PDA

View Full Version : Donnie Walsh on Chad Ford's Podcast



Aw Heck
01-18-2007, 11:09 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index?&lpos=globalnav&lid=gn_NBA_NBA

Donnie Walsh talks to Chad Ford on his podcast about the trade. (I don't know how to directly link to it, but it's on the right side of the webpage with the title Daily Dish: Behind the Big Deal)

Some highlights...

-The reason the trade was kept so quiet was because only Walsh, Bird, and Mullin knew about it/were discussing it. So there was no one else to leak information.

-Rick Carlisle didn't know about the trade until the morning it was done.

-Donnie says he's "definitely not" going to trade Dunleavy for Maggette. The rumors are "absolutely not true." He sounds pretty definitive here. No wiggle room or "We're not shopping Jalen Rose" kinda talk.

Shade
01-18-2007, 11:20 PM
Okay, then, who are we trading him for? :eyebrow:

Young
01-18-2007, 11:20 PM
I just listened to that podcast interview. That's a good interview.

I also found David Aldrige's take on the trade.

http://www.nba.com/news/tradereax_070117.html

I just listened to David Aldrige. At the end he said that this trade for us makes a big player for a big name rather it's "Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Mike Bibby, or Andrei Kirilenko" rather it be before Febuary's trade deadline or in the off-season. He doesn't think the Pacers are anywhere near done dealing.

Jermaniac
01-18-2007, 11:22 PM
We got two horrible contracts, how does that make us a player for one of those big names.

pwee31
01-18-2007, 11:28 PM
I just listened to that podcast interview. That's a good interview.

I also found David Aldrige's take on the trade.

http://www.nba.com/news/tradereax_070117.html

I just listened to David Aldrige. At the end he said that this trade for us makes a big player for a big name rather it's "Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Mike Bibby, or Andrei Kirilenko" rather it be before Febuary's trade deadline or in the off-season. He doesn't think the Pacers are anywhere near done dealing.

If that's the case then it would be the offseason, since the new acquired players can only be traded by themselves, and contracts won't match! Unless they're moving JO (I hope not)

Young
01-18-2007, 11:35 PM
I just listened to another interview, this with Brian Windhorst whoever that is and he said "every executive i've talked to, and i've talked to a handful, expected or expects Indiana to trade Mike Dunleavy to the Clippers for Corey Maggette." So I don't know if that means anything but he said "it certainly looks to be the beginning of things to come in Indiana.

Take that for what it's worth.

Unclebuck
01-18-2007, 11:38 PM
We got two horrible contracts, how does that make us a player for one of those big names.

A lot of teams have players with bad contracts and often times bad contracts are traded for bad contracts

Jermaniac
01-18-2007, 11:43 PM
A lot of teams have players with bad contracts and often times bad contracts are traded for bad contractsRay Allen, Kevin Garnett not bad contracts. You are trading for a big time player not a bad contract, did you read what I just said.

Naptown_Seth
01-18-2007, 11:43 PM
We got two horrible contracts, how does that make us a player for one of those big names.
Well in some cases teams simply want to break that big, difficult contract into money that can be moved a little easier. As long as the players are moderately talented it makes it okay for teams to deal with if they are looking to move 16-20m in a single contract.

Remember at the time how unbalanced the Heat for Shaq trade looked, in part because of the size of the contract.

BlueNGold
01-18-2007, 11:58 PM
Jersey would like nothing better than to deal Jason Kidd before the media circus starts up. With Williams, they have a great replacement. They know their season is going nowhere with Krstic out. Kidd is not getting any younger and hardly anyone will take him off their hands...not for 18M/yr...unless you are someone with a fat contract to move.

They are not getting anyone like JO because Kidd is past his prime.

It could happen.

Unclebuck
01-19-2007, 12:07 AM
Ray Allen, Kevin Garnett not bad contracts. You are trading for a big time player not a bad contract, did you read what I just said.

Oops, I apologize I did read what you posted but I didn't read it correctly. Maybe I was so upset about your comments in regard to Jeff in the game thread - that I couldn't think straight.


That was a great interview with DW and he effectively put the Dun to Clips rumors to rest. That isn't going to happen

Los Angeles
01-19-2007, 12:32 AM
How do big ugly nasty contracts get moved in exchange for big names? Easy - When you're over the cap, you have to match salaries. Think about Granger. No way does Granger match any of those salaries. The over paid contract is included when the central character is on a rookie contract.

Another name comes to mind ... Ike Diogu.

PacerMan
01-19-2007, 12:34 AM
I just listened to that podcast interview. That's a good interview.

I also found David Aldrige's take on the trade.

http://www.nba.com/news/tradereax_070117.html

I just listened to David Aldrige. At the end he said that this trade for us makes a big player for a big name rather it's "Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Mike Bibby, or Andrei Kirilenko" rather it be before Febuary's trade deadline or in the off-season. He doesn't think the Pacers are anywhere near done dealing.

Yeh, they're going to trade us Garnett for Troy Murphy and Dunleavy!

PacerMan
01-19-2007, 12:37 AM
Jersey would like nothing better than to deal Jason Kidd before the media circus starts up. With Williams, they have a great replacement. They know their season is going nowhere with Krstic out. Kidd is not getting any younger and hardly anyone will take him off their hands...not for 18M/yr...unless you are someone with a fat contract to move.

They are not getting anyone like JO because Kidd is past his prime.

It could happen.


Hmmmmmmmmmm
I read an article about that situation and it does sound like it's getting really ugly.
But we don't have anybody to match the salary with. And no, we aren't trading Jermain for him.

Will Galen
01-19-2007, 12:48 AM
That was a great interview with DW and he effectively put the Dun to Clips rumors to rest. That isn't going to happen

I agree that isn't going to happen, he obviously likes the players he traded for.

However he said he wasn't trading Dun for Mags, that doesn't mean he wouldn't trade Dun to the clips. That's splitting hairs though.

Anthem
01-19-2007, 12:53 AM
The Clips would be stupid to trade for Dunleavy. You just can't make that work.

That being said, I think we're more able to make moves now than we were. MikeDJr has a bad contract, but he's infinitely more tradeable than Stephen Jackson.

mike_D
01-19-2007, 05:06 AM
That being said, I think we're more able to make moves now than we were. MikeDJr has a bad contract, but he's infinitely more tradeable than Stephen Jackson.


Especially if the kid starts to play well.Dunlevy was struggling this season and he was still scoring around 11pts a game and getting a couple boards and assists a game.

I think if the pacers use him in a role in which he has the ball in his hands so he can make plays for his teamates and not have to concentrate on scoring he will do well here.Basically let him play the point guard/play making role, that might mean he has to come off the bench because with Tinsley out there that will be difficult to do since Tinsley really can't play without the ball.

Pair Dunlevy up with Daniels to share ball handling responsibilities and put Granger out there and hopefully with those two in the game alongside JR they can protect him on the defensive end.

Evan_The_Dude
01-19-2007, 11:08 AM
If New Jersey is worried about a circus starting around Jason Kidd, why would we of all teams want him? We just got rid of Jackson's baggage, why would we take on what Kidd is about to go through? We have a clean slate now. Let's keep it that way for a while.

BlueNGold
01-19-2007, 11:35 PM
If New Jersey is worried about a circus starting around Jason Kidd, why would we of all teams want him? We just got rid of Jackson's baggage, why would we take on what Kidd is about to go through? We have a clean slate now. Let's keep it that way for a while.

Good point about avoiding the media circus. However, the circus will be a mere sideshow in Indy. The reason it would be a nightmare for Jersey is that she was pretty tightly integrated, and had "clout" within the organization.

Also, Kidd is not like some of the idiots we have purged. He is also still one of the better PG's in the league. We have several assets now to deal with. I could see Jersey really needing a good PF to go with their outstanding perimeter game...and maybe some depth.

....and I think we might even see a resurgence of Kidd's game once he splits with the :censored:.

BTW, there are very few teams in a position that would want to deal with Jersey to take on Kidd's contract. The big question is whether Jersey sees anything on our roster we would be willing to give up.

JayRedd
01-20-2007, 02:25 AM
We got two horrible contracts, how does that make us a player for one of those big names.

I doubt that it actually makes us a player for any of those guys, but it does give us three more front-court guys that Walsh/Bird think will be in our rotation. So it does allow us to come up with some better trade packages without killing our depth too much.

For instance, we could put together a somewhat attractive package of Foster, Shawne and Marquis for a starting caliber SG or something like that. Add Harrison or one other "sweetener" and it's possible that we could at least get a team like Seattle to talk to us about Rashard Lewis or something.