PDA

View Full Version : Which trade would you like more?



Anthem
01-12-2006, 01:27 AM
Personally, I'd go with the Warriors trade. I've had enough of injury-ridden players, Jax is thriving as a second gun instead of a third, and I don't want Granger to lose PT. Plus I think another move is still needed, and the Golden State move would make a second move easier.

blanket
01-12-2006, 01:37 AM
First, the trade you list for Golden State doesn't work $-wise. The rumor was Pietrus, Biedrins and Cheaney (no pick).

Second, Pietrus is coming off an injury too - who's to say it won't turn out to be a chronic problem that will negatively affect his game?

Just a few things to consider - but I'd be happy taking my chances with either of these trades.

Anthem
01-12-2006, 01:59 AM
Cheaney would be included but not kept... we'd have to waive him because we don't have enough space for him.

microwave_oven
01-12-2006, 02:11 AM
Personally, I'd go with the Warriors trade. I've had enough of injury-ridden players, Jax is thriving as a second gun instead of a third, and I don't want Granger to lose PT. Plus I think another move is still needed, and the Golden State move would make a second move easier.

How is this? Once we trade for Corey Mag, then Jax can easily be moved. :devil:

CableKC
01-12-2006, 02:39 AM
Without knowing if any further trades will be made before the trade deadline if we get Maggette.....my initial answer is the Warriors cuz I want Pietrus and would be satisfied with Biedrins.

Will Galen
01-12-2006, 04:38 AM
Really tough choice for me.

I picked Maggette, but I would be happy with the Golden State deal.

Here's the way I look at it. I think Larry and Donnie have looked at this team and decided we are not as far off of contending as first thought.

Harrison starting over Foster is a plus. It gives us a really big man at center that team have to prepare for, then Foster comes in as backup giving a whole different look. Coming off the bench doesn't bother Foster either.

Starting Granger is a plus. He's not Ron like, but in some ways he's better for the team. One, he doesn't need the ball or plays called for him, yet he gets about ten points and a half dozen rebounds. He also plays very good defense. Ron neutralized the great and shut down the average. Danny although a rookie, already seems to blunt the great and neutralize the average. Give him 50 more starts and he's bound to improve on that.

Sara's is a plus. I think a lot of the ball movement the Pacers are now doing has a lot to do with him. With him and AJ manning the point we aren't hurt so bad when Tinsley is out.

Take away Ron and add those pluses, then add Maggette to the mix and I think we are contenders again. In fact in a lot of ways if we keep up the ball movement we are a better team.

The problem I see with adding Maggette is who starts? I want Dan to continue to start at SF, and Jax is doing ok as second option. However, for this year I see no problem with Maggette coming off the bench. Right now Mags will be out another 6 weeks. That puts him coming back just before the trade deadline on Feb. 23ed. That doesn't mean I advocate trading Jax at that time. On the contrary I would want to finish out the year with the team as is with Mags included.

After the trade deadline there are 32 games left. It would take Mags several weeks to get back into playing shape, and then with just a few games to go I don't think there would be a shooting guard controversy. So we could go into the playoffs playing well, maybe better than ever.

Basically the loss of Ron is blunted by having Dan as a defender, and Mags as a high quality scorer. We wouldn't be complete from the loss of Ron but we could actually be as good and maybe even better.

Since I think we can compete this year, all the foregoing makes me for the Mags trade.

indygeezer
01-12-2006, 06:59 AM
Any 3-way deal where we get Bynam and Ron ends up in Timbuktu (Toronto).
Actually a front of Ron, Bosh, and Villanueva looks pretty impressive, so maybe not.


Maybe the Mags rumor will force the Lakes up off their duffs.