJacket Helluva Engineer

    Messages:
    1,793
    At the present, I don't think any really high end recruits at pretty much any position are going to be scared off by lack of minutes. I hope that changes over the course of the next year but right now I don't think that is the issue. I just don't think they are either interested in the program, or as suggested feel that the rewards we are offering (or not) are up to their standard.

    We are transitioning to the legit but not high end recruits are going to have to be patient and wait their turn. Especially the project types who we have thrown on the court before they were ready until now.

    I think interest by both of these groups is going to be highly correlated to how well we do this year as it is going to indicate stability in the coaching staff or a really hot seat.
     
    GTRX7 likes this.

Share This Page