PDA

View Full Version : Chad Ford on Harrington Saga



AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 01:39 PM
"The Pacers made a couple of solid trades highlighted by the acquisition of Marquis Daniels, but they won't be dramatically better unless they figure out a way to convince Hawks ownership to defrost GM Billy Knight from his cryogenic freezing chamber (he bought it from Elgin Baylor on eBay) so he'll agree to sign-and-trade Al Harrington.

Harrington fired long-time agent Andy Miller earlier this week and is reportedly replacing him with Arn Tellem. Tellem seems to hold unusual sway over the Hawks. He convinced them to give away two first-round picks and Boris Diaw for his client, Joe Johnson, last summer and he talked the Hawks into drafting another of his clients, Shelden Williams, very high in the draft.

Right now, the hold up seems to be $3 million. Chump change by NBA standards. The Hawks want the Pacers to pay it as part of the deal. The Pacers feel like they're already giving up enough (they're offering their 2007 first-round pick and are willing to take back John Edwards' salary from Atlanta). Both teams have their side of the story but it's hard to believe that Atlanta isn't going to relent.

The Pacers and the Bobcats are the only teams capable of swallowing Harrington's salary without sending back a player. The Bobcats aren't interested in Harrington so what's the hold up? While the Hawks drag their feet, they've been completely immobilized in the free agent market again." - Chad Ford

That guy is hands down my favorite of the NBA guys over at ESPN. Seems like we have nothing to worry about and that Al only hired Tellem to get the deal done.

J_2_Da_IzzO
08-03-2006, 01:50 PM
2007 first round draft pick?

Shade
08-03-2006, 01:52 PM
BK may have screwed the pooch here. That's just stupid.

Shade
08-03-2006, 01:52 PM
2007 first round draft pick?

:(

J_2_Da_IzzO
08-03-2006, 01:54 PM
I dont want to do it no more. Next years draft looks to irresistable to miss out on. ALOT of forwards next year. We should just get us a PG now and get a forward from the draft next year.

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 01:56 PM
2007 first round draft pick?

Al is easily better than anyone we could get with somewhere around the 20th pick. Some cash will get pulled off the tabel and this will get done. The Hawks won't play with Tellem.

blanket
08-03-2006, 01:57 PM
Tellem seems to hold unusual sway over the Hawks.
...
Both teams have their side of the story but it's hard to believe that Atlanta isn't going to relent.

I like that perspective on the agent change. Tellem has certainly been a player in some of the Hawks' recent questionable decisions (JJ trade, Shelden Williams at #5) -- to his clients' advantage, not the Hawks' -- so maybe he's got Knight by the short hairs and can get a S&T deal done for Al that is favorable to both Al and to us.

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 01:57 PM
I dont want to do it no more. Next years draft looks to irresistable to miss out on. ALOT of forwards next year. We should just get us a PG now and get a forward from the draft next year.

You're joking, right?

blanket
08-03-2006, 01:58 PM
I dont want to do it no more. Next years draft looks to irresistable to miss out on. ALOT of forwards next year. We should just get us a PG now and get a forward from the draft next year.

Perhaps DW has another trade on the table (e.g., involving Jack) that would net us a replacement pick in next year's draft.

Shade
08-03-2006, 01:59 PM
Al is easily better than anyone we could get with somewhere around the 20th pick. Some cash will get pulled off the tabel and this will get done. The Hawks won't play with Tellem.

Granger is going to be better than Al, and he went 17th in a considerably weaker draft than next year's is projected to be.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:00 PM
Granger is going to be better than Al, and he went 17th in a considerably weaker draft than next year's is projected to be.

You get a player like Granger at 17 once in a blue moon.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:02 PM
Granger is going to be better than Al, and he went 17th in a considerably weaker draft than next year's is projected to be.
Granger should have been a top 5 pick so this point is moot...what worries me is that this pick might be unconditional. As long it's lottery-protected or even better, top 20 protected, I'll concede to this deal.

diamonddave00
08-03-2006, 02:02 PM
If the Pacers make the playoff as they should if they acquire Al Harrington , you are talking pick #14 at best. Sorry just lottery protect the pick and get the deal done.

Shawne Williams is basicly your 2007 #1 a lottery pic, while James White is your #1 in 2006.

We are talking potential in any pick 14 and lower. Al is only 26 not an old timer. He's a proven besides how many of these "can't miss" picks in 2007 will miss? Just lottery protect the pick and make the trade.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:02 PM
If the league didn't put in the age requirement, this years draft would have been a record setting draft for HS kids. The talent that the class of 06 produced was amazing.

The All Star games were far and away the best they've been in 10+yrs, probably ever.

Shade
08-03-2006, 02:03 PM
Granger should have been a top 5 pick so this point is moot...what worries me is that this pick might be unconditional. As long it's lottery-protected or even better, top 20 protected, I'll concede to this deal.

But he WASN'T a top 5 pick. And there's nothing saying that won't happen again. Would he be anywhere near a top 5 pick in next year's draft?

I'd be okay with top 20 protection, but anything less than that I'm worried about. And I have a feeling it's unprotected.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:03 PM
You get a player like Granger at 17 once in a blue moon.

JO was drafted 17.

aero
08-03-2006, 02:06 PM
Al Harrington is NOT worth next year's first round draft pick, AL is a good player and all but he's not that good.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:06 PM
If the Pacers make the playoff as they should if they acquire Al Harrington , you are talking pick #14 at best. Sorry just lottery protect the pick and get the deal done.

Shawne Williams is basicly your 2007 #1 a lottery pic, while James White is your #1 in 2006.

We are talking potential in any pick 14 and lower. Al is only 26 not an old timer. He's a proven besides how many of these "can't miss" picks in 2007 will miss? Just lottery protect the pick and make the trade.
Regardless...it seems the hold up isn't over the pick...it's the 3 mil. I thought that that was the easiest to give up. Guess not.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:07 PM
JO was drafted 17.
Yeah, and JO was a potential pick. It took 4 years before anyone knew if he could do anything.

(We also didn't draft him)

Players like Granger who can play well in their first year aren't going to be abundant where we're picking. You're saying you would rather give up Al for a guy we'll have to wait 4-5 years on? We've already got a star in JO; I'm interested in building around him.

Shade
08-03-2006, 02:09 PM
Yeah, and JO was a potential pick. It took 4 years before anyone knew if he could do anything.

(We also didn't draft him)

Players like Granger who can play well in their first year aren't going to be abundant where we're picking. You're saying you would rather give up Al for a guy we'll have to wait 4-5 years on? We've already got a star in JO; I'm interested in building around him.

But does Al make us a title contender in the next 4-5 years? Because that's all that really matters.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:10 PM
Yeah, and JO was a potential pick. It took 4 years before anyone knew if he could do anything.

(We also didn't draft him)

Players like Granger who can play well in their first year aren't going to be abundant where we're picking. You're saying you would rather give up Al for a guy we'll have to wait 4-5 years on? We've already got a star in JO; I'm interested in building around him.
That's another thing. Guys like JO don't come along very often. I say we try to do our best to use his prime wisely...it's a toughie...but for the love of god, protect that pick.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:13 PM
I don't want to wait for a player we draft NEXT summer to MAYBE be better than Harrington in 3-4 years (best case scenario), when we could acquire an 18/7 player NOW in Harrington.

Sure, I'd like to have a pick in next year's draft -- and maybe we will if DW can trade Jack or work some other deal -- but not enough to pass on someone of Al's ability who can contribute NOW.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:13 PM
But does Al make us a title contender in the next 4-5 years? Because that's all that really matters.

No, Al alone does not make us a title contender. But as Hicks said, you can't judge it like that. No one player is going to make you a title contender.

But Al gets you that much closer to being a title contender. To contend, we need to put a great supporting cast around JO. Heading into this offseason, that supporting cast consisted of..... Danny. :unimpress Now, we have added 'Quis and soon Al. We just have to keep adding pieces.

btowncolt
08-03-2006, 02:15 PM
I would never give up a potential lottery pick in next year's draft just to acquire the "right" to pay an overrated redundant forward who would stunt the growth of younger, cheaper and potentially for more useful and talented players 60 million dollars.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:16 PM
I would never give up a potential lottery pick in next year's draft just to acquire the "right" to pay an overrated redundant forward 60 million dollars.
It's like my mama always taught me: PROTECTION! PROTECTION! PROTECTION!

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:16 PM
But does Al make us a title contender in the next 4-5 years? Because that's all that really matters.

Does a 2007 draft pick?

I'd put my money on the acquisition of Al putting us closer to a title in 4-5 years than a draft pick that might not even develop into a contributor in that time.

Besides, the acquisition of Harrington sets up a trade of JO next summer -- like it or not -- that should give us a lot of flexibilty to build that championship team.

A draft pick in 2007 and whatever cast-off we could get with the TPE doesn't do that. Not even close.

That said, I wouldn't make the deal for Al if the pick doesn't have lottery protection. That's just common sense.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:17 PM
Yeah, and JO was a potential pick. It took 4 years before anyone knew if he could do anything.

(We also didn't draft him)

Players like Granger who can play well in their first year aren't going to be abundant where we're picking. You're saying you would rather give up Al for a guy we'll have to wait 4-5 years on? We've already got a star in JO; I'm interested in building around him.

Here's the skinny. I went through the drafts 03-99 and found big name players for the respected teams, drafted at or after #17.

13 players came up. That's almost 3 per draft, in draft classes that don't even compare to what's being projected for next year.

Here's the list:
21. Diaw '03
29. J. Howard '03
23. T. Prince '02
24. N. Kristic '02
19. G. Wallace '01
29. T. Parker '01
17. D. Mason '00
18. Q. Richardson '00
21. M. Peterson '00
21. R. Davis '99
24. AK 47 '99
25. A. Harrington '99 (Weird that he would fall in in line with my point)

And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:18 PM
A draft pick in 2007 and whatever cast-off we could get with the TPE doesn't do that. Not even close.

A 7.5mil/year castoff? :-o

Someone at that price, is going to be a second-tier player, and they aren't "castoffs" by anymeans.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 02:21 PM
We should never trade next year's number 1. We could possibly get a guy that could be 18/7 three years from now with that pick. Wait a minute...

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:22 PM
We should never trade next year's number 1. We could possibly get a guy that could be 18/7 three years from now with that pick. Wait a minute...

You are forgetting the TE.

God, I'm flipflopping all over the place here.

To me it comes down to this:

What else can we get for the TE without giving up a pick?
If we can get a starting quality G to start along Marquis or a quality big man then you gotta take the TE and the pick and not Al, right?

If we can't get anything that fits our team better than Al (probable) then you have to go with Al and not the TE and the pick.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:22 PM
A 7.5mil/year castoff? :-o

Someone at that price, is going to be a second-tier player, and they aren't "castoffs" by anymeans.

What teams are going to give us a $7.5M player for nothing (draft pick and/or up to $3M is all we can package with the TPE) that is worth his contract? For a team to give up a player for nothing, the'd be making a salary dump, and by definition that's a "castoff".

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 02:23 PM
Al Harrington is NOT worth next year's first round draft pick, AL is a good player and all but he's not that good.

Al Harrington is EASILY worth next year's first. Bottom line: he's considerably better than Granger right now, who went 17th, and I highly doubt Shawne Williams will ever hold a candle to Al's talent. You guys are still talking about Sixth-Man Pacer Al. He has made major strides since his departure. An All-Star appearance isn't out of the question next season. He's well worth it... trust me on this one.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:24 PM
Here's the skinny. I went through the drafts 03-99 and found big name players for the respected teams, drafted at or after #17.

13 players came up. That's almost 3 per draft, in draft classes that don't even compare to what's being projected for next year.

Here's the list:
21. Diaw '03
29. J. Howard '03
23. T. Prince '02
24. N. Kristic '02
19. G. Wallace '01
29. T. Parker '01
17. D. Mason '00
18. Q. Richardson '00
21. M. Peterson '00
21. R. Davis '99
24. AK 47 '99
25. A. Harrington '99 (Weird that he would fall in in line with my point)

And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

OK, you found 13 players, but I'm going to toss out Richardson and Mason because I think I would rather have Al than either one.

Anyway, you checked through 5 drafts, and checked the 17-30 spots in all of them, I'm guessing. That's 65 draft picks, and only 11 players.

So, there's a 17 % chance that this pick we're trading away will be at least as good as Al.

Looking at your list, I'd only consider Parker and AK stars. So, there's a 3% chance that we land a star with this pick.

You can up those %'s a slight bit since this next draft is deep, but even if you do, I'd still much rather have Al.



And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

Thank God that Donnie does not GM with this attitude. "Well, we won't anyway..."

Yeah, let's just admit defeat.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:24 PM
Here's the skinny. I went through the drafts 03-99 and found big name players for the respected teams, drafted at or after #17.

13 players came up. That's almost 3 per draft, in draft classes that don't even compare to what's being projected for next year.

Here's the list:
21. Diaw '03
29. J. Howard '03
23. T. Prince '02
24. N. Kristic '02
19. G. Wallace '01
29. T. Parker '01
17. D. Mason '00
18. Q. Richardson '00
21. M. Peterson '00
21. R. Davis '99
24. AK 47 '99
25. A. Harrington '99 (Weird that he would fall in in line with my point)

And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

So we'd have something like a 3-in-13 chance of drafting a player who MIGHT be better than Harrington in 3-4 YEARS, best case scenario?

No thanks.

Shade
08-03-2006, 02:25 PM
We should never trade next year's number 1. We could possibly get a guy that could be 18/7 three years from now with that pick. Wait a minute...

Then you'd better hope the Pacers win a title in the next three years, or we have an older, much more expensive version of what would have been our 2007 pick. Plus we'd be without our trade exception.

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 02:27 PM
Here's the skinny. I went through the drafts 03-99 and found big name players for the respected teams, drafted at or after #17.

13 players came up. That's almost 3 per draft, in draft classes that don't even compare to what's being projected for next year.

Here's the list:
21. Diaw '03
29. J. Howard '03
23. T. Prince '02
24. N. Kristic '02
19. G. Wallace '01
29. T. Parker '01
17. D. Mason '00
18. Q. Richardson '00
21. M. Peterson '00
21. R. Davis '99
24. AK 47 '99
25. A. Harrington '99 (Weird that he would fall in in line with my point)

And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

How do you know that? Dallas put together a comparable plan and nearly won it all two years later. If we get Al our talent is on par with Dallas. I think we are just plain underrating Al, J.O., and the Pacer organization at this point.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:27 PM
What teams are going to give us a $7.5M player for nothing (draft pick and/or up to $3M is all we can package with the TPE) that is worth his contract? For a team to give up a player for nothing, the'd be making a salary dump, and by definition that's a "castoff".
You look for teams looking to dump salary...Phoenix, Denver, New York, Dallas, Philadelphia, etc.

What if we could get Jamal Crawford here and have around the 20th pick in one of the best drafts in the history of the NBA (and that's being nice to the Pacers) instead of Al.

This doesn't sound good to anyone?

Shade
08-03-2006, 02:28 PM
If we get Al our talent is on par with Dallas.

I don't think so.

J_2_Da_IzzO
08-03-2006, 02:28 PM
Dallas have a good PG that will play most the season.

Frank Slade
08-03-2006, 02:29 PM
You are forgetting the TE.

God, I'm flipflopping all over the place here.

To me it comes down to this:

What else can we get for the TE without giving up a pick?
If we can get a starting quality G to start along Marquis or a quality big man then you gotta take the TE and the pick and not Al, right?

If we can't get anything that fits our team better than Al (probable) then you have to go with Al and not the TE and the pick.

I am pretty much agree with that as well.

Although I hate giving up a 1st Pick next year, especially if it's unprotected.

I would also say though, since the Pacers don't just give out 1st Rd Picks like candy, how many think that TPTB at least have thought of certain trade scenario's that may net them another 1st rd pick before the next draft ?

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:29 PM
I don't think so.
Yeah...we're not Dallas...nobody is....

J_2_Da_IzzO
08-03-2006, 02:30 PM
You look for teams looking to dump salary...Phoenix, Denver, New York, Dallas, Philadelphia, etc.

What if we could get Jamal Crawford here and have around the 20th pick in one of the best drafts in the history of the NBA (and that's being nice to the Pacers) instead of Al.

This doesn't sound good to anyone?

Exactly what I had in mind. The forwards next year are deep.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:31 PM
I am pretty much agree with that as well.

Although I hate giving up a 1st Pick next year, especially if it's unprotected.

I would also say though, since the Pacers don't just give out 1st Rd Picks like candy, how many think they at least have thought of certain trade scneario's that may net them another 1st rd pick before the next draft ?
Who do you think is giving up 1st rounders for 2007? I'm telling you, market value for a 2007 first is probably sky high...higher than it should be, of course.

J_2_Da_IzzO
08-03-2006, 02:31 PM
Im hoping we have another trade in the works that will net us an unprotected first round pick from a weak team.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:35 PM
How do you know that? Dallas put together a comparable plan and nearly won it all two years later. If we get Al our talent is on par with Dallas. I think we are just plain underrating Al, J.O., and the Pacer organization at this point.

Mark Cuban and the Simons aren't even comparable. Dallas has deep pockets to sign big name players, and are able to draft key pieces.

Apples to oranges, in the FA market.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:37 PM
I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.

Shade
08-03-2006, 02:39 PM
I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.

We could use it on Bonzi... :eyebrow: :brick:

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:39 PM
OK, you found 13 players, but I'm going to toss out Richardson and Mason because I think I would rather have Al than either one.

Anyway, you checked through 5 drafts, and checked the 17-30 spots in all of them, I'm guessing. That's 65 draft picks, and only 11 players.

So, there's a 17 % chance that this pick we're trading away will be at least as good as Al.

Looking at your list, I'd only consider Parker and AK stars. So, there's a 3% chance that we land a star with this pick.

You can up those %'s a slight bit since this next draft is deep, but even if you do, I'd still much rather have Al.



Thank God that Donnie does not GM with this attitude. "Well, we won't anyway..."

Yeah, let's just admit defeat.

You're using stats, on weak drafts. This years draft is going to be easily twice as good, so you can double anything. So that bumps up every team to landing a player as good as Al to 34%.

Weed out bad teams that don't draft well, that had picks that low because of trades, and they % jumps even higher for the Pacers who draft well.

I'm not admitting defeat by anymeans, I just don't put my stock in Al Harrington. I think a lineup of Harrison/JO/Danny would be just as productive, if not better. I would rather put my stock in Hulk, then adding on a very good player from the draft, hopefully a guard.

Instead of having 3pieces for the ultimate goal, you would still have three this year, and most likely add the fourth in the draft.

I'm not opposed to giving up next years draft pick, but to give it to ATL for Al Harrington isn't a good move IMHO.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 02:42 PM
I think people are overvaluing the TPE outside of the Harrington deal. This potential deal is an anomaly because Atl ownership is in such disarry that they don't want to take back any salary. Typically, teams try to trade talent for talent.

The reality is that, if we can't use the TPE in the deal for Al, then we'll be left with some FAR LESS desirable players to choose from if we use it. The only teams who'd consider trading us a player making $7.5 or less for basically nothing (pick and/or $) are those teams that are trying to avoid the luxury tax, or perhaps teams that want to get below the salary cap for next summer's FA crop.

So Philly might give us Korver or Hunter, Lakers might give us Mihm, Spurs might give us Bonner or Oberto, etc. But that's about it. Some other teams/players could come into play, but that's the ilk of player we'd be looking at -- not anyone near Al's calibur.
I think you are underrating cash cutting deals. Guys like Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson have "salary dump" written all over them. We can even throw in Tinsley, who Thomas likes.

EDIT: then again, I don't know the market for these things and I could be totally off. If that is the case...bring on Al.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:43 PM
If we get Al our talent is on par with Dallas.

You're plain nuts.

Harris>Tinsley (because he can't/won't play)
Terry>Sjax
Howard>Granger
Dirk>Al
Who knows/cares<JO

Their sixth man, in Michael Finley, is also head and shoulders above the Pacers'.

The Pacers aren't close to being on par with Dallas in talent.

Speed
08-03-2006, 02:45 PM
Then you'd better hope the Pacers win a title in the next three years, or we have an older, much more expensive version of what would have been our 2007 pick. Plus we'd be without our trade exception.

Look at the other 83% and say that same thing.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 02:46 PM
Then you'd better hope the Pacers win a title in the next three years, or we have an older, much more expensive version of what would have been our 2007 pick. Plus we'd be without our trade exception.
What I was trying to say is that a mid first round pick, even in the best of drafts, has the potential to become a player like Al. More often than not, they turn out to be busts. The 2007 draft is very strong, because there are 10-12 really good players that will be available, and that assumes that everyone comes out. I would not count on Noah comming out (he does not need the money and by all accounts he prefers the college game to the NBA), and Oden has repeated at every opportunity that he intends to stay four years. Players like Horford and Cory Brewer will be good NBA players, but not stars. The 2008 draft promises to be just as strong with Eric Gordon and O.J. Mayo.

FWIW, here are picks 10-20 in the 2003 draft:
Washington - Jarvis Hayes, Georgia
Golden State - Mickael Pietrus, France
Seattle - Nick Collison, Kansas
Memphis - Marcus Banks (to Boston)
Seattle - Luke Ridnour, Oregon
Orlando - Reece Gaines, Louisville
Boston - Troy Bell (to Memphis)
Phoenix - Zarko Cabarkapa, Serbia
New Orleans - David West, Xavier
Utah - Aleksandar Pavlovic, Serbia
Boston - Dahntay Jones (to Memphis)

You can do this for most years, and sometimes there is a good player that drops, but there is almost never a star that falls below the #10 pick. I pick 2003 because that was considered a very strong draft.

Just for kicks, lets take a look at the very early draft board at nbadraft.net:
http://www.nbadraft.net/

The lottery in that draft is especially strong, and the top 5-7 picks there could be stars. And again, this is assuming that all these players come out. We would all be screaming bloody murder if we passed on Al to keep the pick, ended up in the lottery, and the draft ends up not having Oden or Noah.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:47 PM
I think you are underrating cash cutting deals. Guys like Jamal Crawford and Quentin Richardson have "salary dump" written all over them. We can even throw in Tinsley, who Thomas likes.

The Knicks don't care about saving money, so don't look for a "salary dump" move from them.

Besides, 1) I don't see LB making a deal with IT anytime soon, and 2) I wouldn't consider the addition of Crawford or Richardson while keeping our 2007 1st to be a better deal than losing our 2007 1st and acquiring Harrington.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:48 PM
You're using stats, on weak drafts. This years draft is going to be easily twice as good, so you can double anything. So that bumps up every team to landing a player as good as Al to 34%.

Weed out bad teams that don't draft well, that had picks that low because of trades, and they % jumps even higher for the Pacers who draft well.

I'm not admitting defeat by anymeans, I just don't put my stock in Al Harrington. I think a lineup of Harrison/JO/Danny would be just as productive, if not better. I would rather put my stock in Hulk, then adding on a very good player from the draft, hopefully a guard.

Instead of having 3pieces for the ultimate goal, you would still have three this year, and most likely add the fourth in the draft.

I'm not opposed to giving up next years draft pick, but to give it to ATL for Al Harrington isn't a good move IMHO.

I have a hard time believing that this draft is going to be twice as good as five other drafts turned out to be on average. There were some good drafts in that time span, if I remember correctly.

Regardless; it sounds like Donnie is fine with giving up the 1st for Al, and that's enough for me.

Hicks
08-03-2006, 02:48 PM
Shawne Williams is basicly your 2007 #1 a lottery pic, while James White is your #1 in 2006.

I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:49 PM
You can do this for most years, and sometimes there is a good player that drops, but there is almost never a star that falls below the #10 pick. I pick 2003 because that was considered a very strong draft.

2003 is good because of the talent it produced. Depth wise, it was awful.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 02:50 PM
I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.

I kinda like it, too. We essentially came away with two first-rounders this year.

Hicks
08-03-2006, 02:50 PM
JO was drafted 17.

Manu Ginobili was a 2nd round pick, so we're set as long as we have one of those, right? Come on. I can't believe some of you are just assuming we're going to draft a stud in the mid to late first round.

Bball
08-03-2006, 02:51 PM
I still maintain Thomas doesn't like Tinsley. He wanted him traded when he was Pacer coach. I believe what Vecsey said at the time. His Pacer sources are good and when he brought it up recently (around the Artest saga) he could've changed the original story and he didn't.

I now return you to your thread about draft pick values... I just think the "Thomas likes Tinsley and would love to trade for him" thing is more wishful thinking than reality. Thomas got fed up with him too...

IMHO,
-Bball

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 02:52 PM
I think that's a good way of looking at it. If Williams waited until next year, he'd be a 1st round pick then too.

We would have gone higher too, because he would have been the focus of a very good Memphis offense. Well, maybe in that draft he would have remained at the same spot, assuming that every player that could comes out.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:52 PM
I have a hard time believing that this draft is going to be twice as good as five other drafts turned out to be on average. There were some good drafts in that time span, if I remember correctly.

Regardless; it sounds like Donnie is fine with giving up the 1st for Al, and that's enough for me.

It will be close to twice as deep, easily. Players normally lottery picks will go in the mid20s.

The ONLY way it won't be a deep draft, is if players think they'd have a better shot at waiting a year. If that's the case, then it would overload the next years draft as well, which might lead to 2-3years of very strong draft classes.

Hicks
08-03-2006, 02:52 PM
But does Al make us a title contender in the next 4-5 years? Because that's all that really matters.

No, it's NOT all that really matters. You don't decide every personelle change based soley on if it's the magic bullet to a title. You do it if it makes you a better team. Adding Al for 0 players (except the 2007 Wonder-Boy) does that.

Unclebuck
08-03-2006, 02:52 PM
Many of you seem to be thinking that the sticking point is the draft pick, but if you believe multiple sources the pacers have already agreed to ship the draft pick to the Hawks.

Unclebuck
08-03-2006, 02:53 PM
No, it's NOT all that really matters. You don't decide every personelle change based soley on if it's the magic bullet to a title. You do it if it makes you a better team. Adding Al for 0 players (except the 2007 Wonder-Boy) does that.



I agree 100%. you have to walk before you can run

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 02:55 PM
2003 is good because of the talent it produced. Depth wise, it was awful.
Even if you look at the list of potential candidates for 2007, the only can't miss prospects are in the top 10. If Noah and Oden don't come out (I think that Oden will but Noah will not), then that becomes top 8. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to live through a season that would net us a top 8 pick.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:56 PM
Manu Ginobili was a 2nd round pick, so we're set as long as we have one of those, right? Come on. I can't believe some of you are just assuming we're going to draft a stud in the mid to late first round.

I'm not saying we're going too. I'm saying the chance of it happening outweighs what Al brings to the table.

Since86
08-03-2006, 02:57 PM
Even if you look at the list of potential candidates for 2007, the only can't miss prospects are in the top 10. If Noah and Oden don't come out (I think that Oden will but Noah will not), then that becomes top 8. I don't know about you, but I really don't want to live through a season that would net us a top 8 pick.

Obviously you didn't watch any of the McDonalds All American game, and didn't watch NCAA basketball outside of the tourney.

blanket
08-03-2006, 02:58 PM
It will be close to twice as deep, easily. Players normally lottery picks will go in the mid20s.

The ONLY way it won't be a deep draft, is if players think they'd have a better shot at waiting a year. If that's the case, then it would overload the next years draft as well, which might lead to 2-3years of very strong draft classes.

The talent in next year's draft might be twice that of this year's with the addition of those Freshmen who couldn't come out as HS Seniors this year, but it also returns the draft to one of potential, potential, potential -- and we know how that turned out with Bender.

I think next year's draft migt be talent rich at the top, but I don't expect it to be as deep as it was this year. So, a lottery pick in 2007 is better than one in 2006, but a mid- to late-first round pick might not be much if any better.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 02:58 PM
Many of you seem to be thinking that the sticking point is the draft pick, but if you believe multiple sources the pacers have already agreed to ship the draft pick to the Hawks.

I think that argument is if sending the draft pick is a good idea, not if the Pacers are willing to do so, which they apparently are.

Also, UB and Hicks are right here. From where the Pacers are now, you cannot build a title team. But what you can do is build a very good team and hope that the stars align and that they catch fire. You put a team in a position and hope that something clicks. I would argue that this is what happened with the Pistons. If you would have given me that starting lineup in 2001, I would have projected it as a .500 team.

blanket
08-03-2006, 03:00 PM
Many of you seem to be thinking that the sticking point is the draft pick, but if you believe multiple sources the pacers have already agreed to ship the draft pick to the Hawks.

I think everyone understands the draft pick is not the sticking point for TPTB, but it clearly is for the members of this board. That's why it's being discussed so feverishly.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 03:00 PM
I'm not saying we're going too. I'm saying the chance of it happening outweighs what Al brings to the table.

And as we wait on that chance, the stud that we already have loses another year of his prime..........

Bball
08-03-2006, 03:03 PM
Isn't next year's draft 'deep' on potential? ....Not deep on sure-fire 'can't miss' players.

Haven't you guys seen enough of drafting on potential out of the Pacer camp?

-Bball

Anthem
08-03-2006, 03:03 PM
Many of you seem to be thinking that the sticking point is the draft pick, but if you believe multiple sources the pacers have already agreed to ship the draft pick to the Hawks.
Seems like an either/or situation to me.

Personally, I'd rather give them the 3 mil and take back the Veep, but keep our draft pick.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:04 PM
Obviously you didn't watch any of the McDonalds All American game, and didn't watch NCAA basketball outside of the tourney.

I live in Bloomington. All anyone does around here is watch college basketball (well that and drink) and I watch mountains of it. And I also watched the McDonalds All American game from start to finish. But the history of the NBA is filled with college stars that failed in the NBA. If I did not think that Al was a very good player, I would never trade the 2007 pick. IOW, I would not do an Isiah. And I also think that the Pacers should lottery protect the pick, although I think that with Al it will be a moot point. But I think that arguing that the 2007 number 15-20 pick will be better than Al for sure is tenuous at best.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:07 PM
Seems like an either/or situation to me.

Personally, I'd rather give them the 3 mil and take back the Veep, but keep our draft pick.

Easy for you to say! Maybe you want to donate the 3 million dollars to get this deal done?

Since86
08-03-2006, 03:07 PM
The talent in next year's draft might be twice that of this year's with the addition of those Freshmen who couldn't come out as HS Seniors this year, but it also returns the draft to one of potential, potential, potential -- and we know how that turned out with Bender.

I think next year's draft migt be talent rich at the top, but I don't expect it to be as deep as it was this year. So, a lottery pick in 2007 is better than one in 2006, but a mid- to late-first round pick might not be much if any better.

Okay, I'm out of this.

If you aren't aware of the actual players, and their skill level, how can you argue against them?

Bender wouldn't even be a blimp on the screen with these guys. Kevin Durant is Bender's twin, but 10x more polished. He's heading to Texas, if you actually want to watch.

Since86
08-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Isn't next year's draft 'deep' on potential? ....Not deep on sure-fire 'can't miss' players.

Haven't you guys seen enough of drafting on potential out of the Pacer camp?

-Bball

Every player drafted is drafted on 'potential.' No player drafted has ever shown with 100% certainity that he'd make it in the NBA.

There is no such thing as "can't miss."

blanket
08-03-2006, 03:10 PM
Okay, I'm out of this.

If you aren't aware of the actual players, and their skill level, how can you argue against them?

Bender wouldn't even be a blimp on the screen with these guys. Kevin Durant is Bender's twin, but 10x more polished. He's heading to Texas, if you actually want to watch.

You're making a lot of assumptions here.

So is Durant going to fall to 17 (or lower)? Because that's what we're talking about here. I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't lottery protect the pick. There's a big difference between the talent available in the lottery vs the mid- to late- first round.

DisplacedKnick
08-03-2006, 03:11 PM
Well, I hope you get Al because I think it'll be high entertainment when he gets to the Pacers and everyone finds out he thinks he's a premier offensive player and he takes shots away from JO and Granger. The Knicks suck - I gotta get my fun where I can.

But it's a dumb move. Harrington's a mid-level PF who won't help you that much and if you hang onto the TE until close to the trade deadline you can package that for a LOT to a team looking to dump salary. And you can keep your pick.

But this deal's mostly about keeping fans happy - much more than it is about helping the team.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:11 PM
Okay, I'm out of this.

If you aren't aware of the actual players, and their skill level, how can you argue against them?

Bender wouldn't even be a blimp on the screen with these guys. Kevin Durant is Bender's twin, but 10x more polished. He's heading to Texas, if you actually want to watch.

Don't take this so personaly. I am enjoying this discussion, one the first ones around here about basketball in a long time. And yes, Durant will be a real stud in the NBA, as will Bill Walker and Oden. But we won't get any of those three. I think that Noah will be a bust (he really has college star, pro bust written all over him), and Corey Brewer will be the best of the Florida Gators and the steal of the 2007 draft. But this is all potential. Al is an 18/7 guy in the NBA.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:14 PM
Well, I hope you get Al because I think it'll be high entertainment when he gets to the Pacers and everyone finds out he thinks he's a premier offensive player and he takes shots away from JO and Granger. The Knicks suck - I gotta get my fun where I can.

But it's a dumb move. Harrington's a mid-level PF who won't help you that much and if you hang onto the TE until close to the trade deadline you can package that for a LOT to a team looking to dump salary. And you can keep your pick.

But this deal's mostly about keeping fans happy - much more than it is about helping the team.

That's what I said about Fatoine, White Chocolate and the Glove going to the Heat last summer. I thought that it would be high drama, and it was anything but. Sometimes these things work out. Now, I am not saying that we have any chance at a title, but I think that Al will make us better.

blanket
08-03-2006, 03:16 PM
Well, I hope you get Al because I think it'll be high entertainment when he gets to the Pacers and everyone finds out he thinks he's a premier offensive player and he takes shots away from JO and Granger. The Knicks suck - I gotta get my fun where I can.

But it's a dumb move. Harrington's a mid-level PF who won't help you that much and if you hang onto the TE until close to the trade deadline you can package that for a LOT to a team looking to dump salary. And you can keep your pick.

But this deal's mostly about keeping fans happy - much more than it is about helping the team.

Care to name some players you think would actually be available for the TPE at the trade deadline? No talent on par with Al's -- that's for sure. The only "a lot" we'd be getting is "a lot" of contract we'd have to pay for someone else's cast-off.

Young
08-03-2006, 03:17 PM
I am not worried about traidng our 2007 pick as long as it is lottery protected.

What I don't like about this deal and what I would refuse to do is take back John Edward. He sucks and I believe his contract is guaranteed and I would much rather have either Powell, Marshall, or Greene make the roster instead of Edwards. I don't know why BK wants us to take him so badly, he is making a little over 1 million in the last year of his contract. The Hawks have like 13 players or so. BK just needs to take TE, pick, 3 million cash and be happy.

The way I see it we should either give them 3 million in cash or take John Edwards but cut him and use the 3 million in cash to eat his salary. I really want to see what some of these young guys can do. Atleast they are better than John Edwards.

Also, as far as using the TE to get a player I don't know who we can get for sure. Yes it sounds good if a team is looking to get under the luxury tax threshold but I don't know which teams would dump a player for nothing. I guess if we add our first we can get something done.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:19 PM
Care to name some players you think would actually be available for the TPE at the trade deadline? No talent on par with Al's -- that's for sure. The only "a lot" we'd be getting is "a lot" of contract we'd have to pay for someone else's cast-off.

I have been trying to make this point for the better part of two days. Teams don't dump players with good contracts. An impact player at 7.8 million has a very good contract and will not be moved by any team at the deadline. The best we could hope for is a player with unrealized potential or an overpaid role player.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 03:20 PM
I am not worried about traidng our 2007 pick as long as it is lottery protected.

What I don't like about this deal and what I would refuse to do is take back John Edward. He sucks and I believe his contract is guaranteed and I would much rather have either Powell, Marshall, or Greene make the roster instead of Edwards. I don't know why BK wants us to take him so badly, he is making a little over 1 million in the last year of his contract. The Hawks have like 13 players or so. BK just needs to take TE, pick, 3 million cash and be happy.

The way I see it we should either give them 3 million in cash or take John Edwards but cut him and use the 3 million in cash to eat his salary. I really want to see what some of these young guys can do. Atleast they are better than John Edwards.

I think that we would cut Edwards to get the roster spot. But you do make a good point.

blanket
08-03-2006, 03:21 PM
What I don't like about this deal and what I would refuse to do is take back John Edward. He sucks and I believe his contract is guaranteed and I would much rather have either Powell, Marshall, or Greene make the roster instead of Edwards.

If we make this deal, we can -- and should -- cut Edwards. Guaranteed contract or not.


I don't know why BK wants us to take him so badly, he is making a little over 1 million in the last year of his contract.

It would be for another TPE, so to Hawks ownership it would be like swapping Al for a draft pick plus $4M.

Since86
08-03-2006, 03:24 PM
You're making a lot of assumptions here.

So is Durant going to fall to 17 (or lower)? Because that's what we're talking about here. I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't lottery protect the pick. There's a big difference between the talent available in the lottery vs the mid- to late- first round.

What assumption am I making? I'm stating my opinion based on watching various games of players that will most likely come out.

I never said Durant was going to fall to 17, but it's a real possiblity. If he doesn't there will be a player just under him that will, maybe even better than him at a different position.

Bball
08-03-2006, 03:25 PM
Every player drafted is drafted on 'potential.' No player drafted has ever shown with 100% certainity that he'd make it in the NBA.

There is no such thing as "can't miss."

When I use the term 'can't miss' I simply mean a player that is projected to be ready to play right away (maybe as a starter, maybe not). Of course you draft on potential somewhat because you hope that college didn't show you a player's ceiling.

But there are only so many of those players. And there are mistakes made even there.

Then there comes the crew where it is ALL about 'potential' because they got by on athleticism alone to this point. But that doesn't cut it in the NBA. You need more game than that and that is where you roll the dice with these guys and HOPE they have some heart and desire (and you also hope the rookie contract doesn't make them fat and happy and sap their desire).

We just drafted another one of those this year. We just saw Bender's career end as a giant bust. We don't need to draft anyone else on potential alone for a while. We need to let this current one pan out (or not). And IMHO you can't be stockpiling guys on 'potential' either. You need to be able to take your lumps and develop them, or find out you made a mistake so that you can cut your losses sooner rather than Bender errrr I mean later.

-Bball

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 03:26 PM
You're plain nuts.

Harris>Tinsley (because he can't/won't play)
Terry>Sjax
Howard>Granger
Dirk>Al
Who knows/cares<JO

Their sixth man, in Michael Finley, is also head and shoulders above the Pacers'.

The Pacers aren't close to being on par with Dallas in talent.

I'm not nuts at all...

Harris = Tinsley
Terry > Jack
Howard = Granger (Granger is ahead of where Howard was)
Dirk > Al
Diop/Damp < J.O.

And I'll take our bench over there's (Daniels, Saras, Foster, Harrison, White, Williams over A.J., Stack, Cro, etc...) and the coaches are a wash. And Finley plays for the Spurs and did all of last year. Wake up!

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 03:31 PM
Well, I hope you get Al because I think it'll be high entertainment when he gets to the Pacers and everyone finds out he thinks he's a premier offensive player and he takes shots away from JO and Granger. The Knicks suck - I gotta get my fun where I can.

But it's a dumb move. Harrington's a mid-level PF who won't help you that much and if you hang onto the TE until close to the trade deadline you can package that for a LOT to a team looking to dump salary. And you can keep your pick.

But this deal's mostly about keeping fans happy - much more than it is about helping the team.


Giving up no players for Al, who is coming at a reasonable price, is a dumb move? Riiiight. Nevermind the fact that he completes our frontcourt and gives us another scorer, something we desperately lack.


And let's drop this 'keeping the fans happy' nonsense. There are hardly no casual fans here, we all watch a ton of Pacer games and would not be getting excited about this unless we thought it improved the team. The fact that it is our 'baby Al' coming home is just an added bonus.

Since86
08-03-2006, 03:34 PM
I'm not nuts at all...

Harris = Tinsley
Terry > Jack
Howard = Granger (Granger is ahead of where Howard was)
Dirk > Al
Diop/Damp < J.O.

And I'll take our bench over there's (Daniels, Saras, Foster, Harrison, White, Williams over A.J., Stack, Cro, etc...) and the coaches are a wash. And Finley plays for the Spurs and did all of last year. Wake up!

Tinsley can't play more than 55 games a year, and he's equal to Harris? They're numbers are as close to equal as can be, but you get 25more games a year out of Devin, and they're equal? Yes, that's nuts.

And about Finley, I got him mixed up with Stack.

able
08-03-2006, 03:42 PM
Giving up no players for Al, who is coming at a reasonable price, is a dumb move? Riiiight. Nevermind the fact that he completes our frontcourt and gives us another scorer, something we desperately lack.


And let's drop this 'keeping the fans happy' nonsense. There are hardly no casual fans here, we all watch a ton of Pacer games and would not be getting excited about this unless we thought it improved the team. The fact that it is our 'baby Al' coming home is just an added bonus.
And can you please point out to me where it was that the frontline with Ron/JO/Al or Jeff/JO/Al worked so well together ?

Was it not a general agreement that Al and JO on the court at the same time did not work?

What besides sentiment makes anyone think it will be better this time around ?

Speed
08-03-2006, 03:44 PM
Isn't next year's draft 'deep' on potential? ....Not deep on sure-fire 'can't miss' players.


-Bball

Exactly!!! Are there 20 guys that are guaranteed in the next draft that will for sure be as good as Al, ever. Then I will agree, but it doesn't make sense otherwise.

DisplacedKnick
08-03-2006, 03:46 PM
Care to name some players you think would actually be available for the TPE at the trade deadline? No talent on par with Al's -- that's for sure. The only "a lot" we'd be getting is "a lot" of contract we'd have to pay for someone else's cast-off.

You mean like Vince Carter or Rasheed Wallace?

Someone's always available. It'll depend on what team decides it's time for a change.

As for talent on a par with Al - maybe TJ Ford, Ridnour, Gooden, Dunleavy, Haslem, - there are a bunch of those type players around. That list's too long to even begin. You can easily do better than that.

Peck
08-03-2006, 04:00 PM
Here's the skinny. I went through the drafts 03-99 and found big name players for the respected teams, drafted at or after #17.

13 players came up. That's almost 3 per draft, in draft classes that don't even compare to what's being projected for next year.

Here's the list:
21. Diaw '03
29. J. Howard '03
23. T. Prince '02
24. N. Kristic '02
19. G. Wallace '01
29. T. Parker '01
17. D. Mason '00
18. Q. Richardson '00
21. M. Peterson '00
21. R. Davis '99
24. AK 47 '99
25. A. Harrington '99 (Weird that he would fall in in line with my point)

And who cares if it takes them 3-4 years to be better than Al. The Pacers aren't going to win a title in that span, so it's not like it's going to set them back.

If that is the case shouldn't the Pacers then really look to trade J.O. for younger players with big upside & a high first round pick?

Peck
08-03-2006, 04:02 PM
OK, you found 13 players, but I'm going to toss out Richardson and Mason because I think I would rather have Al than either one.

Anyway, you checked through 5 drafts, and checked the 17-30 spots in all of them, I'm guessing. That's 65 draft picks, and only 11 players.

So, there's a 17 % chance that this pick we're trading away will be at least as good as Al.

Looking at your list, I'd only consider Parker and AK stars. So, there's a 3% chance that we land a star with this pick.

You can up those %'s a slight bit since this next draft is deep, but even if you do, I'd still much rather have Al.



Thank God that Donnie does not GM with this attitude. "Well, we won't anyway..."

Yeah, let's just admit defeat.

Actually he did just that after the 00 season.

blanket
08-03-2006, 04:03 PM
If that is the case shouldn't the Pacers then really look to trade J.O. for younger players with big upside & a high first round pick?

:nod: :thumbsup:

Since86
08-03-2006, 04:05 PM
If that is the case shouldn't the Pacers then really look to trade J.O. for younger players with big upside & a high first round pick?

No. That would be a step backwards.

Getting Al is a step sideways. Developing Harrison, and then hopefully landing a backcourt player would be a step forward.

I'm not sold on Al, because I think outside of the backcourt, the center is the weakest position.

Harrison/JO/Granger looks a hell of a lot better to me than JO/Al/Granger. Getting an upgrade at either the 1 or 2 in the draft is gravy.

CableKC
08-03-2006, 04:06 PM
If things work out for us...and we make it into the 2nd round of the playoffs.....then there is no need to trade JONeal....and I will be happy with the cost to get Harrington.........basically what turns out to be a 1st round 15th to 20th draft pick....cuz it was worth it.

If things don't work out for us...and we...again....fall short and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs......then we trade JONeal in the offseason before the draft....ask for the players that need to rebuild and a 2007 1st round pick in return.

I would be willing to send a lottery-protected 1st round pick and forget about the 15-20 protection, give up 1.5 mil in cash ( so that we can meet 1/2 way with the Hawks ), the 7,5 mil T/E and take back John Edwards.

At this point...I want to move on with the offseason but not concede to all of the Hawks demands ( cuz frankly...I am sure that they have p*ssed off DW and Harrington enough ). I understand that any type of negotiations.....there has to be a "give and take" in all this...so I will live with losing the 1st round pick as long as we don't pay as much.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 04:12 PM
You mean like Vince Carter or Rasheed Wallace?

Someone's always available. It'll depend on what team decides it's time for a change.

As for talent on a par with Al - maybe TJ Ford, Ridnour, Gooden, Dunleavy, Haslem, - there are a bunch of those type players around. That list's too long to even begin. You can easily do better than that.

Vince Carter made 13.8 million in 2004.


http://probasketball.about.com/od/newsrumorsopinion/a/vincecartertrad.htm

Rasheed made even more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1731427

And Dunleavy is much worse than Al and is untradeable due to the poison pill provision in his contract, TJ Ford just got traded, Drew Gooden is looking for over 10 million and why would the Sonics trade their starting PG. And the only thing thing better about Haslem than Al is the ring (Devean George has 3) and the hair.

Mourning
08-03-2006, 04:16 PM
You get a player like Granger at 17 once in a blue moon.

We got Al at ... 24, 25? Where did we get Antonio?

I think we will do fine just keeping our first rounder next year.

blanket
08-03-2006, 04:17 PM
You mean like Vince Carter or Rasheed Wallace?

Someone's always available. It'll depend on what team decides it's time for a change.

Neither of whom could've been had for the $7.5M we can offer with the TPE. Plus, both trades required assets more significant to the team receiving them than the $3M and/or a draft pick we could package with the TPE. In no alternate universe could a VC or RW -- even at the low values they had when they were traded -- be had for a TPE. The team trading them couldn't face their fans after making a deal like that.


As for talent on a par with Al - maybe TJ Ford, Ridnour, Gooden, Dunleavy, Haslem, - there are a bunch of those type players around. That list's too long to even begin. You can easily do better than that.

First of all, who thinks those players are on a talent level with Harrington? Particularly Haslem or Dunleavy. But more to the point, why would the Raps, Sonics, Cavs, Warriors or Heat trade any of those players for what amounts to a draft pick and/or cash?

Teams trying to avoid the LT by making a salary dump of a player who is not worth his contract are about the only ones who would be interested in a trade involving our TPE. And the players they'd be offering don't come anywhere close to Al's level of talent.

DisplacedKnick
08-03-2006, 04:19 PM
Vince Carter made 13.8 million in 2004.


http://probasketball.about.com/od/newsrumorsopinion/a/vincecartertrad.htm

Rasheed made even more.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1731427

And Dunleavy is much worse than Al and is untradeable due to the poison pill provision in his contract, TJ Ford just got traded, Drew Gooden is looking for over 10 million and why would the Sonics trade their starting PG. And the only thing thing better about Haslem than Al is the ring (Devean George has 3) and the hair.

There may have been a point to this post - please explain what it is?

blanket
08-03-2006, 04:24 PM
There may have been a point to this post - please explain what it is?

Here it is:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=449879&postcount=102

DisplacedKnick
08-03-2006, 04:27 PM
Neither of whom could've been had for the $7.5M we can offer with the TPE. Plus, both trades required assets more significant to the team receiving them than the $3M and/or a draft pick we could package with the TPE. In no alternate universe could a VC or RW -- even at the low values they had when they were traded -- be had for a TPE. The team trading them couldn't face their fans after making a deal like that.

Do you - and apparently FC - not understand what the term "package with" means?

Evidently not - let me explain. It means you COMBINE the trade exception with another player to get a top player back. Combine is a word that roughly means to put two or more items together.




First of all, who thinks those players are on a talent level with Harrington? Particularly Haslem or Dunleavy. But more to the point, why would the Raps, Sonics, Cavs, Warriors or Heat trade any of those players for what amounts to a draft pick and/or cash?

Teams trying to avoid the LT by making a salary dump of a player who is not worth his contract are about the only ones who would be interested in a trade involving out TPE. And the players they'd be offering don't come anywhere close to Al's level of talent.

There are probably 50 players in the NBA who are roughly on a par with Al - solid role players who can score a little and and do one or two other things - rebound and defend, pass, etc. Stephen Jackson's one. Any of the ones I listed above are others.

What in my post gave you any indication that I was coming up with some kind of list of players who might be available? Was it when I said, "That list's too long to even begin." Or when I said those were examples of the type of players that might be available?

Frank Slade
08-03-2006, 04:28 PM
:drama:

CableKC
08-03-2006, 04:28 PM
We got Al at ... 24, 25? Where did we get Antonio?

I think we will do fine just keeping our first rounder next year.

I wish we could keep the pick....but as UB said.....the draft pick is moot.....DW appears to be willing to part with that. Let's just hope that it will be lottery protected.

In fact......since its not my money.....I would amend my "preferred trade" to:

1 ) T/E + Edwards + 3 mil + Protected 1st round lottery pick ( up to 14 )

or

2 ) T/E + Edwards + 1.5 mil + Protected 1st round pick ( up to 20 )

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 04:38 PM
Do you - and apparently FC - not understand what the term "package with" means?

Evidently not - let me explain. It means you COMBINE the trade exception with another player to get a top player back. Combine is a word that roughly means to put two or more items together.




There are probably 50 players in the NBA who are roughly on a par with Al - solid role players who can score a little and and do one or two other things - rebound and defend, pass, etc. Stephen Jackson's one. Any of the ones I listed above are others.

What in my post gave you any indication that I was coming up with some kind of list of players who might be available? Was it when I said, "That list's too long to even begin." Or when I said those were examples of the type of players that might be available?

How many times does this need to be stated. YOU CANNOT COMBINE THE EXCEPTION WITH A PLAYER TO INCREASE THE VALUE. We have been over this soooooo many times on this board that I thought that everyone was clear on this. So, my point was that a team would have to trade us a player who's contract was at or below 7.8 million, which would be a very good contract for a player that has high impact. No combinations, no packages. Before you throw the Edwards thing at me, realize that we got another exception in the AJ deal, one just large enough to absorb Edward's contract. Those would be seperate deals.

blanket
08-03-2006, 04:44 PM
Do you - and apparently FC - not understand what the term "package with" means?

Evidently not - let me explain. It means you COMBINE the trade exception with another player to get a top player back. Combine is a word that roughly means to put two or more items together.

Do you not understand how a Traded Player Exception works? Evidently not, as you can't package a player or players with them.


What in my post gave you any indication that I was coming up with some kind of list of players who might be available?

Perhaps it was because you were replying to my explicit question "Care to name some players you think would actually be available for the TPE at the trade deadline?"
:shakehead

PacerMan
08-03-2006, 04:47 PM
As for talent on a par with Al - maybe Gooden, Dunleavy, Haslem, - there are a bunch of those type players around.

NOT..

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 04:50 PM
And can you please point out to me where it was that the frontline with Ron/JO/Al or Jeff/JO/Al worked so well together ?

Was it not a general agreement that Al and JO on the court at the same time did not work?

What besides sentiment makes anyone think it will be better this time around ?
Uh, maybe the fact that it was the strength of the team that brought us our only highly successful season as of late? What more do you want? We had Ron/Al/JO in there to finish games and they were killer. We lost because our backcourt couldn't score or defend for anything.

Danny/Al/JO will fit together even better, since Danny is more perimeter oriented than Artest.

SoupIsGood
08-03-2006, 04:51 PM
I think we will do fine just keeping our first rounder next year.

I don't think we will, since we aren't going to be keeping it. ;) The cash is the holdup.

PacerMan
08-03-2006, 04:51 PM
No. That would be a step backwards.

Getting Al is a step sideways. Developing Harrison, and then hopefully landing a backcourt player would be a step forward.

I'm not sold on Al, because I think outside of the backcourt, the center is the weakest position.

Harrison/JO/Granger looks a hell of a lot better to me than JO/Al/Granger. Getting an upgrade at either the 1 or 2 in the draft is gravy.


Al is proven player with a great attitude and leadership skills.
David is a huge body with unrealized potential. He's a hot head and hasn't shown 1 twinge of leadership in his time here. In fact he's been the occasional distraction with his outbursts.
To compare a proven Al with WHAT YOU HOPE David can be and call them even is not very reasonable.
Especially since David is here regardless of whether we sign Al or not.

Naptown_Seth
08-03-2006, 04:56 PM
Regardless...it seems the hold up isn't over the pick...it's the 3 mil. I thought that that was the easiest to give up. Guess not.
I'm sure DW would pay the $3m to keep the pick. But if DW has relented on the pick AND Edwards, then BK needs to STFU and sign ASAP. That money is nothing compared to what the pick and cleaning up the Edwards screw up does for THE TEAM.

You can make back that $3m in improved ticket sales. Blow this deal and lose that #1 pick next season and you'll be out a lot more than $3.

Pacers fans would be grumpy with a losing season without Al brought in, but as soon as the draft rolled around it would all be forgotten. Hawks fans are not going to be so forgiving with no 1st round picks the next 2 years.

Heck, they can't sell tickets when the team is good. But a good pick and a nice FA next year with their huge cap space could bump game averages up by 3-4K, and at a $40 seat average (my quick guess) that could mean an extra $6.5m a season.

But by all means refuse to deal because of that $3m that you get once, not for several seasons.



Sidebar - I agree about Chad Ford, I really like to read his stuff. He's a guy that does clearly follow the NBA closely and understands the biz and the sport.

rexnom
08-03-2006, 05:07 PM
I'm sure DW would pay the $3m to keep the pick. But if DW has relented on the pick AND Edwards, then BK needs to STFU and sign ASAP. That money is nothing compared to what the pick and cleaning up the Edwards screw up does for THE TEAM.

You can make back that $3m in improved ticket sales. Blow this deal and lose that #1 pick next season and you'll be out a lot more than $3.

Pacers fans would be grumpy with a losing season without Al brought in, but as soon as the draft rolled around it would all be forgotten. Hawks fans are not going to be so forgiving with no 1st round picks the next 2 years.

Heck, they can't sell tickets when the team is good. But a good pick and a nice FA next year with their huge cap space could bump game averages up by 3-4K, and at a $40 seat average (my quick guess) that could mean an extra $6.5m a season.

But by all means refuse to deal because of that $3m that you get once, not for several seasons.



Sidebar - I agree about Chad Ford, I really like to read his stuff. He's a guy that does clearly follow the NBA closely and understands the biz and the sport.
I think that BK is getting a bit greedy. I don't think we have a choice here...I don't think there is any way we are getting Al without the pick. That has to be the main incentive (considering they've traded away their pick).

I just think that DW is saying "we're doing you a favor here...don't get too greedy" and BK just got too greedy...Al got impatient...and that's why we are here.

Naptown_Seth
08-03-2006, 06:25 PM
Displaced Knick - maybe take that tone down a notch when you are posting something that is not only wrong, but has been explained correctly ad nauseum around here the last month.

7.6m, that's it. That's the most the Pacers can get with the TE. And that requires a team to give up that contract for NOTHING except picks, cash or a 2nd trade involving players which meets the CBA (salary match within 25%) and in which the Pacers get shafted (in order to interest the team in giving up the 7.6m player).


At 7.6m Al will go below market value, and this is the Pacers benefitting from circumstance just like they did when they picked up Ron with his low contract.


Able - JO/Artest/Harrington were the 3 HIGHEST minutes players on the 61 win team. All played over 31mpg (37 Ron, 36 JO, 31 Al...and he sat the first 6-8 to start the game) which means that they all played 30 of the final 42 or so. That's 100% certain that they played at least 6-7 minutes as a group per game.

Generally they ended every game with that frontline.

BTW, in the 2004 playoffs Harrington outrebounded Artest per minute (almost outright) and had more steals per game outright despite 12 mpg less than he was getting. He was also 2nd only to Jeff Foster in offensive boards in those playoffs. Al also shot a higher FG% and 3P% than JO, Ron and (yes) Reggie in the 04 playoffs.


One other side note - the Plus-Minus for 03-04. Harrington was rather blah, though in the black, on +/-. However JO and Ron were both very strong (5.7 and 6.3 respectively).

But the team leader in per game AND per 48 minute +/-?

Jamal Tinsley, 6.6 per game, 11.9 per 48.
Reggie, 6.3, 10.8
Ron, 6.3, 8.2
Foster 5.7, 11.5

Just of interest to those that don't remember how big an impact Tinsley made on the team before his injuries started kicking in the last 2 seasons.



I just think that DW is saying "we're doing you a favor here...don't get too greedy" and BK just got too greedy...Al got impatient...and that's why we are here.
I agree. And its a stupid thing to be greedy about. If he was holding out for the pick it would be different, but the cash? Not appliable to the cap cash? What's the point?

AnotherBirdCreation
08-03-2006, 07:15 PM
I think ownership breathing down Knight's neck abouut money has played a large part in this. In fact, someone else might be pulling the strings here.

As for the Al vs. No Al debate, I'm done with that until the season begins. I can't even bring myself to reply to people that don't think bringing in Al is a major step forward any more.

Pacersfan46
08-03-2006, 07:39 PM
I love all this "NEXT YEARS DRAFT CLASS IS GREAT" ..... when the truth is that not one single player has declared for the draft yet.

Ridiculous.

Thirtysomethin
08-03-2006, 07:55 PM
Exactly what I had in mind. The forwards next year are deep.


I don't like Al too much and I definetly don't like him as a compliment to JO, however, I would take Al if we could then trade JO for someone like Pierce.

Imagine the starting lineup of

Tinsley
Pierce
Granger
Harrington
Harrison

:)

Napptown
08-03-2006, 08:47 PM
Rumors have Baron Davis is on the trading block. I wouldn't mind seeing us send the TE and maybe Jax/Tinsley to Pacers buddy Mullins for Davis and Pietrus or Biedrins (maybe even just an addtional pick in next years draft).

Then the Warriors could send the TE to ATL and grab Harrington like they were wanting to in the first place. Let the Warriors deal with BK and the Hawks.

Not sure if it is possible contract wise but it would give us a great lineup

Davis
Pietrus
Granger
JO
Harrison

rexnom
08-03-2006, 09:04 PM
Displaced Knick - maybe take that tone down a notch when you are posting something that is not only wrong, but has been explained correctly ad nauseum around here the last month.

7.6m, that's it. That's the most the Pacers can get with the TE. And that requires a team to give up that contract for NOTHING except picks, cash or a 2nd trade involving players which meets the CBA (salary match within 25%) and in which the Pacers get shafted (in order to interest the team in giving up the 7.6m player).


At 7.6m Al will go below market value, and this is the Pacers benefitting from circumstance just like they did when they picked up Ron with his low contract.
You aren't the slightest bit worried that all bets are off now and the 6 years/57 million no longer applies and the Tellem will look for Al to cash in more to the tune of, say, 6 years/66 million. I think that puts Al dangerously close into overpaid-ville.

FrenchConnection
08-03-2006, 09:33 PM
You aren't the slightest bit worried that all bets are off now and the 6 years/57 million no longer applies and the Tellem will look for Al to cash in more to the tune of, say, 6 years/66 million. I think that puts Al dangerously close into overpaid-ville.

He would have to get that from some other team, so it would not be our problem. The Pacers can only spend to the TE, which starts at 7.6 million. But yes, that would be overpaying but the Warriors would pay him that if only the Hawks would take Murphy's contract. But if they would do that, they might as well just re-sign Al.

Steve McQueen
08-04-2006, 12:32 PM
you people are seriously overrating next years draft. Yes it will be a little deeper than the past few drafts, but not nearly as much as people like KStat are making it out to be. #20 in the 2007 draft will be the equalivant to around #15-17 in this past draft. And I also believe with Harrington and a healthy roster our pick will be lower than #20, so I'd say pull the trigger and get it over with.

Shade
04-20-2007, 11:20 PM
:bump:

Another oldie worth sharing in light of the fact that we no longer have our pick. Or Al, or that matter. :shakehead

carpediem024
04-21-2007, 01:17 AM
Stern: And in the first pick of the 2007 NBA Draft, The Indiana Pacers select

Greg Oden.

-----

Larry: Zzzzz huh? Aw **** I woke up.

:censored:

Bball
04-21-2007, 01:58 AM
Doesn't it feel foolish to have been a sunshiner posting in this thread? ;)

Mourning
04-21-2007, 03:50 AM
Doesn't it feel foolish to have been a sunshiner posting in this thread? ;)

I'm happy I didn't want Al coming in the first place.

And to all the people saying this coming draft would be nothing special ... :tongue:



:D:D:D