PDA

View Full Version : If the Pacers want to trade Ron, this next year is a good time for them to try.



Hicks
03-11-2005, 11:30 AM
Reason? Scot Pollard. We finally have a last-year (and of decent size) contract to use as a bargaining chip in a trade. When used creatively, a backup C with an expiring contract can net you Carlos Arroyo. So, with that in mind, I think Scot's contract combined with Ron Artest makes Ron more tradable because right now those expiring deals are attractive to just about anybody.

Plus, adding Scot's contract to Ron's makes the sum total equal to that of players that approach Ron's actual playing talent. That's if anyone would feel like giving that up for Ron.

If Ron's going to be traded, between mid summer and the trading deadline's probably the best window of opportunity for the Pacers to do it.

Kegboy
03-11-2005, 11:32 AM
Sorry Hicks, but...

Did anybody else just hear the Mr. Obvious jingle from Bob & Tom in their head?

:innocent:

Hicks
03-11-2005, 11:34 AM
Some of you knew this already, but not everyone did. I wanted to sum it up.

Harddrive7
03-11-2005, 11:34 AM
Sorry Hicks, but...

Did anybody else just hear the Mr. Obvious jingle from Bob & Tom in their head?

:innocent:


:laugh:

Hicks
03-11-2005, 11:39 AM
:tongue:

:)

The other point of this thread was for the rest of you *stares at Kegboy* to dig up people who have a contract equal to Ron + Scot, so we could look at the possibilities.

ChicagoJ
03-11-2005, 11:46 AM
Or even Ron + Scot + Jeff/Fred (guys with decent contracts and are 'in-demand' throughout the league.)

I see a three-for-two deal or four-for-two type of deal.

JOneal7
03-11-2005, 11:54 AM
yea lets ship ron to detroit....

sixthman
03-11-2005, 11:55 AM
I see a three-for-two deal or four-for-two type of deal.

Since we already have 16 guys, including a first round pick, with hopes of a contract with the Pacers next year, it certainly won't be the other way around. ;)

blanket
03-11-2005, 12:40 PM
Despite the ribbing from others, I think it's a good observation, Hicks.

My only concern is how a new CBA might affect things. For example, if they get rid of the Luxury Tax, teams might not feel like they have to keep payroll as low as they do now, and so the value of trading for expiring contracts might not be as high.

But good point for discussion, either way.

naptownmenace
03-11-2005, 12:56 PM
The only player (realistically), I'd be willing to trade Artest for as of right now is Shawn Marion.

Shawn's an underrated defender, he is athletic, a great rebounder, and a good shooter with 3pt range. He also doesn't have a problem sharing the ball with his fellow teammates (all stars).

Talent-wise, Phoenix might have the more talented player in Artest but chemistry-wise, I think the Pacers would get the better end of the deal.

Ragnar
03-11-2005, 12:58 PM
I would rather just keep him. I know I will be in the minority on this one but he is just too talented and I dont think we will be seeing anything anywhere near like we saw in Detroit. He lost a lot of money and he realized how much he wanted to play the game (not to mention his record label flopped)

blanket
03-11-2005, 01:03 PM
The only player (realistically), I'd be willing to trade Artest for as of right now is Shawn Marion.

Shawn's an underrated defender, he is athletic, a great rebounder, and a good shooter with 3pt range. He also doesn't have a problem sharing the ball with his fellow teammates (all stars).

Talent-wise, Phoenix might have the more talented player in Artest but chemistry-wise, I think the Pacers would get the better end of the deal.


I agree completely. He's the one guy I've had my eye on, too. I just don't know if Phoenix would mess with the team chemistry they have right now. Plus, Marion has a max contract, which is a little scary.

But... an Artest/Pollard for Marion trade works, per RealGM...

Unclebuck
03-11-2005, 01:07 PM
Ron Artest is a top ten player in the NBA. If I were running a franchise I would never trade a top ten player. Look back through hisotry and tell me when a team benefittd from trading a top ten player.

I realize this is an extreme example. But how have the Magic and Lakers fared when Shaq was traded.

How did the Sixers fare after Barkley as traded.

Kidd was traded twice and it took the suns several seasons to recovery, as it did the mavs. Although in all fairness the mavs were horrible when Kid was there.

McGrady - Yes the Magic are better than they were last season. But does anyone really believe the Mgic would not be better right now if they stil had T-Mac to go along with a healthy Grant, and their new rookie.

Hicks
03-11-2005, 01:08 PM
For the sake of discussion in this thread, assume the Pacers have made up their mind and they don't want Ron. Keeping him is no longer an option in this scenario.

Ragnar
03-11-2005, 01:08 PM
Phoenix is not trading Shawn Marion. Plus we had our chance on that we blew it on Bender.

Suaveness
03-11-2005, 01:10 PM
I'd like to keep him here, and not trade him.

PacerMan
03-11-2005, 01:11 PM
I would rather just keep him. I know I will be in the minority on this one but he is just too talented and I dont think we will be seeing anything anywhere near like we saw in Detroit. He lost a lot of money and he realized how much he wanted to play the game (not to mention his record label flopped)

That's all true, BUT, the fans and media will be on him like nothing you've ever seen. Every drunk idiot in the world is going to want to be the guy that pushes him over the edge. Again.
It will brutal and I'm not sure anyone could withstand it. Certain Ron Artest won't.
Get something in return.

PacerMan
03-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Ron Artest is a top ten player in the NBA. If I were running a franchise I would never trade a top ten player. Look back through hisotry and tell me when a team benefittd from trading a top ten player.

I realize this is an extreme example. But how have the Magic and Lakers fared when Shaq was traded.

How did the Sixers fare after Barkley as traded.

Kidd was traded twice and it took the suns several seasons to recovery, as it did the mavs. Although in all fairness the mavs were horrible when Kid was there.

McGrady - Yes the Magic are better than they were last season. But does anyone really believe the Mgic would not be better right now if they stil had T-Mac to go along with a healthy Grant, and their new rookie.


You're trading him because he's a loose cannon that has destroyed his own team.
Not because you want different talent.
Whole nuther thing.

Hicks
03-11-2005, 01:13 PM
I'd like to keep him here, and not trade him.


For the sake of discussion in this thread, assume the Pacers have made up their mind and they don't want Ron. Keeping him is no longer an option in this scenario.

:censored:

Ragnar
03-11-2005, 01:20 PM
Ok Assuming they are trading him. I want a self motivated good player in return. Self motivated ends any idea of Paul Pierce because it is clear he needs someone to keep him going. It would need to be a three and you can forget about Lebron because there is no way in hell Cleveland would trade him for our entire team. Its not that he is so much better its that he puts buts in seats and provides hope.

We could probably get Mello because it seems like he is just not fitting in as well in Denver but I am not sure he would play anywhere near the D that Ron does. Unless we are getting Ron Artest in return I pretty much cant think of another 3 I would want over Ron.

Old as Dirt
03-11-2005, 01:20 PM
My 1 cent: The pacer will not trade Ron, unless he has another break down, then I would say good bye. I think they will give hime the chace to show he has grown up and can control his temper.

efx
03-11-2005, 01:58 PM
I'd say the last incident qualifies as a "last straw" as much as anything.
I think Artest is a unique talent. There's no player out there who can defend for an entire game out there and also provide a sizable chunk of the scoring on offense.

However, you can get a different type of player that through his individual greatness can overall be as much of a boon to the team as Artest.

Someone like Marion qualifies as that, as does Ray Allen (who I've always admired and wanted on the Pacers).

I don't believe that trading Artest means that we'll can't win a championship and I don't think that the team that would get him in a trade wouldn't automatically win the title either.

Hicks
03-11-2005, 02:24 PM
My 1 cent: The pacer will not trade Ron, unless he has another break down, then I would say good bye. I think they will give hime the chace to show he has grown up and can control his temper.


For the sake of discussion in this thread, assume the Pacers have made up their mind and they don't want Ron. Keeping him is no longer an option in this scenario.

:banghead:

Los Angeles
03-11-2005, 02:26 PM
I'd say the last incident qualifies as a "last straw" as much as anything.
I think Artest is a unique talent. There's no player out there who can defend for an entire game out there and also provide a sizable chunk of the scoring on offense.

However, you can get a different type of player that through his individual greatness can overall be as much of a boon to the team as Artest.

Someone like Marion qualifies as that, as does Ray Allen (who I've always admired and wanted on the Pacers).

I don't believe that trading Artest means that we'll can't win a championship and I don't think that the team that would get him in a trade wouldn't automatically win the title either.
Last straw that broke the camel's back or last 500 pound anvil? ;)

Anyway, I' don't think this thread was created to debate wether or not the P's WILL pull the trigger, I think it was created to show that we have a couple of good cards to play this season unlike other recent seasons.

What player would I want right now? Anybody with a pulse, a good shot, decent defense, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY a guy who shows up, shuts his mouth, and does his job, night in, night out. Season in, season out. NO free rides.

The Pacers are still hoping that this describes Ron next year.

I think that's like hoping your girlfriend will stop cheating on you. "But she promised she'd be better after the last time." Once trust between teammates is gone, it doesn't get repaired that easily.

SO YES - a Ron/Pollard combo deal is a good idea, but who do you want? we will need a small forward in return, or a BIG guy (in either talent or actuall size).

Who has alot of big contracts? Who has management crazy enough to try Ron out? Let's do a quick run-down:

New York - pick a guy, but know that whoever you get doesn't match in talent, this is where you go to just flat-out dump Ron.

New Jersey - Carter and Kidd both match this deal.

LA Lakers - Odom perhaps?

Dallas - don't throw a cup at me

Sacto - Ditto

Thoughts?

Hicks
03-11-2005, 02:28 PM
Perhaps a change in style. Perhaps Seattle would 'pull a Brad Miller' and sign-and-trade Ray Allen for Ron and Scot? I'm not predicting that, but it's an idea.

Come to think of it, same goes for Milwaukee and Michael Redd. Again, not making a prediction.

Los Angeles
03-11-2005, 02:37 PM
Perhaps a change in style. Perhaps Seattle would 'pull a Brad Miller' and sign-and-trade Ray Allen for Ron and Scot? I'm not predicting that, but it's an idea.

Come to think of it, same goes for Milwaukee and Michael Redd. Again, not making a prediction.
The problem here is this: To do a sign and trade like the Brad Miller deal, you need the blessing of the player and his agent. Neither of these guys have said anything publicly about Indiana. They'll want a coat-tail deal like Brad thought he was getting with the Kings. They want a shot at it all, and a .500 team in turmoil that can fill an entire infirmary with injured players just doesn't pull that much of a draw.

If there is a sign-and-trade, look for these players to go to "teams of the future" like the Cavs, Wizards, Heat, Suns, etc, etc. last year, Indiana was on that list. They no longer are.

canyoufeelit
03-11-2005, 03:43 PM
Unclebuck, you said that he's a top ten player. Well, if that is the case, then he is #10. He's not Kobe, he's not Shaq, he's not Duncan, he's not KG, he's not T-Mac, he's not LeBron James. What he is is completely tradable for a max player with respectable talent.

Unclebuck
03-11-2005, 03:55 PM
Unclebuck, you said that he's a top ten player. Well, if that is the case, then he is #10. He's not Kobe, he's not Shaq, he's not Duncan, he's not KG, he's not T-Mac, he's not LeBron James. What he is is completely tradable for a max player with respectable talent.



You only listed 6 players. Seems you have Artest at number 7. I go along with that.

I never said that Artest has top ten trade value which is another strong argument not to trade him.


I need to apologize to Hicks, just re-read the thread title and realized I did not anwer the question. Although for the record i was not the first one to stray

Kegboy
03-11-2005, 04:40 PM
:tongue:

:)

The other point of this thread was for the rest of you *stares at Kegboy* to dig up people who have a contract equal to Ron + Scot, so we could look at the possibilities.

Yes, because it's so much fun to have thousands of trade threads two weeks after the trading deadline.

Kegboy
03-11-2005, 04:42 PM
:banghead:

:lol2:

Hicks
03-11-2005, 04:43 PM
Yes, because it's so much fun to have thousands of trade threads two weeks after the trading deadline.

I've made one thread. I haven't seen another in a while.

Will Galen
03-11-2005, 05:10 PM
The only way Ron will be traded is for a player in the collage draft.

Bird isn't going to trade Ron Artest . . . unless he gets what he thinks is relative equal value for him. Since he thinks Ron is a top ten player I don't see that happening. However, if Bird becomes enameled with someone in the collage draft he might trade Ron for that guy and another player.

In my opinion it makes more sense to look at trade possibilities with the draft in mind. I don't pay any attention to collage ball so I have no idea who Bird would like.

SoupIsGood
03-11-2005, 05:12 PM
There's just no one to trade him for right now. No one realistic, or worth the trouble, that is.

XXSASSXX31
03-11-2005, 06:21 PM
I would rather just keep him. I know I will be in the minority on this one but he is just too talented and I dont think we will be seeing anything anywhere near like we saw in Detroit. He lost a lot of money and he realized how much he wanted to play the game (not to mention his record label flopped)

You are not in the minority my friend. The notion of getting rid of Ron is ridiculus because we won't get back a caliber of a player like him. Ron is our only hope of a title.

Those who want to get rid of him for lesser talent don't mind the Pacers not being dominant and winning an NBA Title.

efx
03-11-2005, 06:50 PM
Those who want to get rid of him for lesser talent don't mind the Pacers not being dominant and winning an NBA Title.

Of course if we can't get back equal talent for him then yeah, their chances to win a title is diminished but it's far from as black and white as you make it out to be.

However, I don't believe the notion that the Pacers-Artest != championship. Teams have won championships without him before.. He is a unique talent for sure but that doesn't mean that another great player with another set of abilities couldn't come in and the subsequent result would be a championship.

Hicks
03-11-2005, 07:48 PM
Everyone that thinks that trading Ron means we'll never ever win a title is thinking too short-sighted. Yes, for a year or two it might set us back (I say might because it depends on who we get for him, what other moves we do or don't make, and how the rest of our guys improve), but sooner or later we'd re-tool and be fine.

XXSASSXX31
03-11-2005, 08:01 PM
Everyone that thinks that trading Ron means we'll never ever win a title is thinking too short-sighted. Yes, for a year or two it might set us back (I say might because it depends on who we get for him, what other moves we do or don't make, and how the rest of our guys improve), but sooner or later we'd re-tool and be fine.

I completely disagree. People forget how difficult it is to win an NBA Title. Reggie played 17 seasons and only made the Finals once and never won it so I disagree. Ron is our key for an NBA Title run and unless we get a Kevin Garnett or a Tracy McGrady, there really is no replacement for Ron.

Hicks
03-11-2005, 08:07 PM
Yep. We're done. No one will ever win a title without Artest. We had clearly no shot at a title any of Reggie's years.

Screw it, I'm not getting in this stupid circular dialog again.

XXSASSXX31
03-11-2005, 08:22 PM
Yep. We're done. No one will ever win a title without Artest. We had clearly no shot at a title any of Reggie's years.

Screw it, I'm not getting in this stupid circular dialog again.

Championships are hard to come by, especially for small market teams. Ron makes only 5 million/year and he is a top 10 player and can be MVP in this league. There is no replacement for Ron, and why set back our team for a couple of seasons which is your notion? What if J.O. gets a season ending injury in a couple of seasons?

Mourning
03-11-2005, 08:35 PM
I don't want to trade Ron, but the thought of the heckling he WILL UNDOUBTEDLY be getting next season and probably after that aswell makes me cringe a bit.

I have always liked Marion's game. Some have called him unsuited for our style of play. I disagree with that, but he would be one of the few ones I would trade for Ron and Scott.

I don't want Allen simply because he would be playing at SJax's natural position, leading to SJax starting at SF where he is decent, certainly, but not what he can be at SG. I want a SF or a quality big man in return. IF the latter scenario should happen than other trades are bound to follow to fill in the SF spot adequately and we would, I think, likely trade atleast another of our centers and maybe a future pick for that SF starter.

Whatever happens when the draft comes around this year we better pick up a a PG or if REALLY needbe a SF(which would be a sign Ron would be gone later in the season/summer prob.).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Mourning
03-11-2005, 09:02 PM
Might all be true, but WHY were we in there "with as good a shot as ever for the ring"? ;)

Time to REALLY stop this discussion! Hicks just laid down a scenario with the basic ground assumption that we WILL trade Ron. Lets keep the other stuff out of it. We trade Ron, question is for whom?

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Los Angeles
03-11-2005, 09:06 PM
Might all be true, but WHY were we in there "with as good a shot as ever for the ring"? ;)

Time to REALLY stop this discussion! Hicks just laid down a scenario with the basic ground assumption that we WILL trade Ron. Lets keep the other stuff out of it. We trade Ron, question is for whom?

Regards,

Mourning :cool:
Very good point, I'll edit and rephrase.

As for the second part, you're right I just couldn't help myself. :(

Tim
03-11-2005, 09:52 PM
Or even Ron + Scot + Jeff/Fred (guys with decent contracts and are 'in-demand' throughout the league.)

I see a three-for-two deal or four-for-two type of deal.

Do Not Trade Freddie.

Suaveness
03-11-2005, 10:26 PM
Do Not Trade Freddie.

I'll second that :devil:

SycamoreKen
03-11-2005, 10:41 PM
I don't think we could get a big for Ron and Scott that would be as talented as Ron is. Decent bigs are much harder to find than SG's & SF's. I looked over a few teams and I didn't see anyone that we could get for him that made me say do it. The only thing that came close was Ron for Terry and Daniels from Dallas, but that was a reach in itself.

Mourning
03-11-2005, 10:53 PM
Do Not Trade Freddie.

Depends on what we will get back. I like him a lot, but he's not "untradeable" to me.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Kegboy
03-12-2005, 02:45 PM
Do Not Trade Freddie.

Well, that cuts it, we can't trade Freddie. Tim fell off the face of the world for 6 months after we traded Al. He can't handle such trauma again.