PDA

View Full Version : Harrington for Tyson Chandler?



Zesty
04-26-2004, 05:20 PM
Don't look at me, it's not my idea.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/col_mcgraw.asp?intID=3810394

Reggie4Three
04-26-2004, 05:29 PM
IF, and only if, Harrington demanded a trade to be a starter next year would I trade for Chandler. They could do alot worse than that if they had to trade him. Put Chandler in with the group we have him and watch him mature and get better.

sweabs
04-26-2004, 05:30 PM
Would Indiana be willing to trade Harrington? Good question. After all, Harrington is insurance for the volatile Ron Artest, available to step in whenever Artest gets suspended.

One of the dumbest comments I've ever read... :unimpressed:

MSA2CF
04-26-2004, 05:40 PM
No.

Reggie4Three
04-26-2004, 05:45 PM
No.

Who WOULD you trade him for if you have to trade him?

MSA2CF
04-26-2004, 05:49 PM
No.

Who WOULD you trade him for if you have to trade him?

Are you talking who I would trade Al for or who I would trade Tyson for?

Eindar
04-26-2004, 05:49 PM
I don't think I'd trade Harrington for Chandler. Chandler's injury-prone and is more of a PF than a C. Now, Scottie Pippen (Salary cap relief!) and an unprotected lottery pick? I'd take that. We could draft a center or a SG, depending on if management believes that Primoz is going to develop enough to be a solid backup or starter.

Hicks
04-26-2004, 06:04 PM
Holy crap that went right past me. It took me reading most of the replies to realize we were talking about Chandler and not Curry.

Hell no.

If it were Curry I'd think about it, but not Chandler.

Doug
04-26-2004, 06:05 PM
If it were Curry I'd think about it, but not Chandler.

Ditto.

Reggie4Three
04-26-2004, 06:05 PM
No.

Who WOULD you trade him for if you have to trade him?

Are you talking who I would trade Al for or who I would trade Tyson for?

If you were DW/LB and Al Harrington came to you after the season and said that he really wanted the opportunity to start somewhere next year and would appreciate it if you would look for a trade that would allow him to start, what would you do?

Obviously, you could just tell him that he's under contract and he'll come off the bench as long as they want him to do that. I don't think that would be a good decision at all.

Assuming you try to accomodate Al, what realistic options are out there?

TheSauceMaster
04-26-2004, 06:06 PM
Trading AL for Chandler would be a insult to AL and I am not a fan of AL's anyways :laugh:

efx
04-26-2004, 06:12 PM
I've had a problem with how the media has potrayed Artest all season and this article gave me an excellent oppurtunity to respond to it. Here's what I wrote to the writer:

"Not sure if I would want to give up Harrington for Chandler. But what irked me about your column is that you've completely disregarded Artests latest season. No flareups, no troubles at all and yet all you media types refuse to give up on the notion that he is a troublemaker. People can change and he obviously has. But in todays sensationalist journalism the troublesome Artest is easier to sell than the Artest who improved everything from his temper and selfcontrol to his game.

It's really a pity.

Regards"

I'm so tired of the way sports journalism is now..

sweabs
04-26-2004, 06:44 PM
I've had a problem with how the media has potrayed Artest all season and this article gave me an excellent oppurtunity to respond to it. Here's what I wrote to the writer:

"Not sure if I would want to give up Harrington for Chandler. But what irked me about your column is that you've completely disregarded Artests latest season. No flareups, no troubles at all and yet all you media types refuse to give up on the notion that he is a troublemaker. People can change and he obviously has. But in todays sensationalist journalism the troublesome Artest is easier to sell than the Artest who improved everything from his temper and selfcontrol to his game.

It's really a pity.

Regards"

I'm so tired of the way sports journalism is now..

Thank you for doing that because the comment he made was ridiculous.

SkipperZ
04-26-2004, 06:51 PM
Dwight Howard for Al Harrington is an interesting idea though....

How far back would the team really fall losing Al? Considering Bender being the future star of this team ;) (Ive been saying that for 3 years and Ill stick with it even though JO and Ron are making it kinda hard for me to continue to do so) I dont think they would drop taht much. Maybe 55-58 wins and still contenders for the championship in my opinion.

This team has the talent up front to wait for Dwight Howard while still maintaining a championship caliber team. And when/if Dwight Howard blossoms to his full potential, he could be everything Chris Webber was supposed to be. In other words, Kevin Garnett.

The only way I would consider moving JO to center would be to fit a guy like Howard into the lineup.
Not to mention taking on the draft pick and Scottie Pippen's salary only helps our salary concerns.

Arcadian
04-26-2004, 07:00 PM
Again I am in shock. After all the trades I've seen people suggest all season for Al this is one of the best and yet no one seems to think it's a good idea.

Nobody would trade Al for the #1 pick in the draft?

Nobody thinks possibly that Chandler would play better on an older team next to a All star? Or that it might not just be Jermaine, Al and Bender who needed time to develop coming straight from high school?

I guess we just have to wait until the Pacers lose a game for people to want to trade Al.

SpADeD
04-26-2004, 08:48 PM
The only way I think we will trade Al is if he demands it. Even so I think we would need to get another shooter (Ray Allen comes to mind) not Chandler. Tyson just isn't that good.

Slick Pinkham
04-26-2004, 09:03 PM
A healthy and motivated Chandler is a good player.

In his short career, it seems he's rarely been either healthy healthy or well-motivated, and I don't think he'd ever be a center even if he was not playing with Curry, so...

no way!

I'd only trade Al if it gave us something we don't have already, like a true center with all-star potential (like Curry) or a worthy successor to Reggie (like a Ray Allen).

MSA2CF
04-26-2004, 10:19 PM
Assuming you try to accomodate Al, what realistic options are out there?

Since you are making me, I will comply. :flirt:

*Note, I would never trade Al, never.*

Abdur-Rahim, Shareef
Finley, Michael
Gasol, Pau *This is the only one I think really, probably isn't realistic.
Jamison, Antawn
Posey, James *I really think Al is better than him, though.

So there are my choices. As you can tell, I'd want a lot for him. I believe Al has a lot of upside, and he'll have even more when he matures and learns that starting is not all that important in the end. I also don't want him to come back and bite me in the butt if I'd trade him away and not get something of greater or equal value for him.

Anthem
04-26-2004, 10:53 PM
If you were DW/LB and Al Harrington came to you after the season and said that he really wanted the opportunity to start somewhere next year and would appreciate it if you would look for a trade that would allow him to start, what would you do?

I definately wouldn't move him for Chandler. I'd have to ponder the pick.

I'd probably check around to see what I could get... I'm really hoping that Al and Croshere can inflict some serious damage in the playoffs and raise their value, as that's the combo I see moving. Maybe Pollard instead, but whatever.

bulletproof
04-26-2004, 11:20 PM
If the Pacers go all the way, Al will want to be traded. If they don't go all the way, Al will want to be traded. And it's Donnie's position that if a player doesn't want to be there, he'll do everything within his power to move him.

Anthem
04-26-2004, 11:24 PM
If the Pacers go all the way, Al will want to be traded. If they don't go all the way, Al will want to be traded. And it's Donnie's position that if a player doesn't want to be there, he'll do everything within his power to move him.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

Tim
04-26-2004, 11:45 PM
If the Pacers go all the way, Al will want to be traded. If they don't go all the way, Al will want to be traded. And it's Donnie's position that if a player doesn't want to be there, he'll do everything within his power to move him.

Al has stated he doesn't want to be traded, never asked for a trade and would like to finish is career here? Why do you think differently?

bulletproof
04-27-2004, 12:25 AM
If the Pacers go all the way, Al will want to be traded. If they don't go all the way, Al will want to be traded. And it's Donnie's position that if a player doesn't want to be there, he'll do everything within his power to move him.

Al has stated he doesn't want to be traded, never asked for a trade and would like to finish is career here? Why do you think differently?


Take everything you read of that nature with a grain of salt. There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that no one knows about except those involved. A lot of stuff the media doesn't know about. Al wants to be the man, not the man playing behind the man.

diego
04-27-2004, 01:01 AM
Funny thing is AD was exactly the same situation and type pf player as AL. I rememeber most everyone hating the fact we traded AD for Bender,
he was a great 6th man, rumors of him wanting to start etc....and then when we lost him, nobody thought we would go all the way...but granted we didnt win it, but we were in the finals the next year due to depth. Well we are deep at Al's position, so trading him fo right player may be the perfect scenario and most evident.

Arcadian
04-27-2004, 01:03 AM
Take everything you read of that nature with a grain of salt.

Does that include your posts?

bulletproof
04-27-2004, 01:17 AM
Take everything you read of that nature with a grain of salt.

Does that include your posts?


:devil:

Peck
04-27-2004, 01:38 AM
Take everything you read of that nature with a grain of salt.

Does that include your posts? :laugh:

Reggie4Three
04-27-2004, 01:48 AM
Assuming you try to accomodate Al, what realistic options are out there?

Since you are making me, I will comply. :flirt:

*Note, I would never trade Al, never.*

Abdur-Rahim, Shareef
Finley, Michael
Gasol, Pau *This is the only one I think really, probably isn't realistic.
Jamison, Antawn
Posey, James *I really think Al is better than him, though.

So there are my choices. As you can tell, I'd want a lot for him. I believe Al has a lot of upside, and he'll have even more when he matures and learns that starting is not all that important in the end. I also don't want him to come back and bite me in the butt if I'd trade him away and not get something of greater or equal value for him.

Abdur-Rahim I would never take. Maybe the guy has just been unlucky, but he's never been in the playoffs. I would take Finley, Gasol, or Posey in a heartbeat for Al, but I would seriously doubt that any of them would be traded straight up for him. Jamison maybe, but I don't see much benefit to the Pacers in that trade.

I really don't think the Pacers will get much more than a Tyson Chandler for Al, which is why I would be willing to do that, but only if Al demanded it. I think, like someone else said, Tyson will only get better and getting out of Chicago onto a team like the Pacers would only speed up that process.

Also, Al may have said that he does not want to be traded, but he has said that he wants to start. There are only 2 ways to accomplish that.

1. Reggie retires (or agrees to a role on the bench) and Artest becomes the 2 guard. Al starts at SF. I think this could work, but many here don't. I think if Al is moved, it means that DW and LB agree that it won't work. If he stays, it means this is the plan.

2. Ron Artest or JO have to be traded to open up a spot for Al to start. I think we all agree that this won't happen unless Artest goes off the deep end sometime in the future when things aren't going as well. I certainly wouldn't expect it to happen before the end of this year, and I expect that they will be looking to trade AL this summer if they decide they don't want Artest at SG.

Having a deep bench is great. The downside is that these players will want to see if they can be a starter in the league. They want a chance to become an all-star. You can't really blame them for that. If you consider JO and Artest to be fixtures in the lineup, there will be JB, Al, and Freddie that will all be looking for that open position when Reggie leaves the starting lineup. 2 of them will not be happy with having no chance to ever start. Perhaps none of them will eventually be the answer that DW and LB have in mind.

In the long run, I expect the Pacers will have to trade 2 of the 3, JB Al and Freddie. If they can trade one of them for an All-Star caliber starter at a position we need that would be great but I don't think anyone's going to do that. Also, can the Pacers really afford to get another max. player anyway? Do they even want another player that is going to want to get his 20 points a game? More likely, they'll get a decent starter at a need position (Dampier or a SG like Christie, who I think would be perfect for the Pacers, but that's another thread) or get a younger player that has great potential that won't mind coming off the bench for a couple of years (Chandler).

Peck
04-27-2004, 01:55 AM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

Anthem
04-27-2004, 02:08 AM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

You think Al would be happy starting the game but not finishing it?

Peck
04-27-2004, 02:15 AM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

You think Al would be happy starting the game but not finishing it?

Not at all.

You see I'm one of those people who think that who starts matters, so I see no reason why Al couldn't start & also finish.

Personnaly I just don't see what all the hubub is about with Al starting. Jeff has never had a problem coming off of the bench, he plays about 25 min. a game anyway so if it makes Al content then so be it.

Anthem
04-27-2004, 02:37 AM
You see I'm one of those people who think that who starts matters

Well then I'm with you.

I think those "other" folks left with Isiah.

Reggie4Three
04-27-2004, 03:21 AM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If Al can understand that when he's in the game as a starter he has to defer to JO in most cases, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

The Pacers like to start the game by establishing JO in the post. With Al coming off the bench, the overlap with the two is minimized. I think Al's aggressiveness on the offensive end tends to work better with the other bench players. I don't want to sound as if I think JO and Al on the court at the same time doesn't work. Many times this year it has worked very well. I just think the starting group works better with Foster right now, who takes very few shots.

You have presented a third way that Al can start. If DW and LB think this would work, we might see it. I doubt that it will happen because JO doesn't like to be the center, which he would have to be against most teams with Al in for Jeff.

wintermute
04-27-2004, 03:26 AM
:o

chandler is a great prospect. the only potentially bad thing about him is his back.

i certainly would prefer chandler over curry any day. chandler is hard working, curry is lazy. chandler is athletic, curry is slow. chandler is already a great defender, curry can't be bothered. the only advantage curry has is his low post offense, and you can expect that chandler will eventually be better in that area too - put simply, he has a higher ceiling.

back to al. i don't know if anyone mentioned it already, praise for al seems few and far between, but he has really played well this series. enough that i don't really want to trade him anymore. but that's assuming al wants to stay. starting or not, maybe he doesn't want to be 3rd banana forever. i know he hasn't said it, but that's a natural inclination for anyone.

if that's case, then i'd think a prospect like chandler would be great value for al, better than some of the others proposed (pierce, sar, jamison, etc)...

Unclebuck
04-27-2004, 09:33 AM
Chandler is very tempting. he is a very hard worker and plays very hard. he wants to win. if his back is OK, I would be very tempted to make that trade. Chandler and J.O would be a great defensive tandem. Similar to what the pistons have right now.


I stand by my comments, and in fact feel more strongly about those.

Chandler, Chandler, I got the fever for the Chandler

ChicagoJ
04-27-2004, 09:39 AM
Chandler is very tempting. he is a very hard worker and plays very hard. he wants to win. if his back is OK, I would be very tempted to make that trade. Chandler and J.O would be a great defensive tandem. Similar to what the pistons have right now.


We obviously haven't watched the same Tyson's Chicken. Ooops. I meant Chandler.

This guy makes Bender look "durable" and "tough". :o


Let's put it this way, I'd rather keep Pollard than trade him for Chandler, (and most of you know how I feel about Pollard and his salary) and you all are talking about Al?

Unclebuck
04-27-2004, 09:49 AM
Chandler is very tempting. he is a very hard worker and plays very hard. he wants to win. if his back is OK, I would be very tempted to make that trade. Chandler and J.O would be a great defensive tandem. Similar to what the pistons have right now.


We obviously haven't watched the same Tyson's Chicken. Ooops. I meant Chandler.

This guy makes Bender look "durable" and "tough". :o


Let's put it this way, I'd rather keep Pollard than trade him for Chandler, (and most of you know how I feel about Pollard and his salary) and you all are talking about Al?

If Chandler can get and stay healthy, he will be one of the best defenders in the league

ChicagoJ
04-27-2004, 11:26 AM
Chandler is very tempting. he is a very hard worker and plays very hard. he wants to win. if his back is OK, I would be very tempted to make that trade. Chandler and J.O would be a great defensive tandem. Similar to what the pistons have right now.


We obviously haven't watched the same Tyson's Chicken. Ooops. I meant Chandler.

This guy makes Bender look "durable" and "tough". :o


Let's put it this way, I'd rather keep Pollard than trade him for Chandler, (and most of you know how I feel about Pollard and his salary) and you all are talking about Al?

If Chandler can get and stay healthy, he will be one of the best defenders in the league


That's the rub. IMO, it'll be years until he figures it out. He's only considered a hard worker relative to Curry and Crawford. He's truly clueless and years of losing are only making it less likely that he ever figures out how to be a winner. I suppose he could eventually be the next Shareef or Elton Brand or Clark Kellogg or Bob MacAdoo - a player that everyone thinks is great but always plays on losing teams. You know, the kind of player that everybody says "it isn't his fault" that his team *always* stinks or is mediocre (0.500) at best.

If I had a winning team, I wouldn't trade for any of those guys up here in Chicago (Chandler, Curry, or Crawford).

naptownmenace
04-28-2004, 10:25 AM
WHY do some of you persist in acting like you somehow know what is going on in Al's head? Do you truly believe idiots like Vescey?
Al is an emotional and physical leader on this team. Jermaine is NOT the same player when he's not next to Al.
Managment knows WAY more about who's important and who's not.
Al's not going anywhere. :pepper:

I have to agree with that sentiment. I don't think the Pacers will trade Al at all or even entertain talks about trading him.

I've been critical of Al in the past (I was the biggest supporter of the trade Al for Payton talk last year) but in case you haven't noticed, Al is getting better as the season goes on.

I'm starting to believe that his knee is finally beginning to strengthen and he is finally back in game shape from his surgery two years ago. I think he's on the verge of really breaking out in these playoffs and if that's the case, no way will DW or Bird look to trade him.

Kegboy
04-28-2004, 01:40 PM
The question of trading Al all boils down to if Reggie retires or not. If he does, regardless of the endless debate of if Ron can play 2, I'd say it's a lock he would and Al would move up to starting 3. You can make an argument that Fred would fit in better with the starters (not taking shots away from JO and Ron), but I still think the staff will give Al the spot, since it'll give JB more minutes.

Now, if Reggie doesn't retire, and it's obvious changes need to be made, either cause we got our butts kicked or Al starts whining, then we'll trade him. Larry's statements on malcontent players jives with Donnie on this.

But as for who we trade him for, a big no to Tyson Chandler. I'd think about Kwame or Curry, but Tyson is a major injury risk. The idea of a high draft pick is intriguing, but you need to take a closer look at this year's draft. Some GM was just quoted anonymously as saying that it's a good thing that 10-12 HS'ers are coming out, cause without them there wouldn't be anybody to pick. And Larry was just quoted as saying that all the HS'ers together weren't as good as JB.

So that leaves the college kids. I've watched a little college, not a whole lot, but I can tell you there's not much. Okafor's a stud, I see him as a Elton Brand with a little poorer offensive game. But as the article states, Chicago will obviously take him if they can, and I don't see anyone else trading that pick for Al. After that, alot of mediocre swingmen or tweener's, unless you want a shorter Tinsley in Nelson. I wouldn't mind having a Ben Gordon, but I think Al's a better player.

I mention Gordon cause he's a legit 2, which is what we need. Fred's developing nicely, but we still need outside shooting. You know it, I know it, my grandma knows it, and Larry's the first to tell you so. But instead of Gordon, I think we'd be much better trying to trade Al for a good solid 2-guard with range. We already know we could of had Barry for the taking, and I don't see any reason why we couldn't get a comparable player. Sure, we're not gonna get Ray Allen or Michael Redd, er, well, maybe we COULD get Allen with the brewhaha going on up in Seattle... :cool: :cool: :cool:

Sorry, started daydreaming there. My point is, every week or so we hear trade rumors of somebody wanting Al. That means he's a highly sout after commodity, and if we put him on the block, we should get a number of offers. If we can find a good solid player with range that we can pair with Fred to replace Reggie down the road, that's the way we should go.

Of course, all of this is moot, cause I believe we'll win the title, Uncle Reg puts himself out to pasture, and Al gets his wish. :)

Tim
04-28-2004, 06:51 PM
Will the people who would trade Al for a bag of chips remember what team we are talking about.

This is the Pacers, they don't trade a lot, they hardly ever trade away good players, Al is a very good player.

As far as Al making trade demands, look the bottom of the screen, click the link to Al's website, find out what really is on Al's mind.

I know some Al critics won't do that because then they with have direct evidence that Al wants to retire a Pacer so let me spoil your milk right here and now.

AL SAID HE IS HAPPY WITH HIS ROLE, WANTS TO START BUT WILL WAIT, AND WILL RETIRE A PACER.

YOU WILL NEVER BE RID OF AL, NEVER. NO GM WILL BEND OVER AND LET DONNIE SCREW THEM LIKE HE DID THE BULLS WITH JALEN, THEREFORE AL WILL NEVER BE TRADED. GET USE TO SEEING HIS EVER SMILING FACE, THIS MAN IS GONNA BRING A PARADE TO INDIANA.
PACERS WILL CONTINUE TO WIN WITH AL, DEAL WITH IT.

The next game Al will go into extreme postup mode and turn the ball over 8 times before being benched, you will still be stuck with Al. :)

wintermute
04-29-2004, 12:05 PM
But as for who we trade him for, a big no to Tyson Chandler. I'd think about Kwame or Curry, but Tyson is a major injury risk. The idea of a high draft pick is intriguing, but you need to take a closer look at this year's draft. Some GM was just quoted anonymously as saying that it's a good thing that 10-12 HS'ers are coming out, cause without them there wouldn't be anybody to pick. And Larry was just quoted as saying that all the HS'ers together weren't as good as JB.

So that leaves the college kids. I've watched a little college, not a whole lot, but I can tell you there's not much. Okafor's a stud, I see him as a Elton Brand with a little poorer offensive game. But as the article states, Chicago will obviously take him if they can, and I don't see anyone else trading that pick for Al. After that, alot of mediocre swingmen or tweener's, unless you want a shorter Tinsley in Nelson. I wouldn't mind having a Ben Gordon, but I think Al's a better player.


some comments. other than high schoolers and college kids, this year's draft seems to have attracted an incredible number of foreign giants. we could end up with our own darko ;) heck, we might end up with our own darko using our own pick (#29).

gordon isn't a legit 2. he's 6'3", and expected to play the point. i'm not sure his shooting is so good too. oops, kind of got off-topic :blush:

Kegboy
04-29-2004, 02:01 PM
But as for who we trade him for, a big no to Tyson Chandler. I'd think about Kwame or Curry, but Tyson is a major injury risk. The idea of a high draft pick is intriguing, but you need to take a closer look at this year's draft. Some GM was just quoted anonymously as saying that it's a good thing that 10-12 HS'ers are coming out, cause without them there wouldn't be anybody to pick. And Larry was just quoted as saying that all the HS'ers together weren't as good as JB.

So that leaves the college kids. I've watched a little college, not a whole lot, but I can tell you there's not much. Okafor's a stud, I see him as a Elton Brand with a little poorer offensive game. But as the article states, Chicago will obviously take him if they can, and I don't see anyone else trading that pick for Al. After that, alot of mediocre swingmen or tweener's, unless you want a shorter Tinsley in Nelson. I wouldn't mind having a Ben Gordon, but I think Al's a better player.


some comments. other than high schoolers and college kids, this year's draft seems to have attracted an incredible number of foreign giants. we could end up with our own darko ;) heck, we might end up with our own darko using our own pick (#29).

gordon isn't a legit 2. he's 6'3", and expected to play the point. i'm not sure his shooting is so good too. oops, kind of got off-topic :blush:

Yeah, I remembered foreigners after I posted. Must be why everybody's been scouting over there so hard lately.

Gordon's only 6'3"? Well crap then, forget what I said.

fwpacerfan
04-29-2004, 04:39 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

This is the best idea I've seen so far. We would still have a lot of firepower coming off the bench in Freddie and Bender - one of which would be a 6th man of the year candidate.

The only reason this trade intrigues me is Josh Howard. This team could afford to let him mature and the addition of a healthy Chandler would be great. The injuries are a factor, but I think he needs the same thing Bender needs - some muscle. Hire Tom Zupancic from the Colts to put some weight on these guys and I think the injuries would go down.

Suaveness
04-29-2004, 04:55 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If we start Al then that means we have 4 post players and 1 unproven outside shooter in the game. There is no way for us to get outside shots, and if we have to rely on Ron for that, then frankly I'm scared.

And this leaves the bench open. I have confidence Freddy will be able to score, but then who else? Bender? Maybe, as long as he doesn't get injured again, and there is no guarentee about him staying healthy.

ChicagoJ
04-29-2004, 05:20 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If we start Al then that means we have 4 post players and 1 unproven outside shooter in the game. There is no way for us to get outside shots, and if we have to rely on Ron for that, then frankly I'm scared.

And this leaves the bench open. I have confidence Freddy will be able to score, but then who else? Bender? Maybe, as long as he doesn't get injured again, and there is no guarentee about him staying healthy.

I don't think that's the consideration. Just my opinion, but if Al starts its Foster that heads to the bench. Then your front court is even smaller in comparison to the handful of really bruising frontcourts.

I just don't see the benefit of playing both Al and Ron out of position (IOW, starting those two with Foster and JO.)

fwpacerfan
04-29-2004, 05:28 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If we start Al then that means we have 4 post players and 1 unproven outside shooter in the game. There is no way for us to get outside shots, and if we have to rely on Ron for that, then frankly I'm scared.

And this leaves the bench open. I have confidence Freddy will be able to score, but then who else? Bender? Maybe, as long as he doesn't get injured again, and there is no guarentee about him staying healthy.

I don't think that's the consideration. Just my opinion, but if Al starts its Foster that heads to the bench. Then your front court is even smaller in comparison to the handful of really bruising frontcourts.

I just don't see the benefit of playing both Al and Ron out of position (IOW, starting those two with Foster and JO.)

I would see Al taking Foster's place as well. You bring up a good question about size. I don't know how big an issue that would be overall. You would have 3 very good defenders, all of whom can guard bigger players. I'm not sure if they can guard bigger players for 30 minutes a night though.

ChicagoJ
04-29-2004, 05:34 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If we start Al then that means we have 4 post players and 1 unproven outside shooter in the game. There is no way for us to get outside shots, and if we have to rely on Ron for that, then frankly I'm scared.

And this leaves the bench open. I have confidence Freddy will be able to score, but then who else? Bender? Maybe, as long as he doesn't get injured again, and there is no guarentee about him staying healthy.

I don't think that's the consideration. Just my opinion, but if Al starts its Foster that heads to the bench. Then your front court is even smaller in comparison to the handful of really bruising frontcourts.

I just don't see the benefit of playing both Al and Ron out of position (IOW, starting those two with Foster and JO.)

I would see Al taking Foster's place as well. You bring up a good question about size. I don't know how big an issue that would be overall. You would have 3 very good defenders, all of whom can guard bigger players. I'm not sure if they can guard bigger players for 30 minutes a night though.

The point I kinda made was that that it isn't 30 minutes a night. Only three to five teams have the type of bulk that would give the Pacers problems (and one of them, Golden State, has so many other problems its irrelevant). So its thirty minutes every once in a while. Of course, its Detroit, and to a lesser extent NJ and NO that give us fits both with thier bulk and their backcourt quickness. So if we improved our backcourt quickness then perhaps that could lessen the size impact as well.

Nobody in the league can matchup with the Lakers bulk, or even to Rockets bulk, so I wouldn't dismiss the Ron/ Al/ JO because of unfavorable matchups with those two teams.

:whoknows:

Suaveness
04-29-2004, 06:27 PM
Can I ask a simple question.

If Al asks to start, why not just let him?

I've heard some of you say over & over & over again, it doesn't matter who starts but who finishes (you know who you are) so if that's the case wouldn't the simple answer to all of this just be to start Al & bench Jeff?

Or does it really matter who starts?

If we start Al then that means we have 4 post players and 1 unproven outside shooter in the game. There is no way for us to get outside shots, and if we have to rely on Ron for that, then frankly I'm scared.

And this leaves the bench open. I have confidence Freddy will be able to score, but then who else? Bender? Maybe, as long as he doesn't get injured again, and there is no guarentee about him staying healthy.

I don't think that's the consideration. Just my opinion, but if Al starts its Foster that heads to the bench. Then your front court is even smaller in comparison to the handful of really bruising frontcourts.

I just don't see the benefit of playing both Al and Ron out of position (IOW, starting those two with Foster and JO.)

The problem I have with that is that JO starts at C, and does not play well when starting C. He is a natural PF, and he should play that position. Granted, he plays C quite often during a game. However, that is into the middle of the game, and so foul trouble does not occur. If he starts at C, he gets into foul trouble. I don't like JO starting C for that reason.

Anthem
04-30-2004, 01:33 AM
Look, I like Al Harrington a LOT. But some of you guys take it way too personally when people talk about trading Al. It's not brought up because he's not valuable, it's brought up because he IS. He's the Pacer most likely to be traded in the next six months. If Al hadn't blown a tendon, he very well might have been traded before the deadline.

I don't understand the Harrington Religion.

kerosene
04-30-2004, 02:21 AM
Look, I like Al Harrington a LOT. But some of you guys take it way too personally when people talk about trading Al. It's not brought up because he's not valuable, it's brought up because he IS. He's the Pacer most likely to be traded in the next six months. If Al hadn't blown a tendon, he very well might have been traded before the deadline.

I don't understand the Harrington Religion.

Harrington is by far the most valuable, tradeable, and dare I say redundant "piece" the Pacers have. If the salary cap has taught us anything over the last two years it's that you have to give quality to get quality.

The days of absolutely screwing other teams is for the most part over. There _may_ be an exception or two but given cap implications I can't think of one (in terms of contracts dumped). I could be wrong though.

If you believe in Artest _and_ Bender then...

EDIT -
I mean the most valuable tradeable piece. Not to say he's more valuable than JO or Artest. Thanks for your time.

Artestaholic
04-30-2004, 02:34 AM
If Tyson Chandler can play center then I'd do it. The guys 7'2" and athletic.

Artestaholic
04-30-2004, 02:39 AM
But if Indy wins the championship or comes close to it and Al plays huge I'd have to pass.

fwpacerfan
04-30-2004, 08:47 AM
Look, I like Al Harrington a LOT. But some of you guys take it way too personally when people talk about trading Al. It's not brought up because he's not valuable, it's brought up because he IS. He's the Pacer most likely to be traded in the next six months. If Al hadn't blown a tendon, he very well might have been traded before the deadline.

I don't understand the Harrington Religion.

...
If you believe in Artest _and_ Bender then...



There is the Million Dollar question - does this orginization believe in Bender? If I were certain Bender would play a full season, then I'd say do this trade.

ChicagoJ
06-23-2004, 11:44 PM
BUMP.

A little perspective, please.