PDA

View Full Version : Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO



Kegboy
05-29-2007, 08:13 PM
Yes, we've beat this into the ground, and I was just going to add it to my Kobe and the Logo thread, until I realized that's on PD3. :blush: Still, thought it was newsworthy for the front office sources line.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2884663&name=stein_marc



New Staples center for Kobe?


by: Marc Stein
posted: Monday, May 28, 2007 | Feedback (http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/mailbagESPN?event_id=10964) | Print Entry (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2884663&type=blogEntry)

I've heard nothing in the last month to sway me from the belief that Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal is the most realistic trade target for L.A. -- much more realistic than Jason Kidd (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=2625) or Kevin Garnett (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3007) -- no matter who in the Lakers' front office is doing the chasing.

If O'Neal leaves Indy, everyone knows Kobe's Lakers and Isiah Thomas' Knicks are the teams he'd love to join.

Kobe Bryant remains equally geeked (http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2848468&type=blogEntry) about hooking up with a younger O'Neal, who has been his close friend since they were drafted into the league together in 1996.

The Pacers, meanwhile, are increasingly open to moving O'Neal, according to NBA front-office sources.

What kind of package can the Lakers assemble? Lamar Odom (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3327) (shoulder) and Kwame Brown (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?statsId=3511) (ankle) might be coming off surgeries when next season begins, but the notion that neither would remain tradeable as a result is a bit flawed.

Odom is still marketable because of his talent and versatility. As you'll recall, he also played pretty gamely through the shoulder problems late in the season and during the Phoenix series after putting off surgery to help his team. Barring unexpected problems in his recovery, why wouldn't he still be a valued commodity?

As for Brown, since his expiring contract ($9.1 million next season) was the attraction to other teams all along, he could easily still be thrown into a deal. Other potential trade assets include young center Andrew Bynum -- who was deemed off-limits at midseason when the Lakers backed out of a potential Jason Kidd deal -- and L.A.'s decent first-round pick (No. 19) in the June draft.

The Pacers, at present, have no first-round pick next month.

IMO, the Lakers have to include Bynum. You can't tell me we couldn't get a better deal from NY if they don't.

Young
05-29-2007, 08:20 PM
The Lakers defiantly have to include Bynum.

I think there a few ways they could get Jermaine on the Lakers.

One is send Jermaine/Marquis/Jeff for Odom/Kwame/Bynum/Mo Evans.

Another is Jermaine/Dunleavy/Jeff/filler(s) for Odom/Kwame/Bynum/Vladimir/Mo Evans.

I'm sure we could work their draft pick (19th overall) or Sasha Vuijac in there somewhere.

I think it would be a good start.

I like Bynum, I think he will pan out alright.

Odom is a good player, very versitile.

Brown is expiring. That will only help our cap problems.

If we get rid of Dunleavy that would be great because we have a problem of to many small forwards and not enough shooting guards.

CableKC
05-29-2007, 08:27 PM
Does anyone recall whether TPTB have issued a formal "JONeal hasn't asked to be traded, want to be traded or we want to keep JONeal" statement ( similiar to what the TWolves and Nets have said about their prospective Franchise/Top players that maybe leaving this offseason ) AFTER the firing of Carlisle?

Such statements are usually intended as a "warning" to potential suitors that IF they want the services of that All-Star player that it will cost them a pretty penny.

Although I know its implied that TPTB do not want to move JONeal......that's different then actually coming out and saying it to the Public....ESPECIALLY during the offseason.

I maybe wrong...but I don't recall such a statement by TPTB. If that is the case....anyone find that odd?

31andonly
05-29-2007, 08:38 PM
If a trade like this one really comes together, what would your lineup be?
Would you start Diogu over Bynum?
I'd really love a trade that gives us Bynum and the Lakers' Pick, he's such an amazing talent..

Granger, Williams, Diogu, Bynum..that would be great..

I'm confident the Lakers would pull the trigger on this one! It makes the Lakers a contender and Kobe satisfied!

Oneal07
05-29-2007, 08:43 PM
OH MY . . .Atleas JO will be on one of my favorite teams. .but the West is already hard enough. . .You have 10 teams (if healthy) battling for the playoffs. . . but with KD and Oden being on the West too.. LOL, WOW, Jermaine might as well stay in Indy cause he wouldn't be winning anythng anytime soon

31andonly
05-29-2007, 08:45 PM
They'd be better than they are right now, for sure!

Jermaniac
05-29-2007, 08:45 PM
OH MY . . .Atleas JO will be on one of my favorite teams. .but the West is already hard enough. . .You have 10 teams (if healthy) battling for the playoffs. . . but with KD and Oden being on the West too.. LOL, WOW, Jermaine might as well stay in Indy cause he wouldn't be winning anythng anytime soon
The Lakers made the playoffs without JO on their team, if he got on their team it would make them so much better. They would easily be a top 4 seed.

avoidingtheclowns
05-29-2007, 08:54 PM
IMO, the Lakers have to include Bynum. You can't tell me we couldn't get a better deal from NY if they don't.

how would we get a better deal from the knicks? i think the main competition for the lakers would be the celtics.

Tom White
05-29-2007, 08:59 PM
What does everyone see in Bynum that makes them so excited about him?

I've got to admit that I don't watch the Lakers, but didn't Bynum lose his starting spot to Brown, and don't most people kind of look down on Brown?

I'm not saying the guys got no talent, 'cause I've not watched him enough to form my own opinion. I'd just like to know what those who have seen him play (more than I have) like about him.

BoomBaby33
05-29-2007, 09:06 PM
Yes, we've beat this into the ground, and I was just going to add it to my Kobe and the Logo thread, until I realized that's on PD3. :blush: Still, thought it was newsworthy for the front office sources line.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=2884663&name=stein_marc



IMO, the Lakers have to include Bynum. You can't tell me we couldn't get a better deal from NY if they don't.

If we do trade JO to the Lakers, it better be at least Bynum and the #19 pick as well, and whatever else it takes to make it work numbers wise.

Can they Sign and trade Bynum out of his rookie contract to make the numbers closer?

Then if we could trade Tins and Murph to the nicks for Francis, we will be well on our way to rebuilding. Francis' only has 2 years left on his contract, whereas Tins and Murph have 4 years. I know, I know - im not a fan of Franchise, but he may be servicable for 2 years and we also get rid of 2 players we dont want for 1 player.

Starters:
Bynum
Ike
Danny
Quis
Franchise

Reserves:
Shawn
DunDun
McLeod
#19 draft pick - Crittendon?
Jeff
Maceo
Hulk?
Army?
x player from lakers - Brown?

avoidingtheclowns
05-29-2007, 09:12 PM
If we do trade JO to the Lakers, it better be at least Bynum and the #19 pick as well, and whatever else it takes to make it work numbers wise.

Can they Sign and trade Bynum out of his rookie contract to make the numbers closer?

Then if we could trade Tins and Murph to the nicks for Francis, we will be well on our way to rebuilding. Francis' only has 2 years left on his contract, whereas Tins and Murph have 4 years. I know, I know - im not a fan of Franchise, but he may be servicable for 2 years and we also get rid of 2 players we dont want for 1 player.

Starters:
Bynum
Ike
Danny
Quis
Franchise

Reserves:
Shawn
DunDun
McLeod
#19 draft pick - Crittendon?
Jeff
Maceo
Hulk?
Army?
x player from lakers - Brown?

i wouldn't mind the NYK deal as long as a future (or maybe even this year's) pick was involved. but francis is a shell of the player who was offered that contract and the knicks would be getting two players they could get much more mileage out of. a pick would have to be involved IMO.

CableKC
05-29-2007, 09:19 PM
If a trade like this one really comes together, what would your lineup be?
Would you start Diogu over Bynum?
I'd really love a trade that gives us Bynum and the Lakers' Pick, he's such an amazing talent..

Granger, Williams, Diogu, Bynum..that would be great..

I'm confident the Lakers would pull the trigger on this one! It makes the Lakers a contender and Kobe satisfied!
<< Server Admins - you can move this over to the trade forum if you think its more appropriate >>

From what I have gathered from the many posts about this topic in PD and RealGM ( yes, I know...a truly informed bunch of fans :rolleyes: ), the most promising "trade proposals" come from the Lakers ( obviously ) and the Celtics.

With the Lakers, IMHO.....any ikely trade would start with:

Kwame+Bynum+19th Pick+MoEvans( some combination of Cook, Vujacic, Farmer and/or S&T of Parker ) for JONeal

At this point....it comes down to how much Kobe...I mean the Lakers....would want to give up in order to get JONeal. I really do not think that they will want to give up Odom. But of the 3 potential teams that the Lakers will likely deal with to get a Big Man Post player ( TWolves, Grizzlies or the Pacers ) for Kobe, thanks to some of Kobe's comments, I don't think that they will budge on wanting to get Odom in return. As to whether we should hold out for Odom or not....is matter of whether we really want Bynum or not and whether TPTB think that it is enough for JONeal.

With the Celtics, IMHO....any likely trade would start with:

Ratliff+Gerald Green+5th pick+( somc combination of players that make up about 2.66 mil in 2007-2008 contracts ) for JONeal

The obvious best fit for that 2.66 mil in contracts should start with Delonte West ( not because he's the "favorite" PG on the Celtics that many of us PD posters want....but because he's the best one that the Celtics could give up that we would want ). We clearly don't want Telfair, couldn't get Rondo and probably don't want Tony Allen since his recent injury...so West...by default...is the best choice IF TPTB really want a decent PG in return. Although many of us would love to get Al Jefferson, there is no way that they will trade him for JONeal.

If I am to look at either "trade proposals", if there were no other trade offers on the table AND TPTB really wanted to move JONeal to start the rebuilding process ( a really Big IF ), then the answer depends on what happens on the day of the Draft. Obviously, IF the Hawks are stupid enough to not draft Conley at the 3rd pick.....and he is available at the 5th pick....then the best deal would be the Celtics "trade proposal" to get a huge Expiring Contract ( Ratliff ), Green ( solid athletic SG prospect ), West ( assuming that Bird can get that out of Ainge as well ) and Conley ( our PG of the future ). Although Bynum would be a solid player to play next to Granger/Ike/Shawne....if we had to rebuild...I would much rather do it with what Boston could "potentially" offer.

NOTE - ALL of this is based on the assumption that TPTB would actually consider trading JONeal...which IMHO is based on what type of offers we get. If we are lowballed or offered huge contracts...then it JONeal ( obviously ) won't be moved. Also....I think that any trade of JONeal and the quality of the trade offers that we get for him is based off of whether we force teams to take on Tinsley or Murphy or not ( not Dunleavy....I really think that TPTB would prefer to keep him as opposed to other 2 ).

NuffSaid
05-29-2007, 09:20 PM
Does anyone recall whether TPTB have issued a formal "JONeal hasn't asked to be traded, want to be traded or we want to keep JONeal" statement ( similiar to what the TWolves and Nets have said about their prospective Franchise/Top players that maybe leaving this offseason ) AFTER the firing of Carlisle?

Such statements are usually intended as a "warning" to potential suitors that IF they want the services of that All-Star player that it will cost them a pretty penny.

Although I know its implied that TPTB do not want to move JONeal......that's different then actually coming out and saying it to the Public....ESPECIALLY during the offseason.

I maybe wrong...but I don't recall such a statement by TPTB. If that is the case....anyone find that odd?
I've been talking about this very issue for days now. And yes, I find it very odd that Bird hasn't stood firm behind JO. I realize JO may be the team's #1 trade commodity, but you don't go into the off-season with this kind of a dark cloud looming overhead especially when your CEO has already stated publicly that they player in question hasn't asked to be traded.

Frankly, I don't see why all the question marks on JO's tenure anyway. Seems to me it's up to him whether or not to exercise the player option in his contract for the '07-08 season. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he does exercise this option all it means is that he commits to play for the Pacers for the next 3 yrs and the only way he could be moved is via a sign-N-trade. But if he doesn't exercise this option he becomes a FA, correct? So, the choice really is up to him, right? The Pacers really can't touch him until he makes a move.

CableKC
05-29-2007, 09:39 PM
I've been talking about this very issue for days now. And yes, I find it very odd that Bird hasn't stood firm behind JO. I realize JO may be the team's #1 trade commodity, but you don't go into the off-season with this kind of a dark cloud looming overhead especially when your CEO has already stated publicly that they player in question hasn't asked to be traded.
Although its implied that TPTB doesn't want to move JONeal.....I don't feel that this is one of those cases where "no news is good news" when it comes to saying whether JONeal is staying or not. However, we do know that Walsh isn't the type that likes to do any type of negotiations in the public....so maybe nothing said is a good thing? :shrug: :confused:


Frankly, I don't see why all the question marks on JO's tenure anyway. Seems to me it's up to him whether or not to exercise the player option in his contract for the '07-08 season. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he does exercise this option all it means is that he commits to play for the Pacers for the next 3 yrs and the only way he could be moved is via a sign-N-trade. But if he doesn't exercise this option he becomes a FA, correct? So, the choice really is up to him, right? The Pacers really can't touch him until he makes a move.
Could someone clarify the situation on exactly when JONeal can execise his Player option?

Is it before the start of the 2007-2008 regular season ( as in sometime within the next 5 months )?

or

Is it after the end of the 2007-2008 season ( as in "no earlier" then 1 year from now )?

I am under the impression that it is AFTER ( and not before ) the 2007-2008 season.

If that is the case.....its going to be a gamble for TPTB. Right now....unless JONeal pulls a Iverson on us.....TPTB are in the Driver's seat with JONeal sitting in the passenger seat ( sort of ) giving directions. But by next season...if they wait...they will have less control of what to do with JONeal....IF ( for whatever reason ) he is not happy with the way things turned out and forces some type of Player option "S&T".

Although the amount of leverage that TPTB have over JONeal this season isn't great ( since JONeal will likely have some say in where he goes )....it will be better compared to next season IF JONeal does force something to happen.

2Cleva
05-29-2007, 09:48 PM
Indy wants Odom more than they want Bynum.

Young
05-29-2007, 10:12 PM
Cable I like both of those ideas.

The Lakers would have to include Lamar Odom or Vladimir Radmanovic though for it to work.

I like the Celtics deal better though. I really like Gerald Green and getting a top 5 pick. I'd make it Jermaine/Dunleavy for Ratliff/Wally/Green/5th pick though.

With the 5th pick we should be able to take Mike Conley there. If he isn't there then I think that Brandin Wright might be avaliable which would be a great pick if he is there.

I really like the Celtics deal a lot more though.

Getting a top 5 pick in a great draft plus I guy like Gerald Green who is developing very well, I love it.

If things worked out for us we could have Conley/Green/Granger/Williams/Ike which would not be our starting five but is a pretty good group of talent to work with right now.

bnd45
05-29-2007, 10:23 PM
The Lakers just seem like the most logical destination for JO.

Just get Lamar Odom and a draft pick. Getting Bynum would be a nice bonus. (The Lakers pick is at #19. nbadraft.net has a really good PG named Acie Law going at 20. If Law's projected to go in that area and the trade ends up being JO for Odom, Bynum, Law, and Radmanovic then Bird will have done a great job.)

Kwame or Radmanovic would just be throw-ins. (Although Kwame strikes me as a guy who will give 110% percent next year with a new contract on the line)

Y2J
05-29-2007, 10:23 PM
Of all the potential trading partners, I like Boston the best. There's talk of something involving #5, Gerald Green (who I love) and expiring for J.O. That would be by far my personal preference. Anyone who can shoot like Gerald Green can at his age (38.6% from downtown, 80.5% from the line) who has his size (6'8") and athleticism has the makings of a star. The fact that he's probably a SG is the icing on the cake. I'd try to throw in Quis or Dunleavy and get back Szczerbiak's much shorter contract if possible. Assuming Conley is available at #5 and thats whom the Pacers went with, we could go with a starting lineup of...

Mike Conley
Gerald Green
Danny Granger
Ike Diogu
Jeff Foster

With Shawne as a key contributor off the bench. That's a pretty nice young team. We wouldn't win much, but we'd be on our way back up. And we'd likely have another top pick in next years draft, which looks like it's gonna be pretty stacked with the majority of Mayo, Rose, Gordon, Beasley, Thabeet, Hibbert, Love, Lawson, Ellington, Arthur, Greene, Jordan, Bayless all likely to declare. There's even a a French kid who could have went extremely high in this years draft, who will likely go top 5 next year.

avoidingtheclowns
05-29-2007, 10:40 PM
The Lakers just seem like the most logical destination for JO.

Just get Lamar Odom and a draft pick. Getting Bynum would be a nice bonus. (The Lakers pick is at #19. nbadraft.net has a really good PG named Acie Law going at 20. If Law's projected to go in that area and the trade ends up being JO for Odom, Bynum, Law, and Radmanovic then Bird will have done a great job.)

Kwame or Radmanovic would just be throw-ins. (Although Kwame strikes me as a guy who will give 110% percent next year with a new contract on the line)

look at the way the teams pick, i can't fathom law being available that low.

#10 Kings: probably wanting to move bibby and don't have a natural replacement

#11 Hawks: if they don't take Conley with the 3rd, they'll need to take Law if available.

#12 Sixers: who do they have behind andre miller? kevin ollie certainly isn't the future of the franchise. louis williams is a little like bracey wright in that he has PG size but no real PG abilities.

#13 Hornets: i can't really imagine them taking a PG here.

#14 Clippers: sam cassell... shaun livingston... jason hart... will conroy... they need a PG they can be excited about. they need other stuff certainly but i think with livingston's uncertain future, they'd grab law.

#15 Pistons: if they lose chauncey they might...

#16 Wizards: depending on what moves they make (specifically involving antonio daniels) could take a PG

#17 Nets: Kidd stays, no Law. Kidd goes, maybe grab Law depending on what they get in return.

#18 Warriors: Probably not.



also no way do i want to take back VRad's contract if we still have both dunleavy and murphy.

Jermaniac
05-29-2007, 10:42 PM
Of all the potential trading partners, I like Boston the best. There's talk of something involving #5, Gerald Green (who I love) and expiring for J.O. That would be by far my personal preference. Anyone who can shoot like Gerald Green can at his age (38.6% from downtown, 80.5% from the line) who has his size (6'8") and athleticism has the makings of a star. The fact that he's probably a SG is the icing on the cake. I'd try to throw in Quis or Dunleavy and get back Szczerbiak's much shorter contract if possible. Assuming Conley is available at #5 and thats whom the Pacers went with, we could go with a starting lineup of...

Mike Conley
Gerald Green
Danny Granger
Ike Diogu
Jeff Foster

With Shawne as a key contributor off the bench. That's a pretty nice young team. We wouldn't win much, but we'd be on our way back up. And we'd likely have another top pick in next years draft, which looks like it's gonna be pretty stacked with the majority of Mayo, Rose, Gordon, Beasley, Thabeet, Hibbert, Love, Lawson, Ellington, Arthur, Greene, Jordan, Bayless all likely to declare. There's even a a French kid who could have went extremely high in this years draft, who will likely go top 5 next year.

That Boston idea seems pretty good. It would be nice if we could sneak Kendrick Perkins out of the deal also.

indyman37
05-29-2007, 11:24 PM
Does anyone recall whether TPTB have issued a formal "JONeal hasn't asked to be traded, want to be traded or we want to keep JONeal" statement ( similiar to what the TWolves and Nets have said about their prospective Franchise/Top players that maybe leaving this offseason ) AFTER the firing of Carlisle?

Such statements are usually intended as a "warning" to potential suitors that IF they want the services of that All-Star player that it will cost them a pretty penny.

Although I know its implied that TPTB do not want to move JONeal......that's different then actually coming out and saying it to the Public....ESPECIALLY during the offseason.

I maybe wrong...but I don't recall such a statement by TPTB. If that is the case....anyone find that odd?
I have always thought that coming out and saying "so and so" wants to be or is going to be traded is bad. I think it lowers their trade value significantly. Thats the reason I think TPTB hasn't come out and stated anything that is, well, firm. I also think the Pacers aren't even sure what direction they are going to try to move the team into (rebuilding, etc.).

CableKC
05-29-2007, 11:45 PM
Radmanovic would just be throw-ins.
Cool....another 6-10 guy that hovers outside of the paint that has 3pt range takes more jumpshots then low-post shots with a long-term contract that extends until the 2010-2011 season?

We can never have enough of those.

Sorry...pass on VladRad...unless we get rid of Murphy somehow.

CableKC
05-29-2007, 11:53 PM
I have always thought that coming out and saying "so and so" wants to be or is going to be traded is bad. I think it lowers their trade value significantly. Thats the reason I think TPTB hasn't come out and stated anything that is, well, firm. I also think the Pacers aren't even sure what direction they are going to try to move the team into (rebuilding, etc.).
I wasn't suggesting that DW says...."we intend to trade JONeal".....I was wondering why they haven't said the opposite to support the idea that they do not intend to move JONeal......specifically a "we want to keep JONeal for the long-term" type of comment.

However, I am going to default to the idea that DW doesn't like to do any type of negotiating in public...which any of these type of comments ( more or less ) can be considered a negotiating tactic.....so ( I guess ) no comment from DW and TPTB isn't that surprising.

CableKC
05-29-2007, 11:57 PM
look at the way the teams pick, i can't fathom law being available that low.

#10 Kings: probably wanting to move bibby and don't have a natural replacement

#11 Hawks: if they don't take Conley with the 3rd, they'll need to take Law if available.

#12 Sixers: who do they have behind andre miller? kevin ollie certainly isn't the future of the franchise. louis williams is a little like bracey wright in that he has PG size but no real PG abilities.

#13 Hornets: i can't really imagine them taking a PG here.

#14 Clippers: sam cassell... shaun livingston... jason hart... will conroy... they need a PG they can be excited about. they need other stuff certainly but i think with livingston's uncertain future, they'd grab law.

#15 Pistons: if they lose chauncey they might...

#16 Wizards: depending on what moves they make (specifically involving antonio daniels) could take a PG

#17 Nets: Kidd stays, no Law. Kidd goes, maybe grab Law depending on what they get in return.

#18 Warriors: Probably not.

also no way do i want to take back VRad's contract if we still have both dunleavy and murphy.
I really think that the only chance that JONeal is in a Celtics uniform is IF Conley is available at the 5 spot. Obviously...if he is not...then IF he is traded....he will end up in the West. I forget that TPTB probably don't want to move JONeal to the East ( much like they didn't want to move Artest to the East ) UNLESS they can get Conley, Green, ( hopefully ) West and Ratliff. The other scenario where JONeal goes East is if TPTB really think that JONeal's performance is going to start to decline in the next year or two and they want to move him for the best deal available as soon as possible.

Jermaniac
05-30-2007, 12:06 AM
Radmanovic and Murphy on the same team would be gold. ****ing GOLD. The comedy those two can come up with will be better then anything Richard Pryor ever did.

bnd45
05-30-2007, 12:13 AM
In no way do I want Radmonovic. My point was that he's a necessary player in the trade if we want Bynum and do not include any other Pacers.

JO for Odom, Kwame and Bynum doesn't work. (Adding Tinsley into that deal does work and rids Pacer Nation of the headache known as Jamaal Tinsley.)

Anthem
05-30-2007, 12:23 AM
Tinsley is probably more tradable than Murphy.

In the LA trade, I'd insist they take at least one player besides JO.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 01:06 AM
In no way do I want Radmonovic. My point was that he's a necessary player in the trade if we want Bynum and do not include any other Pacers.
Not entirley true....a trade with the Lakers does not have to include VladRad or even Odom.

JONeal - $19.71 mil ( in 2007-2008 )

for

Bynum - $2.172 mil ( in 2007-2008 )
19th pick - ????
Farmar - $1.009 mil ( in 2007-2008 )
Kwame ( Expiring Contract ) - $9.075 mil ( in 2007-2008 )
MauriceEvans ( Expiring Contract ) - $1.5 mil ( in 2007-2008 )

including "Pick 1" from:

S&T of Mihm or Smush - must at least be $2.12 mil ( in 2007-2008 ) in a S&T
or
Brian Cook - $3.5 mil ( in 2007-2008 )
or
Vujacic - $1.756 mil ( in 2007-2008 )

I could be wrong...but if we do a S&T of Smush Parker for a 3 year deal starting at $2.1 mil a year ( in the 2007-2008 season )......the incoming salary would be around $15.868 mil in contracts....which should work under the CBA ( about 25% less then what JONeal earns in the 2007-2008 season ). With Kwame, Evans and the "25% salarycap" that is not coming in......although it would hurt in the 2007-2008 season....by the start of the 2008-2009 season....we would have shaved off about $14.408 mil in salaries ( not including whatever it costs to sign the 19th pick ). Any trade involving JONeal and the Lakers ( not including Odom or VladRad ) could be considered a "cost-cutting move" coupled with Bynum+Farmer+Smush+19th pick as the long-term gain. Running the #s, I estimate that by the start of the 2008-2009 season......our salary cap would approximately be set at $51.696 mil.

BTW....I'm not suggesting that that is even considered fair ( or that the Lakers would completely gut what little supporting cast that Kobe has in order to get JONeal ).......I'm just saying that a trade for JONeal can "technically" happen ( from a SalaryCap POV ) without Odom OR VladRad involved.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 01:15 AM
Tinsley is probably more tradable than Murphy.

In the LA trade, I'd insist they take at least one player besides JO.
If that is the case....then we will more then likely have to take back VladRad. There is no way that the Lakers would take on either Tinsley, Murphy or Dunleavy's long-term salarycap contract without sending us back their worst contract and/or giving up Odom ( something that I doubt that they do ).

indyman37
05-30-2007, 01:19 AM
Though it would be less likely, I would rather trade JO to Phoenix than Boston.

maragin
05-30-2007, 01:24 AM
Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

PacersDigest: Pacers fans increasingly open to moving JO

Kegboy
05-30-2007, 01:27 AM
What does everyone see in Bynum that makes them so excited about him?

I've got to admit that I don't watch the Lakers, but didn't Bynum lose his starting spot to Brown, and don't most people kind of look down on Brown?

I'm not saying the guys got no talent, 'cause I've not watched him enough to form my own opinion. I'd just like to know what those who have seen him play (more than I have) like about him.

He's a HS big man, so he's gonna take a while to develop. That's why Kobe wants to get rid of him, he wants to win now. But he's got the size and the tools to be an All-Star caliber center.

Of course, if he came here, going from being coached by the likes of Kareem to the likes of Chuck Person and Chad Forcier would probably ruin the kid forever. :cry:

indyman37
05-30-2007, 01:30 AM
He's a HS big man, so he's gonna take a while to develop. That's why Kobe wants to get rid of him, he wants to win now. But he's got the size and the tools to be an All-Star caliber center.

Of course, if he came here, going from being coached by the likes of Kareem to the likes of Chuck Person and Chad Forcier would probably ruin the kid forever. :cry:
Thats is exactly why I want Iavaroni. He is an excellent big man coach/developer.

Kegboy
05-30-2007, 01:31 AM
Also, what do people think of Farmar? I seriously doubt we could get both him and Bynum, but what the hell.

And I must reiterate, if Tinsley gets traded to the Lakers, they absolutely must agree to have a reality show staring him and Phil Jackson, where they must live together and hang out at all times. I would pay good money to see that.

indyman37
05-30-2007, 01:33 AM
Also, what do people think of Farmar? I seriously doubt we could get both him and Bynum, but what the hell.

And I must reiterate, if Tinsley gets traded to the Lakers, they absolutely must agree to have a reality show staring him and Phil Jackson, where they must live together and hang out at all times. I would pay good money to see that.
I'd be okay with Farmar. He also needs work. But if we can't get a quality starting pg, then I'll live with Farmar.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 01:41 AM
Mark Stein: Pacers increasingly open to moving JO

PacersDigest: Pacers fans increasingly open to moving JO for the right price
Fixed. No one on the roster is untouchable......its just that players like JONeal or Granger have a very high pricetag on their foreheads that other teams have to meet in order for TPTB to even consider moving him.

I think its more accurate to say that if the right deal came along that involved JONeal....some of us would have no problem seeing JONeal in a different uniform. The problem is defining what the "right deal" is. If the "Price is NOT Right" ...then its a no-brainer....we shouldn't move JONeal for peanuts.

Personally, I think that there is enough interest in the league for JONeal a deal that will allow us to rebuild....but not be competitive at the same time ( as in getting another top tier player in return ).

IMHO...that means that we can get back some decent young players to build around our existing core of young players, a huge expiring Contract, a 2007 draft pick...all the "necessary pieces" for us to start to rebuild our team.....but not get back any players that will cripple the other teams ability to make a solid run in the Playoffs. That means that can get back we should not realistically expect Paul Pierce in return for JONeal since there would be no point to moving JONeal to the Celtics IF Pierce isn't playing next to him. As for Odom, although a Kobe and JONeal would likely get past the 1st round of the Playoffs.....I doubt that it will go much farther then that without a "3rd filddle" to play next to the both of them.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 01:43 AM
Also, what do people think of Farmar? I seriously doubt we could get both him and Bynum, but what the hell.
If it really came to it....I don't think that its too much for TPTB to insist on getting him in return as a PG to develop as a backup Guard. I'm not saying that Farmar is the "second coming"....but unless he had a breakout rookie season and already starting ahead of Smush ( which he didn't )....then it shouldn't be too hard to pry him off the Lakers hand.

Anthem
05-30-2007, 02:09 AM
If that is the case....then we will more then likely have to take back VladRad. There is no way that the Lakers would take on either Tinsley, Murphy or Dunleavy's long-term salarycap contract without sending us back their worst contract and/or giving up Odom ( something that I doubt that they do ).
Yep, I'd take that as a given.

His contract's a lot better than Murphy. Plus it finally gives us the ability to play the all-SF lineup that Kegboy's been wanting.

C - Radmanovich
PF - Granger
SF - Dunleavy
SG - Shawne
PG - Quis

maragin
05-30-2007, 03:20 AM
Plus it finally gives us the ability to play the all-SF lineup that Kegboy's been wanting.

C - Radmanovich
PF - Granger
SF - Dunleavy
SG - Shawne
PG - Quis

Even an eagle would have trouble looking graceful if it had 5 wings.

Kegboy
05-30-2007, 04:37 AM
Yep, I'd take that as a given.

His contract's a lot better than Murphy. Plus it finally gives us the ability to play the all-SF lineup that Kegboy's been wanting.

C - Radmanovich
PF - Granger
SF - Dunleavy
SG - Shawne
PG - Quis

Better than that all-PG bull**** Rick would try and run. I don't care if NY is playing 5 guards, you don't counter a small lineup by going smaller. Eddie Gill at the 3 my ***.

RomanGabriel
05-30-2007, 05:12 AM
Re Bynum, he still is a young pup, and has a great skill set, but I haven't seen enough of him to gauge what kind of "motor" he has. Can any of you Laker fans comment on Bynum's work ethic and coachability?

BoomBaby33
05-30-2007, 05:55 AM
i wouldn't mind the NYK deal as long as a future (or maybe even this year's) pick was involved. but francis is a shell of the player who was offered that contract and the knicks would be getting two players they could get much more mileage out of. a pick would have to be involved IMO.

That would definitely be a big PLUS. But i don't see the nicks giving up more than a future second, if any, because of the length of tin's and murph's contracts. Thinking about it more, i really dont see IT and LB having a conversation. It would have to be DW and IT working things out.

Young
05-30-2007, 06:06 AM
Also, what do people think of Farmar? I seriously doubt we could get both him and Bynum, but what the hell.

And I must reiterate, if Tinsley gets traded to the Lakers, they absolutely must agree to have a reality show staring him and Phil Jackson, where they must live together and hang out at all times. I would pay good money to see that.

Farmar is a player I like.

But not the point guard I want for the Pacers.

I think that the Pacers really need a top 5-10 point guard to get where we want to be. I think that the point guard is the most important player on the floor and we need to do our best to get the best point guard that we can get.

Farmar should be pretty solid but not a top 5-10 point guard in this league.

avoidingtheclowns
05-30-2007, 06:33 AM
That would definitely be a big PLUS. But i don't see the nicks giving up more than a future second, if any, because of the length of tin's and murph's contracts. Thinking about it more, i really dont see IT and LB having a conversation. It would have to be DW and IT working things out.

this is a business. if he wants jamaal (which i would think he'd want a true PG b/c it would allow him to move nate robinson) he'll talk to the pacers.

the big question is: would they take murphy? i think yes to unload francis and to make the deal work for us, he'd have to include a pick (maybe even this years) because the last thing he needs are more draft picks on his team. he got randolph morris thats his pick for this year, no one at that position is going to be worth it to the knicks more than the 22ppg that tins/murphy could provide. and the buyout of jalen and trading for francis in the first place demonstrate isiah's ability to look beyond the longterm financial problems. they're both longer contracts but will probably help his team (jamaal certainly played his best basketball under isiah).

BlueNGold
05-30-2007, 06:35 AM
Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, their first round pick and filler for JO and Tinsley. We might throw in Harrison if there is concern they lack size after the trade.

The Lakers do this because they would get to keep Odom and get big veteran upgrades with Tinsley and JO. They would truly have a big 3 combination with Kobe, JO and Odom. Tinsley would never have to shoot the ball with Kobe on the court. I could see that working very well.

The Pacers do this to steal the Laker's youth and move straight into rebuild mode. Farmar and Bynum address important positions on this team. We could use the #19 pick to snag a young SG. In any event, Farmar and Bynum would fit well with Granger, Ike and Quis in a young starting lineup. The Pacers also do this to purge Tinsley, eliminate their overpaid, injury prone 55 games per year "franchise" player. They also eliminate another head case in Harrison.

We need to make this deal before West comes back to the Lakers and talks them out of it....and before Bender II occurs and JO's body falls apart.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 07:09 AM
Bynum, Kwame, Farmar, their first round pick and filler for JO and Tinsley. We might throw in Harrison if there is concern they lack size after the trade.

The Lakers do this because they would get to keep Odom and get big veteran upgrades with Tinsley and JO. They would truly have a big 3 combination with Kobe, JO and Odom. Tinsley would never have to shoot the ball with Kobe on the court. I could see that working very well.

The Pacers do this to steal the Laker's youth and move straight into rebuild mode. Farmar and Bynum address important positions on this team. We could use the #19 pick to snag a young SG. In any event, Farmar and Bynum would fit well with Granger, Ike and Quis in a young starting lineup. The Pacers also do this to purge Tinsley, eliminate their overpaid, injury prone 55 games per year "franchise" player. They also eliminate another head case in Harrison.

We need to make this deal before West comes back to the Lakers and talks them out of it....and before Bender II occurs and JO's body falls apart.
With no Odom included and sending Tinsley out....that would mean that we would be taking most of the players not named Kobe and Odom from the Lakers.....which also includes $26+ mil / 4 year contract ( which would be slightly less then Tinsley's contract ).

I would much rather keep Tinsley and live with his inconsistencies rather then have 2 versions of Murphy....the expensive one ( the "Original" version ) and the slightly cheaper version ( VladRad )....both of which has contracts going all the way to the 2010/2011 season.

Salarywise...there is no way that we can send out Tinsley without taking back EITHER Odom or VladRad. If the Lakers don't want to include Odom....which is very unlikely....then VladRad has to be included.

To me ( and hopefully TPTB ), VladRad is a dealbreaker.

Shade
05-30-2007, 07:38 AM
No deal to the Lakers, folks. Odom's injury should pretty much put that to rest.

Anthem
05-30-2007, 08:33 AM
No deal to the Lakers, folks. Odom's injury should pretty much put that to rest.
Why? Wouldn't they be more likely to trade him?

Naptown_Seth
05-30-2007, 08:49 AM
Indy wants Odom more than they want Bynum.
Why?

I can tell you why not for certain - Granger, Shawne, Ike. Those 3 are the MAIN youth/development players on the team right now. Why bring in yet another roadblock to their development?

Now turning Dun into Odom would certainly help, but the fact is that Dun hurt the team most of all by being redundent, followed by being locked in at a high pay rate for his stats.


I'm still far more in favor of my LAL/CHA 3-way deal, or similar, that brings Indy a higher pick than LA has and a backcourt player (less overall talented than frontcourt Odom is, the trade-off for moving up in the draft).


I think the news is more in line with the Pacers really wanting to adjust things and looking as hard as possible at the market. But that's not the same as wanting to be done with JO. They just know that if something can be done then they need to do it, but hopefully now also realize that if it can't be done then it shouldn't after the Peja, Harrington and GS deals that were done mostly for the sake of doing something.


Better than that all-PG bull**** Rick would try and run. I don't care if NY is playing 5 guards, you don't counter a small lineup by going smaller. Eddie Gill at the 3 my ***.
Let's be fair here, with the injuries/suspensions the last few years (not last year of course) there were plenty of nights that the team was suiting up 6 backcourt guys and 3-4 bigs at the most. When Danny is your PF and Jack is pulled to SF then you end up with Gill at the 2. No JO, no Foster, no Pollard, no Harrison...that frontline got thin in a hurry at times.

But to intentionally build a roster that is way out of balance toward one type of position, that's a huge disaster waiting to happen.

Kraft
05-30-2007, 08:53 AM
... that brings Indy a higher pick than LA has and a backcourt player.

I'd say this is the best scenario, too. You can't find a real high-level scoring guard in this draft. So, get a young one from elsewhere (a la the Gerald Green love) and pick high from the young bigs available.

Naptown_Seth
05-30-2007, 09:30 AM
I'd say this is the best scenario, too. You can't find a real high-level scoring guard in this draft. So, get a young one from elsewhere (a la the Gerald Green love) and pick high from the young bigs available.
Specifically this was my version, though the issue is would the Bobcats have interest in Odom...

Pacers
JO out
Knight (or Wallace), Kwame, #8 pick in

LAL
Odom, Kwame out
JO in

CHA
Knight (or Wallace if you play him at the 2) out, pick #8 out
Odom in


I put it not so much as a trade proposal but as the idea of the kind of thing they might want to be (or are) looking at. You don't have to find a JO taker that has what you want, and you also don't have to take full salary back. You could be at the far end of the salary exception (25%), and getting the below-cap Bobcats (or other) involved to help the less balanced dealings go through would help a ton.

But you have to give them a reason to want to do that, and that means getting less back than you are giving. BTW, I ran that version through RealGM a month or so ago.

I just don't like Odom or even really Bynum for that matter as a solution to the current problems.

You could even use that 8 pick to trade down in order to get another enticement for CHA (making it a 4 way deal instead) to jump in, and then still get a guy like Nick Young or even Splitter.



Something else to keep in mind, the 2008 draft does have a ton of backcourt talent still (which is why I'd rather give ATL a pick this year than next), so perhaps you don't really need to force that to happen right now. Look, if it's a rebuild then you can't think just this year, you have to look down the road at your future opportunities as well and make sure that what you go for now meshes with what will be easier to come by later.

Don't chase a PG now and then try to find your way to a big next year if the team isn't going to make the playoffs in 07-08 (which seems unlikely to me). This is another reason I love going after a guy like Knight or some other mid-level vet for the backcourt.

Anthem
05-30-2007, 10:03 AM
Something else to keep in mind, the 2008 draft does have a ton of backcourt talent still (which is why I'd rather give ATL a pick this year than next), so perhaps you don't really need to force that to happen right now. Look, if it's a rebuild then you can't think just this year, you have to look down the road at your future opportunities as well and make sure that what you go for now meshes with what will be easier to come by later.

Don't chase a PG now and then try to find your way to a big next year if the team isn't going to make the playoffs in 07-08 (which seems unlikely to me). This is another reason I love going after a guy like Knight or some other mid-level vet for the backcourt.
NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.

2Cleva
05-30-2007, 02:13 PM
How about this one?

Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown and filler (Mo Evans or Sasha Vujacic - maybe 19) for Jermaine O'Neal and Troy Murphy?

Kegboy
05-30-2007, 04:08 PM
NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.

Boy, I just went and looked, and I don't agree with their picks at all. I should have just stopped reading when I saw they have the Bucks taking Jeff Green over Conley at #6.

naptownmenace
05-30-2007, 06:54 PM
A trade with LA without sending back Odom would leave the Pacers with a team that probably wouldn't win 30 games next season.

I'd like to get Jordan Farmar as well. If we could put together a package that sent the Lakers Tinsley and JO for Odom, Bynum, and Farmar I'd be down with it even without a draft pick.

Unclebuck
05-30-2007, 07:06 PM
I'd like to get Jordan Farmar as well. If we could put together a package that sent the Lakers Tinsley and JO for Odom, Bynum, and Farmar I'd be down with it even without a draft pick.

We have our winner, I'd do that trade also.

avoidingtheclowns
05-30-2007, 07:17 PM
NBADraft.net (admittedly not a paragon of accuracy) is currently projecting Law at #20. If you can get Law with the Lakers pick, you consider it.

draft express has him going #11. really unless he has terrible workouts, i can't see him slipping that low when you look at the teams and their needs that are picking 10-18 (i broke it down on pg 1 of this thread)

Seth... talking about bringing odom hampering the growth of the team. its possible if we hang on to murphy that could be true. but i think we're going to have that problem with either of the two most likely deals out there (with LAL and with BOS) in either Odom or Wally. I tend to look at Wally as being more of a problem because we either pay his ridiculous salary to ride the bench or we play him and he takes minutes away from our young developing SG/SF core (daniels, dunleavy, granger and williams). odom would at least fill a need in losing JO (as both a PF and a guy who could be the #1 option). and doesn't wallace bring the same problem in that because he's a SG/SF he'd be taking minutes away from our developing core?

grace
05-30-2007, 07:32 PM
Boy, I just went and looked, and I don't agree with their picks at all. I should have just stopped reading when I saw they have the Bucks taking Jeff Green over Conley at #6.


I don't exactly like Noah at 9 either.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 07:37 PM
Specifically this was my version, though the issue is would the Bobcats have interest in Odom...

Pacers
JO out
Knight (or Wallace), Kwame, #8 pick in

LAL
Odom, Kwame out
JO in

CHA
Knight (or Wallace if you play him at the 2) out, pick #8 out
Odom in
I'm not sure about this, I would think that we could get more for JONeal.

Help me understand it better....but doesn't this trade boil down to trading JONeal for the #8th pick and clearing salarycap space by the start of the 2008-2009 season?

Since we probably won't be able to pry Gerald Wallace from the Bobcats.....we would be getting Brevin Knight. At best, for the long term, this trade would net us a solid 32 year old PG that we can resign after this season, the #8 pick and whatever salarycap relief that we get from this.

If we want a cost-cutting move that involved JONeal....this would be one of the better ones since it could "technically" clear JONeal's salary from the payroll by the 2008-2009 season ( assuming that Brevin isn't resigned ).

But honestly, IF a Boston trade that could net us Green/Ratliff/#5 were available....even without Delonte or Conley....I would consider that trade before this trade....we get a higher pick ( which...admittedly is only a few spots ahead of the #8 pick ) and a younger SG prospect that has already played in the NBA while clearing a decent amount of salarycap space.

I will say that this trade is more feasible from the standpoint of all teams....assuming that the Bobcats give up Knight instead of Wallace.

For the Pacers, although I would prefer any deal with Boston over this ( if I were to simply look at the trade itself ), we get a veteran PG that knows how to run at team and can play for another 2 or 3 years and a #8 pick, while getting whatever salarycap relief benefits for the longterm.

For the Lakers, although they would give up Odom ( something that I don't think the Kobe/Phil wants ) and Kwame ( a prime trading asset ), they would get JONeal and keep Bynum ( something that the Buss family is EXTREMELY reluctant to do ). On second thought, this maybe more of a push for the Lakers....although they get JONeal and keep Bynum ( which technically makes Kobe/Phil/Buss family happy )....they have to give up 2 of their only other trading assets to do this.

For the Bobcats, with Jordan's push to make the team more competitive...assuming that they keep Gerald Wallace...they essentially trade the #8 pick for Odom. For the long-term, it maybe better to build upon the draft....but according to Jordan, he wants to win now...and that means getting solid Vets that can help the team. Odom could easily fit that mold and is clearly better then anything ( short-term ) that the Bobcats can get from the draft.

Naptown_Seth
05-30-2007, 07:50 PM
Cable, I think my view is looking at a smart deal that you still are going to take a hit on due to the situation. I'd like to see him with more value, but if they could get a top 10 pick AND a quality vet PG/SG I'd feel really pleased. I think you consider resigning Knight (and that situation is why I see them willing to do it) and let him be at the worst what AJ/Army have been even if you draft a PG this year or next.

I certainly don't dislike the Boston version you have either. I guess what I'm looking most at is what will those teams honestly be willing to do and how can the Pacers avoid making their cap situation worse.


I agree that if you do move Murph then Odom coming back is different because you could use Odom just like Troy was used but with much better effect I think. He's better off the dribble, a better defender and even more aggressive at the rim I'd say.


Ultimately I think most of us agree that there are ways they can work this that aren't pie-in-the-sky options yet don't ruin the team either. Boston has suffered at the hands of JO many times so I can see their interest but I think that the Lakers (and Kobe) sense the need of a guy like JO far worse and would be more willing to deal. Law with their pick might not be too shabby.

gph
05-30-2007, 07:53 PM
I feel like what is lost here is this: It really isn't about giving up on JO.

It's about lack of options and looking at the radical solution.

The problem that has the Pacers hamstrung is the same problem that is killing the Lakers, the Wolves, and the Grizzlies. We have a highly paid piece that isn't complimented by our other parts.

And in each case, the front offices have surrounded their highly paid guy with players that don't compliment them and that they overpaid to keep the high paid "franchise" guy semi-happy.

So far, the only team that has broken the cycle is Philadelphia, who is completely in rebuilding after moving AI.

However, outside of Webbers buyout which is off the cap after next year, they don't have contracts like Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley. We do. So we move JO, and we still are stuck in contract hell.

If you think you can move JO and one bad contract, what does that do for you? Don't you still have two bad contracts and one blah contract in Foster?

Don't you still have a half court team dictated by the remaining personnel?

Rather than moving JO, which leaves us with even less talent, I have to reverse positions and go with building a half-court team with a few feisty wings. I know JO isn't Tim Duncan, but that blueprint makes more sense that trying to "run" with Dunleavy and Murphy. To me, the major upgrade needs to be a point, supplied through smallish trades, developing a player, or taking a flyer on a guy. However, given how little burn we gave Orien Greene, taking a flyer seems unlikely.

We aren't depressing yet, but we could be heading there.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 07:57 PM
Cable, I think my view is looking at a smart deal that you still are going to take a hit on due to the situation. I'd like to see him with more value, but if they could get a top 10 pick AND a quality vet PG/SG I'd feel really pleased. I think you consider resigning Knight (and that situation is why I see them willing to do it) and let him be at the worst what AJ/Army have been even if you draft a PG this year or next.

I certainly don't dislike the Boston version you have either. I guess what I'm looking most at is what will those teams honestly be willing to do and how can the Pacers avoid making their cap situation worse.


I agree that if you do move Murph then Odom coming back is different because you could use Odom just like Troy was used but with much better effect I think. He's better off the dribble, a better defender and even more aggressive at the rim I'd say.


Ultimately I think most of us agree that there are ways they can work this that aren't pie-in-the-sky options yet don't ruin the team either. Boston has suffered at the hands of JO many times so I can see their interest but I think that the Lakers (and Kobe) sense the need of a guy like JO far worse and would be more willing to deal. Law with their pick might not be too shabby.
That's fair....ultimately, both trade suggestions does allow for salarycap flexibility while netting a draft pick and a player that can help us out in the immediate future ( whether it is Green or Brevin ).

However, if we are able to squeeze BOTH the #8 and #19 pick from the Lakers and the Bobcats....then I would definitely consider your trade proposal over the Celtics trade ( assuming that the Cs want to keep West but add in Telfair or Scalabrine ). If DW has it in him to somehow convince Kobe....I mean the Lakers...to give up that #19 pick....then I would be amazed.

CableKC
05-30-2007, 08:13 PM
To me, the major upgrade needs to be a point, supplied through smallish trades, developing a player, or taking a flyer on a guy. However, given how little burn we gave Orien Greene, taking a flyer seems unlikely.

We aren't depressing yet, but we could be heading there.
I have no problem trying ths out.....but how do you propose that we acquire this PG that you speak of?

If we were a team with far more manageable contracts....then I could see that we could make the type of moves that you are suggesting. But with the way this team is made up now....specifically high-priced players with contract that extend beyond 3 seasons....its very difficult to make such trades without being forced to include Granger, Shawne or Ike.

Everything comes down to what we are willing to give up in order to get the PG that you are suggesting that we get. Who do we sacrifice in order to acquire a PG that is better then Tinsley ( or at worst...a lateral move PG...compared to Tinsley )?

Assuming that the trade offers for JONeal is very great......IF we are able to keep things the way they are while SOMEHOW acquiring a PG that could meet our needs....then I wouldn't mind keeping the "status-quo". The problem is that this is a very big IF.....I just don't think that we can acquire any player of significance without trading some player that we don't give up.

Kegboy
05-30-2007, 08:38 PM
I don't exactly like Noah at 9 either.

Well, he fits Paxson's drafting mindset. You never know, Skiles might toughen him up.

purdue101
05-30-2007, 09:10 PM
i would prefer to include a third team to send odom to. there is no point in hindering the growth of shawne and danny. boston seems like the logical choice. they seem to be under pressure from pierce to add another star caliber player. they're also more likely to make a rash decision after the draft debacle. they have young talent, the #5 pick, and a nice expiring contract (ratliff).

I was thinking something like this

Indy Out:
JO
Foster
Harrison

Indy In:
Ratliff (expiring)
Brown (expiring)
Bynum
# 5 pick or delonte west
# 19 pick

LAL Out:
Brown
Odom
Bynum
# 19 pick

LAL In:
Foster
JO

Boston In:
Odom
Harrison

Boston Out:
Ratliff
#5 pick or delonte west

we could use the # 5 on conley and the #19 on a shooting big like mcroberts or splitter. we would also be able to shed 20 million in cap next summer, which would make us a player in a FA market full of quality guards (gordon, duhon, harris, deng, childress, iggy, west, etc).

IMO, this is the best way to rebuild. we also may want to try and dump two of the following (tinsley, murphy, dunleavy) onto NYK for francis. he would add another 16 million off the cap the following summer.

conley or west
quis
danny
shawne
ike
bynum
mcroberts or splitter

that's a nice young nucleus. combine that with a high lottery pick next year and whatever we can get in FA and we'll be in good shape for the 2008-2009 season going forward. we would also be in great shape cap wise.

gph
05-30-2007, 09:25 PM
I have no problem trying ths out.....but how do you propose that we acquire this PG that you speak of?

If we were a team with far more manageable contracts....then I could see that we could make the type of moves that you are suggesting. But with the way this team is made up now....specifically high-priced players with contract that extend beyond 3 seasons....its very difficult to make such trades without being forced to include Granger, Shawne or Ike.

Everything comes down to what we are willing to give up in order to get the PG that you are suggesting that we get. Who do we sacrifice in order to acquire a PG that is better then Tinsley ( or at worst...a lateral move PG...compared to Tinsley )?

Assuming that the trade offers for JONeal is very great......IF we are able to keep things the way they are while SOMEHOW acquiring a PG that could meet our needs....then I wouldn't mind keeping the "status-quo". The problem is that this is a very big IF.....I just don't think that we can acquire any player of significance without trading some player that we don't give up.

Assuming we have a crack at a decent PG, i would ship ike or shawn. if we are building around JO, those guys will not crack the line-up anyway. But a more viable option might be pushing Foster or Harrison for a back-up pg that we can get a little more out of. Seattle still needs a decent rebounder....earl watson is a nice second tier guy that might work. Orlando needs a banger to protect Howard, Foster or Harrison might work there and land a diener or an arroyo.

indyman37
05-30-2007, 11:06 PM
Now I have a question to ask (I didn't want to start a seperate thread):

Does Kobe demanding a trade change the status of a possible trade between Indiana and Los Angeles for JO?

Because now I have a feeling of serious doubt about us ending up sending JO to the Lakers.

Y2J
05-30-2007, 11:25 PM
Now I have a question to ask (I didn't want to start a seperate thread):

Does Kobe demanding a trade change the status of a possible trade between Indiana and Los Angeles for JO?

Because now I have a feeling of serious doubt about us ending up sending JO to the Lakers.

Defiitely. The whole point of J.O. to the Lakers was to satisfy Kobe by giving him a teammate he could possibly become an immediate contender with. If Kobe gets traded, the Lakers have no need for J.O. as they're likely to rebuild with Bynum, whatever they get for Kobe, future 1sts, capspace, and potentially moving Odom as well.

indyman37
05-30-2007, 11:33 PM
Defiitely. The whole point of J.O. to the Lakers was to satisfy Kobe by giving him a teammate he could possibly become an immediate contender with. If Kobe gets traded, the Lakers have no need for J.O. as they're likely to rebuild with Bynum, whatever they get for Kobe, future 1sts, capspace, and potentially moving Odom as well.
Thats what I thought. Now that Boston trade in which we get the number 5 is looking awfully good.

avoidingtheclowns
05-31-2007, 12:19 AM
I don't exactly like Noah at 9 either.

that doesn't make any sense for the bulls...at all. draft express has hawes going to the bulls. depending on trades that might be made for a front court scorer, i could see the bulls drafting Yi or filling whatever holes might be in the roster (like if they trade duhon, drafting law etc.) i can't imagine the bulls (if their roster remains essentially unchanged) drafting a guy with extreme lack of offensive ability.

OnlyPacersLeft
05-31-2007, 12:29 AM
wow...I think building around a superstar like lamar odom is awesome!

wooolus
05-31-2007, 12:30 AM
IMO, I think we should look hard to try to get Gerald Green in Blue and Gold. Not only does he fill a void in the SG department, he has the reputation to bring a few more casual fans into the stands. Also, he's one of those players that can score from anywhere on the floor, and that's what we are lacking (Daniels = Paint, Shawne = Still Developing, but we saw sparks).

I would do

Green
West
5
Contract Filler

For

JO
JT

Boston will probably bite on that one, because they have always coveted JT when he schooled them in the playoffs during the Pacers 61 win season. JO + PP would make them a serious contender in the EC. Use the fifth pick on Conley, if he's not avalible, trade down to get Law.

Young
05-31-2007, 12:39 AM
IMO, I think we should look hard to try to get Gerald Green in Blue and Gold. Not only does he fill a void in the SG department, he has the reputation to bring a few more casual fans into the stands. Also, he's one of those players that can score from anywhere on the floor, and that's what we are lacking (Daniels = Paint, Shawne = Still Developing, but we saw sparks).

I would do

Green
West
5
Contract Filler

For

JO
JT

Boston will probably bite on that one, because they have always coveted JT when he schooled them in the playoffs during the Pacers 61 win season. JO + PP would make them a serious contender in the EC. Use the fifth pick on Conley, if he's not avalible, trade down to get Law.

I agree.

I love Gerald Green. I am probably more interested in him than the 5th pick.

If Conley isn't there at 5 I think we should keep the pick because I think we could be looking at Brandin Wright. Or maybe we trade the pick to Portland. I would demand both Jarett Jack and Serigo Rodriguez. JJ is already a solid young point guard and I think that Serigo could be very good.

But if I had my choice I would ask that Dunleavy and Wally be worked into the deal.

Something like Jermaine, Dunleavy, Tinsley for Theo, Wally, Green, Scalabride, 5th Pick would work for me. We will be able to get a point guard with the 5th Pick one way or another so I don't care about getting Delonte West.

That would give the Celtics Tinsley/Pierce/Dunleavy/Jefferson/Jermaine starting unit. With guys like West, Rando, Perkins and Allen. That's pretty solid. They would need to add a wing player but that's not a bad starting unit at all.

For us we start cleaning up our salary mess while getting a couple of great talents in Gerald Green and whatever the 5th Pick gets us.

CableKC
05-31-2007, 12:44 AM
Am I the only one that would actually prefer to keep Dunleavy?

Don't get me wrong...if the right deal came along and Dunleavy is part of the trade...I would let him go....but I like what he brings to the game and the "little things" that he does.

I guess there is the benefit of getting out of his contract earlier......but I wouldn't mind keeping Dunleavy if I had the choice.

Y2J
05-31-2007, 12:44 AM
IMO, I think we should look hard to try to get Gerald Green in Blue and Gold. Not only does he fill a void in the SG department, he has the reputation to bring a few more casual fans into the stands. Also, he's one of those players that can score from anywhere on the floor, and that's what we are lacking (Daniels = Paint, Shawne = Still Developing, but we saw sparks).

I would do

Green
West
5
Contract Filler

For

JO
JT

Boston will probably bite on that one, because they have always coveted JT when he schooled them in the playoffs during the Pacers 61 win season. JO + PP would make them a serious contender in the EC. Use the fifth pick on Conley, if he's not avalible, trade down to get Law.

That's the deal Bird should be after.

Brevin Knight & #8? :confused: I don't think so.

Top-5 picks have a 50% success rate of turning into All-Stars. And throw in a super athletic 20 year old SG who averaged double figures points in just over 20 mpg and shot close to 40/90 fro downtown and the line, and it's a no brainer. Not to mention West is a great backup guard and the salary relief. Most Celtic fans seem to like the deal as well, a rarity.

CableKC
05-31-2007, 12:49 AM
That's the deal Bird should be after.

Brevin Knight & #8? :confused: I don't think so.

Top-5 picks have a 50% success rate of turning into All-Stars. And throw in a super athletic 20 year old SG who averaged double figures points in just over 20 mpg and shot close to 40/90 fro downtown and the line, and it's a no brainer. Not to mention West is a great backup guard and the salary relief. Most Celtic fans seem to like the deal as well, a rarity.
The majority of the RealGM Celtics fans that has been posting on this have said no to Tinsley....for obvious reasons ( injury past and contract length )...and worse...would prefer to swap out West for Telfair.

I am hoping that if the Pacers keep things simple......as in not forcing a team to take on unwanted contracts ( like Tinsley, Dunleavy or Murphy )...and therefore complicating things. A JONeal for Green/Ratliff/#5/West seems more plausible...with West being the only possible hangup.

Young
05-31-2007, 12:56 AM
Am I the only one that would actually prefer to keep Dunleavy?

Don't get me wrong...if the right deal came along and Dunleavy is part of the trade...I would let him go....but I like what he brings to the game and the "little things" that he does.

I guess there is the benefit of getting out of his contract earlier......but I wouldn't mind keeping Dunleavy if I had the choice.

I don't mind Dunleavy.

I agree, I like the little things that he brings to the table.

Here is my problem with him.

I want Danny and especially Shawne to have the chance to be at their best. Dunleavy will move Danny to the two and limit Shawne's minutes.

What this team needs is a natural shooting guard. GG is that. And if we can dump Dunleavy by getting Wally, a shorter contract, i'm all for it. Hell i'd even throw in Jeff Foster.

While I like what Dunleavy gives us he is the odd man out given the way our roster is set up.

Also, I agree with your other post, I don't want the Pacers to complicate things. I am happy with Jermaine for Theo, Green, and 5th Pick. Dumping salary on Boston or getting Delonte West is just icing on the cake for me.

Unclebuck
05-31-2007, 01:19 AM
I really want to keep Dunleavy.


This offseason is going to be a long one. Not making the playoffs to me makes it seem like it is mid July already

Y2J
05-31-2007, 01:25 AM
Dunleavy is a good 6th man being paid like a solid starter. If we were to get Gerald Green and keep Danny and Shawne, there's no need for Dunleavy.

indyman37
05-31-2007, 01:51 AM
I really doubt that we trade Dunleavy. Walsh has talked about how "great" and how much "potential" he Mike has. He said in an interview after the season that if Dunleavy improved his outside shooting, that he would be an "all-star." I think Larry is pretty high on him too.

wooolus
05-31-2007, 08:26 PM
I really doubt that we trade Dunleavy. Walsh has talked about how "great" and how much "potential" he Mike has. He said in an interview after the season that if Dunleavy improved his outside shooting, that he would be an "all-star." I think Larry is pretty high on him too.

I think Dunleavy could be an All-star in this system as in we use him like Rip Hamilton and play a lot of zone so he's lack in one on one ability is not exposed. Dunleavy will not be the breaking point for whether or not the Boston deal can go through. I just really like GG better than Bayum, because acquiring Bynum seems like replacing JO with a guy that plays like the younger JO (more to the post), and that hasn't got us past the conference finals. So, why not add an element that Pacers have never had before. A so called "flashy" player, an atheletic freak that create his own shot and can score anywhere on the floor. Pacers has never had one of those players aside from maybe Jalen Rose (not atheletic enough). As good as Reggie is, he is not a creator. GG could be a difference maker as in he can break down defenses and take over games with his atheleticism and shooting stroke (alas T-Mac with less passing ability).

Oneal07
05-31-2007, 08:28 PM
Yeah, Dunleavy's Jumper needs to be worked on heavily

avoidingtheclowns
05-31-2007, 08:33 PM
i think the key to dunleavy is to watch deng. deng's outside shooting is terrible but a step in from the 3pt line and he's evolved into a great player. i think the key for dunleavy is to step in.

Roy Munson
05-31-2007, 08:33 PM
Dunleavy is a good 6th man being paid like a solid starter. If we were to get Gerald Green and keep Danny and Shawne, there's no need for Dunleavy.

Right, except for the little matter of Gerald Green being a terrible NBA player.

Oh, wait! He can dunk real good. Never mind. My bad.

avoidingtheclowns
05-31-2007, 08:37 PM
was it celtic homer extrordinare bill simmons who called him the worst player in the NBA? i think someone did...

Young
05-31-2007, 08:40 PM
Right, except for the little matter of Gerald Green being a terrible NBA player.

Oh, wait! He can dunk real good. Never mind. My bad.

Have you saw him play? Heck even look at his stats? That kid can shoot.

LoneGranger33
05-31-2007, 08:44 PM
Style > Substance?

Naptown_Seth
05-31-2007, 10:29 PM
Am I the only one that would actually prefer to keep Dunleavy?

Don't get me wrong...if the right deal came along and Dunleavy is part of the trade...I would let him go....but I like what he brings to the game and the "little things" that he does.

I guess there is the benefit of getting out of his contract earlier......but I wouldn't mind keeping Dunleavy if I had the choice.
I like some of his game quite a bit, but he's a small forward all the way and has lost his 3pt range. So why use him over Danny and Shawne within the next year or so?

And then you put his contract in the mix. If Danny was a 6'5" SG then this would be different. He's closer to a PF than a SG.