PDA

View Full Version : Pacer/Laker trade nears?



Pages : [1] 2

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 04:34 PM
Source in L.A. says the Laker/Pacer trade is getting close.

According to reports Andrew Bynum will not be part of the trade.

Basic trade will be Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown , Sasha Vujacic and #19 for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley.

Personally if this happens I think Bird and Walsh are getting screwed a 2nd straight trade. If this trade occurs its time to fire both Walsh and Bird.

We don't get the young foundation center and give away our franchise player and our starting point guard for an expiring contract- an unhappy Odom and a mediocre pick. Hopefully the source is wrong.

If it occurs I can't wait for the crap Bird tries to feed us.

Doug
06-11-2007, 04:37 PM
That trade would SUCK.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 04:37 PM
omg this source better be the most unreliable source in history...are you kidding me!? why!? you get no potential at all in that trade! 19 will suck despite what people think. Kwame brown SUCKS already and will always suck...Vujacic is NOT going to EVER be a good PG and Lamar Odom will be gone in 2 years! wooooooow....That will be one tough pill to swallow.

able
06-11-2007, 04:38 PM
If this happens I will sit on a fence and wait till someone is smart enough to send Bird (and Walsh to since he has to sign of on it) packing straight to Boston, for I will most certainly not come to Indy during the remainder of his days, I have better ways of spending my poverty

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 04:38 PM
now that i think about it...that reminds me of the golden state trade all over...LOL

Robobtowncolt
06-11-2007, 04:38 PM
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it, as usual.

31andonly
06-11-2007, 04:38 PM
Please not, OMG, such a trade will kill the whole franchise and fan base!

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 04:39 PM
I don't believe this i think Bynum will be in the trade.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 04:40 PM
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it, as usual.

ditto...

that being said, if the deal goes down the way that reads i will spend at least the 07-08 season sobbing in the fetal position.

Shade
06-11-2007, 04:40 PM
Source in L.A. says the Laker/Pacer trade is getting close.

According to reports Andrew Bynum will not be part of the trade.

Basic trade will be Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown , Sasha Vujacic and #19 for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley.

Personally if this happens I think Bird and Walsh are getting screwed a 2nd straight trade. If this trade occurs its time to fire both Walsh and Bird.

We don't get the young foundation center and give away our franchise player and our starting point guard for an expiring contract- an unhappy Odom and a mediocre pick. Hopefully the source is wrong.

If it occurs I can't wait for the crap Bird tries to feed us.

If this is true, be prepared for a PFFL-level rant from yours truly.

I'm not even joking.

Everyone has been warned.

Anthem
06-11-2007, 04:43 PM
Sources in LA = that's what LA hopes Indy will take.

But they won't. TPTB would get crucified for taking that deal. We'd be better off sending Jermaine to New York or Atlanta.

Shade
06-11-2007, 04:43 PM
Please not, OMG, such a trade will kill the whole franchise and fan base!

Yes, it would.

There's just no way that ANYONE, let alone an NBA front office, would be this stupid.

Right?

Right?

Hello?

Moses
06-11-2007, 04:44 PM
Wow, this would be a pretty bad trade. The Lakers are up against the wall..not us.

This is a horrible trade for us.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 04:44 PM
This is not true guys ANDREW BYNUM will be in the deal.

Shade
06-11-2007, 04:44 PM
now that i think about it...that reminds me of the golden state trade all over...LOL

This is about a million times worse than the GS trade.

There is no silver lining to this deal. None.

CableKC
06-11-2007, 04:46 PM
Eh, I'll believe it when I see it, as usual.
I know its all based off of rumors and we really don't have any real proof until it happens....but I will lose all confidence in whoever is running the show....whether it is Bird, DW or both.

If there is a shred of truth to this...and if one of the reason why we can't get Bynum is because TPTB insist on Tinsley ( or a bad contract ) be moved with JONeal, then I will be p*ssed.

You can put me on you "Ignore List" cuz I am being "negative" and simply reacting to DiamondDave's post......but If we don't get back Bynum.......then it will prove to me that we need a new Front office cuz our current one ABSOLUTELY SUCKS.

Anthem
06-11-2007, 04:48 PM
This is about a million times worse than the GS trade.

There is no silver lining to this deal. None.
Let it go, man. The guy admits that he has no sources in the Indy front office, and this is coming out of LA. That's a reasonable position for LA: they want to hold on to Bynum. But it's not going to get a deal done.

The deal won't go down as presented in this thread. Bank it.

Ant
06-11-2007, 04:49 PM
I dont think there is any way we make this deal. Hopefully the front office will realize that they would be better off just keeping JO instead of signing off on this trade. Like others have said, the Lakers are up against the wall not us. Include Bynum or the talks are off.

Roaming Gnome
06-11-2007, 04:49 PM
Does getting rid of Tinsley cost that much? Is it worth that to some of you? To me...it is not worth it at all and I would feel that managment is just running the franchise into the ground!

If that is the deal, I would hope that this isn't the deal. Anyway, who would play point guard, and don't tell me Daniels. It's hard to count on a guy that is "that" injury prone, but then again...we did that with Tinsley last year...so who knows!

CableKC
06-11-2007, 04:49 PM
Sources in LA = that's what LA hopes Indy will take.

But they won't. TPTB would get crucified for taking that deal. We'd be better off sending Jermaine to New York or Atlanta.
With the way the GSW Trade turned out....I am not entirely confident that TPTB wouldn't do this deal JUST TO MOVE a player like Tinsley.

We have taken less in a deal just to move "undesireable" players that TPTB don't want.......I don't see how this is any different.

Shade
06-11-2007, 04:50 PM
Let it go, man. The guy admits that he has no sources in the Indy front office, and this is coming out of LA. That's a reasonable position for LA: they want to hold on to Bynum. But it's not going to get a deal done.

The deal won't go down as presented in this thread. Bank it.

Which is why I qualified my initial reaction with "if."

Btw, if this "source" happens to be Hacksaw, that guy is as unreliable as they come.

Anthem
06-11-2007, 04:51 PM
With the way the GSW Trade turned out....I am not entirely confident that TPTB wouldn't do this deal JUST TO MOVE a player like Tinsley.

We have taken less in a deal just to move "undesireable" players that TPTB don't want.......I don't see how this is any different.
Including Harrington is different from including Jermaine. There's no reason to do this deal: we can get a much better price later in the summer.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 04:52 PM
DD, who is this LA Source? because its simply not true Bynum is gonna be in the deal.

Anthem
06-11-2007, 04:52 PM
Which is why I qualified my initial reaction with "if."

Btw, if this "source" happens to be Hacksaw, that guy is as unreliable as they come.
Might you go so far as to call.... shenanigans?

CableKC
06-11-2007, 04:53 PM
Let it go, man. The guy admits that he has no sources in the Indy front office, and this is coming out of LA. That's a reasonable position for LA: they want to hold on to Bynum. But it's not going to get a deal done.

The deal won't go down as presented in this thread. Bank it.
What guy are you referring to?

Is there some link to some Post/Blog that's not listed here in the thread?

Hicks
06-11-2007, 04:54 PM
That trade would SUCK.

Yes it would.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 04:54 PM
I like this trade...I repeat I like this trade...Lamar Odom is better then kobe....we win...
uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

*snaps*


wtf?! some laker fan hypnotized me!

Evan_The_Dude
06-11-2007, 04:54 PM
Well, to bring out the positives like I seem to like to do.. I do like Vujacic, Brown's expiring contract, and the 19th pick. That makes it better than the GS trade IMO. But I don't see how that would cost us O'Neal AND Tinsley. Plus, I just can't see Tinsley playing in the triangle. It makes more sense for him to stay with Indiana because of the type of offense we're trying to run.

Robobtowncolt
06-11-2007, 04:54 PM
Might you go so far as to call.... shenanigans?

SHENANIGANS HAVE BEEN CALLED! IS THERE A SECOND?!

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 04:57 PM
Andrew Bynum will be in the package i have no idea were DD is getting this from but I'm convinced its not true and i have a feeling he got this news from Eric Pincus from Hoopsworld.

Ant
06-11-2007, 04:58 PM
Hey Farva, whats that restaurant with all the goofy s*** on the walls that you like??

CableKC
06-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Including Harrington is different from including Jermaine. There's no reason to do this deal: we can get a much better price later in the summer.
I ( like the rest of the PD forum ) agree that there is no way that this deal should be done.......it should start as a "Bynum or no deal" negotiation. I completely agree that this trade makes no sense.......both from a Pacer POV ( not taking back Bynum ) and the Lakers POV.

I don't see why the Lakers would want to take Tinsley back "voluntarily". If they are forced to take Tinsley back ( as in...TPTB insist on including him...or NO DEAL )...then I can see the Lakers "asking price" to take on Tinsley ( since its pretty clear that he would be one of the worst possible fits for the Triangle Offense and admittedly a very steep price to pay considering his contract ) is not to give up Bynum.

As I have suggested before, keep thing simple...and we can get a better deal in the end. The second we start down the path where we force a team to take on an "undesireable" player in any trade.....then its entirely possible that we end up with a trade like the GSW trade where we take a serious hit in the "talent" department instead of doing a trade that could have been better.

Kegboy
06-11-2007, 05:02 PM
Well, while my dream of a Mel Mel and Phil reality show would be realized, I don't know if it's worth killing the franchise.

I understand that they don't want to give up Bynum, but taking Tinsley and not even giving us Farmar in return, geez. :loser2:

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:03 PM
Hey Farva, whats that restaurant with all the goofy s*** on the walls that you like??

You mean Shenanigans?

:chuckle:

Gamble1
06-11-2007, 05:03 PM
I just vomited in my mouth after reading this.....Thanks for nothing.
If this goes down I will be even a more college bball fan than ever.

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 05:03 PM
Believe me Smashed -I said same thing Bynum is the only reason you even consider dealing JO to the Lakers.

I told the source no way . I'm with all of you no Bynum no trade can't believe Walsh will sign off on it.

CableKC
06-11-2007, 05:06 PM
Well, to bring out the positives like I seem to like to do.. I do like Vujacic, Brown's expiring contract, and the 19th pick. That makes it better than the GS trade IMO. But I don't see how that would cost us O'Neal AND Tinsley. Plus, I just can't see Tinsley playing in the triangle. It makes more sense for him to stay with Indiana because of the type of offense we're trying to run.
I know that I am bored and simply reacting to a "rumor" that is either true ( or not ).....but the reason why you suggest that he would not be a fit could be the very reason why Bynum would not be included.

I know its simplistic....but I can totally see the Lakers telling DW/Bird that IF we have to take on Tinsley ( since he has a very long contract, is injury prone and clearly doesn't fit on the Lakers Triangle Offense ), then we don't want to give up Bynum.

And with my confidence in TPTB being at an all-time low....I can see them accepting this JUST to get rid of a PR nightmare like Tinsley :rolleyes:

ajbry
06-11-2007, 05:06 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

I ain't necessarily a Bynum advocate, but he is literally the only piece of real value to our future that the Lakers can offer us. If we ain't getting him and settle for this type of deal, it's officially time to send Larry packing.

CableKC
06-11-2007, 05:07 PM
Believe me Smashed -I said same thing Bynum is the only reason you even consider dealing JO to the Lakers.

I told the source no way . I'm with all of you no Bynum no trade can't believe Walsh will sign off on it.
DD....I'm waiting on you to say that this rumor has been "shot down" by your closer "Indy" sources.

Go ahead...I'm waiting..... :pray:

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:08 PM
Foster/Harrison/Brown
Odom/Diogu/Murphy
Granger/Williams/#19 pick (because you know we would draft another SF)
Dunleavy
Daniels/Vujacic/Greene
We could become the first winless team in NBA history! :lol:

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:08 PM
DD yeah but we all know Bynum is gonna be in the deal so nothing to worry about.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 05:09 PM
Let it go, man. The guy admits that he has no sources in the Indy front office, and this is coming out of LA. That's a reasonable position for LA: they want to hold on to Bynum. But it's not going to get a deal done.

The deal won't go down as presented in this thread. Bank it.
I agree, but "bank it"???

Yikes. Careful there with bold predictions, and maybe not so Top Gun next time. ;)

Frank Slade
06-11-2007, 05:09 PM
Well, while my dream of a Mel Mel and Phil reality show would be realized, I don't know if it's worth killing the franchise.

I understand that they don't want to give up Bynum, but taking Tinsley and not even giving us Farmar in return, geez. :loser2:

I had a bad feeling once everything was sorted out if an actual offer was made Bynum would be pulled off the table. :kickcan:

I would even be willing to take Odom, Bynum and, Famar in place of the 19th pick over this deal. But no Bynum, and Odom all of sudden doesn't look so attractive , no matter how much filler is packaged with him.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:10 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

I ain't necessarily a Bynum advocate, but he is literally the only piece of real value to our future that the Lakers can offer us. If we ain't getting him and settle for this type of deal, it's officially time to send the entire front office packing.

Fixed.

DaSMASH
06-11-2007, 05:12 PM
Source in L.A. says the Laker/Pacer trade is getting close.

According to reports Andrew Bynum will not be part of the trade.

Basic trade will be Lamar Odom, Kwame Brown , Sasha Vujacic and #19 for Jermaine O'Neal and Jamaal Tinsley.

Personally if this happens I think Bird and Walsh are getting screwed a 2nd straight trade. If this trade occurs its time to fire both Walsh and Bird.

We don't get the young foundation center and give away our franchise player and our starting point guard for an expiring contract- an unhappy Odom and a mediocre pick. Hopefully the source is wrong.

If it occurs I can't wait for the crap Bird tries to feed us.

Reports? WHat reports? The source your quoting from is purely WISHING and not being realistic.

The trade on the table is:

O'Neal & (Tinsley or Murphy) for

Odom, Bynum,Kwame & the 19th pick in the draft.

The Pacers have let the Lakers know that the only way that they will not include Bynum is if they (the Lakers) aquire a draft pick between 5 to 10 in this years draft along with the 19th pick.

What everyone fails to realize here is that the Lakers are behind the 8 ball. They have already told Kobe they will be getting O'Neal, maybe Artest too. The only hold up is when Odom will go under the knife for shoulder surgury, before or after the trade...No, he (Odom) doesn't want to come here (Indiana), but will if he is extended (in other words he holds the team up for extorted money) in contract years. Odom is under contract for 2 more years and could come here for half the season and then be dealt. But there will be NO 3 or 4 teams involved with this trade...just the PAcers and the Lakers...

The Camby trade speculation was just a weak attempt by the Lakers to push the Pacers for just Kwame and Odom... The Lakers do have to do this trade, the PAcers DO NOT ! Any other trade speculation is done just to try to get the Pacers to move off of Bynum.

If this trade happens (the pacers still could pull out, causing the Lakers to up the anty again) It will either happen 3 days before the draft or during the draft...that way physicals are completed and other things ( 1 more trade) that is in the works.

So the rest of you can relax and just wait it out...and the Laker fans can keep wishing that they can keep one or the other (Bynum or Odom)..but the cold hard fact is thatthey will have neither once the season starts, because if they do then Kobe will be dealt.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 05:13 PM
Does getting rid of Tinsley cost that much? Is it worth that to some of you? To me...it is not worth it at all and I would feel that managment is just running the franchise into the ground!

If that is the deal, I would hope that this isn't the deal. Anyway, who would play point guard, and don't tell me Daniels. It's hard to count on a guy that is "that" injury prone, but then again...we did that with Tinsley last year...so who knows!
And weren't the problems all Rick's fault anyway? Why change coaches AND rebuild the roster at the same time. That makes no sense. How can TPTB think Rick failed them AND think they need to rebuild the roster too?

A trade like this (which would be terrible) where you are apparently dumping Tinsley says to me that they don't think Rick was the reason Tinsley struggled. Either that or they are back to chasing the "anti-thug" crowd who don't buy tickets anyway.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:13 PM
I'm telling you guys, the Lakers are holding on to Bynam for dear life so they can use him to go get Jason Kidd from the Nets.

They need more than just JO to appease Kobe.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:15 PM
I'm gonna LMAO when it turns out that EVERYONE'S sources on this deal were wrong. :devil:

Hicks
06-11-2007, 05:17 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

I ain't necessarily a Bynum advocate, but he is literally the only piece of real value to our future that the Lakers can offer us. If we ain't getting him and settle for this type of deal, it's officially time to send Larry packing.

If it tells you anything, coming from someone who disagrees with you seemingly 75+% of the time... I 100% agree with you on this. Childhood NBA/Basketball idol of mine or not, I will be asking for Larry Bird's resignation or firing. And Donnie Walsh, for letting it happen.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:19 PM
If it tells you anything, coming from someone who disagrees with you seemingly 75+% of the time... I 100% agree with you on this. Childhood NBA/Basketball idol of mine or not, I will be asking for Larry Bird's resignation or firing. And Donnie Walsh, for letting it happen.

Co-sign.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 05:19 PM
( 1 more trade) that is in the works.

And what would that be?

Kegboy
06-11-2007, 05:19 PM
Smash's post makes me feel better. We do have all the power here, which is why I wish we'd push it and try and get Farmar and the #19, especially if we give up Tinsley instead of Troy.

pwee31
06-11-2007, 05:20 PM
Reports? WHat reports? The source your quoting from is purely WISHING and not being realistic.

The trade on the table is:

O'Neal & (Tinsley or Murphy) for

Odom, Bynum,Kwame & the 19th pick in the draft.

The Pacers have let the Lakers know that the only way that they will not include Bynum is if they (the Lakers) aquire a draft pick between 5 to 10 in this years draft along with the 19th pick.

What everyone fails to realize here is that the Lakers are behind the 8 ball. They have already told Kobe they will be getting O'Neal, maybe Artest too. The only hold up is when Odom will go under the knife for shoulder surgury, before or after the trade...No, he (Odom) doesn't want to come here (Indiana), but will if he is extended (in other words he holds the team up for extorted money) in contract years. Odom is under contract for 2 more years and could come here for half the season and then be dealt. But there will be NO 3 or 4 teams involved with this trade...just the PAcers and the Lakers...

The Camby trade speculation was just a weak attempt by the Lakers to push the Pacers for just Kwame and Odom... The Lakers do have to do this trade, the PAcers DO NOT ! Any other trade speculation is done just to try to get the Pacers to move off of Bynum.

If this trade happens (the pacers still could pull out, causing the Lakers to up the anty again) It will either happen 3 days before the draft or during the draft...that way physicals are completed and other things ( 1 more trade) that is in the works.

So the rest of you can relax and just wait it out...and the Laker fans can keep wishing that they can keep one or the other (Bynum or Odom)..but the cold hard fact is thatthey will have neither once the season starts, because if they do then Kobe will be dealt.


I tend to believe this, b/c this is what I heard as well. I don't necessarily have a source, but I have a buddy who works for the organization, and he overhears things from time to time, and this is pretty much what he heard as well.
He's a BSer sometimes, but he seemed pretty believable when he told me this

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:21 PM
There is a better chance Odom is not in the package then Bynum thats how i see it.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 05:21 PM
I'm gonna LMAO when it turns out that EVERYONE'S sources on this deal were wrong. :devil:

I have the feeling this is the most accurate prediction surrounding JO to LA we've all read since it started.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 05:22 PM
I'm telling you guys, the Lakers are holding on to Bynam for dear life so they can use him to go get Jason Kidd from the Nets.

They need more than just JO to appease Kobe.

well if the lakers acquire kidd for the crap that they will have left after we give them (yes GIVE THEM) jermaine...then wow...the league has gone to hell.

NapTonius Monk
06-11-2007, 05:22 PM
From a talent standpoint, we'd be getting hosed in a major, major way. However, from a salary cap standpoint, we'd be in a better position financially to do some things. Plus, Odom would probably be just a prelude to another deal. So you'd have to see what you got back for him.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:22 PM
I'm telling you guys, the Lakers are holding on to Bynam for dear life so they can use him to go get Jason Kidd from the Nets.

They need more than just JO to appease Kobe.

So that means we should just roll over and take it?

If this deal were to happen, they may as well put "Indiana basketball" as a reference for rape, courtesy of Larry Bird, Donnie Walsh, and Bobby Knight.

Naptown_Seth
06-11-2007, 05:23 PM
Well reliable or not Smash mentions a 2nd deal AND mentions the option of a higher pick in the "Boston" range.

5, 19, Odom basically perhaps. Boston gets Bynum maybe if they won't send him to Indy?

But I'll join the Shade camp regarding predictions. Let's mark the page and wait for reality to show up.

Kstat
06-11-2007, 05:23 PM
The Nets were all ready to deal Kidd to LA last season for Bynam, but LA said no at the last second.

Clearly, they've changed their minds about keeping him.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:24 PM
From a talent standpoint, we'd be getting hosed in a major, major way. However, from a salary cap standpoint, we'd be in a better position financially to do some things. Plus, Odom would probably be just a prelude to another deal. So you'd have to see what you got back for him.

You mean, like signing all those big name FAs that want to come play in Indy?

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:27 PM
I have a question is DaSmash known for his credibility?

CableKC
06-11-2007, 05:27 PM
Reports? WHat reports? The source your quoting from is purely WISHING and not being realistic.

The trade on the table is:

O'Neal & (Tinsley or Murphy) for

Odom, Bynum,Kwame & the 19th pick in the draft.

The Pacers have let the Lakers know that the only way that they will not include Bynum is if they (the Lakers) aquire a draft pick between 5 to 10 in this years draft along with the 19th pick.

Is this comment based off of any concrete information coming from the Pacers?

or

Is this just wishful thinking on your part ( sorry, but rumors don't count )?

pwee31
06-11-2007, 05:31 PM
Is this comment based off of any concrete information coming from the Pacers?

or

Is this just wishful thinking on your part ( sorry, but rumors don't count )?

I personally heard it through rumors, that's why I never really post the rumors I hear. I have a fraternity bro who works with the Pacers. He's not deep in the organization, but does work most home games, and travels with the team every now and then when they're on the road.

Young
06-11-2007, 05:34 PM
THIS CRAP BETTER NOT BE TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we do that deal Bird and Donnie are ****ing stupid. **** them that is the ****ing dumbest deal I have ever ****ing seen.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 05:36 PM
I have a question is DaSmash known for his credibility?

I think it depends on who you ask. Lately, I'd say not so much. He suggested earlier if we traded with Charlotte and Gerald Wallace was part of the deal, that we'd just cut Wallace. I think it's kind of like reading that David_Whitely character on IndyStar.

Unclebuck
06-11-2007, 05:38 PM
Does getting rid of Tinsley cost that much?



Yes and probably more.

Fire Bird and Walsh for signing Tinsley to that awful contract if you want, but don't fire then for getting rid him.


edit: I'm pretty sure Odom has had shoulder surgery, in fact I know he has. There is a question about whether he needs another surgery on another body part. (I don't mean that as some ill conceived joke, I think maybe his ankle or something might need surgery.

Logic tells me that Bynum will be included

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:38 PM
I think it depends on who you ask. Lately, I'd say not so much. He suggested earlier if we traded with Charlotte and Gerald Wallace was part of the deal, that we'd just cut Wallace. I think it's kind of like reading that David_Whitely character on IndyStar.

No, Whitely is much, much worse. He doesn't even watch the freakin' games.

Coop
06-11-2007, 05:39 PM
I'm getting tired of people coming on boards claiming so and so source said this and that and X trade will go down soon. 98% of the time it's never right. On top of that, everyone gets their panties in a bunch over a trade that won't happen.

This isn't directed towards DD or DaS entirely, just posters in general that like to claim they have all these credible sources that have never given legit info.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:39 PM
The only answer if this is true is that the Lakers will be taking on Tinsley's contract and the Pacers would think getting rid of Tinsley is like gold to them.

PR07
06-11-2007, 05:41 PM
This would contradict absolutely everything we've been hearing. I don't have any sources, but I can say that the last time Walsh traded an all-star big man (Dale Davis), he got a young High schooler gone pro (JO)....I expect him to do do the same in any deal now. Trading for Odom, #19, and Kwame isn't going to drastically improve this franchise the way we need to if we trade a player like JO.

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:43 PM
This would contradict absolutely everything we've been hearing. I don't have any sources, but I can say that the last time Walsh traded an all-star big man (Dale Davis), he got a young High schooler gone pro (JO)....I expect him to do do the same in any deal now. Trading for Odom, #19, and Kwame isn't going to drastically improve this franchise the way we need to if we trade a player like JO.

Are you forgetting Brad Miller?

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 05:44 PM
FWIW... i see murphy being included before tinsley. because murphy could actually serve a purpose for them. tinsley, while they need a PG, probably can't run the triangle.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:46 PM
The Lakers need a PG just as bad as they need a big-man. if they get Tinsley then they will have a plan (B) to get a big-man via signing or trade.

fleetwood019
06-11-2007, 05:47 PM
If a trade goes down before July 1, then which cap number is used, 06-07 or 07-08?

Sollozzo
06-11-2007, 05:49 PM
This would contradict absolutely everything we've been hearing. I don't have any sources, but I can say that the last time Walsh traded an all-star big man (Dale Davis), he got a young High schooler gone pro (JO)....I expect him to do do the same in any deal now. Trading for Odom, #19, and Kwame isn't going to drastically improve this franchise the way we need to if we trade a player like JO.

Correction: The last time Walsh traded an all-star big man was Brad Miller, and he basically got a piece of crap in return (not a young high schooler gone pro with potential)

Shade
06-11-2007, 05:50 PM
FWIW... i see murphy being included before tinsley. because murphy could actually serve a purpose for them. tinsley, while they need a PG, probably can't run the triangle.

That's my hope.

If we deal JO, I'd much rather send Murphy than Tinsley. That would make the GS deal a bit easier to swallow, IMO.

JO, Al, Jack, Runi, and Powell for Odom, Bynum, Diogu, Dunleavy, cap space, and the #19 pick doesn't look so bad.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 05:50 PM
Correction: The last time Walsh traded an all-star big man was Brad Miller, and he basically got a piece of crap in return (not a young high schooler gone pro with potential)

but he had neat hair

SoupIsGood
06-11-2007, 05:54 PM
Let it go, man. The guy admits that he has no sources in the Indy front office, and this is coming out of LA. That's a reasonable position for LA: they want to hold on to Bynum. But it's not going to get a deal done.

The deal won't go down as presented in this thread. Bank it.

Agreed.

dd00's source has been off for a while, it seems. Even Vecsey is off a lot, too. There's really no 'inside source' regarding that Pacers that I trust anymore.

But, when/if this Lakers deal goes down, I wouldn't be surprised to see us come out of it fairly well. I'm hoping we weasel Bynum, Farmar, and the 19 out of them.

Sollozzo
06-11-2007, 05:57 PM
I think everyone needs to calm down. It's not as if DD00 predictions have been the gospel. If they were, wouldn't Odom have been here like a year and a half ago?

Tom White
06-11-2007, 05:57 PM
I'm gonna LMAO when it turns out that EVERYONE'S sources on this deal were wrong. :devil:

..and when we find out that all the soucres are simply posters on the other team's fan forums.

Over at Lakersground.net there is an "indy_dave" telling the Laker fans that the Pacers have five offers for JO. One being the Laker offer, others from NY, NJ, Boston and I don't remember the fifth offer.

Seems to be a lot of BSing going on just to get reactions.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 05:58 PM
I think everyone needs to calm down. It's not as if DD00 predictions have been the gospel.

Agreed at the end of the day Bynum will be in the deal and all will be fine.

PR07
06-11-2007, 06:07 PM
Correction: The last time Walsh traded an all-star big man was Brad Miller, and he basically got a piece of crap in return (not a young high schooler gone pro with potential)<!-- / message -->

This is technically true, but you also have to remember that it was a S&T, we clearly had no leverage as teams knew we couldn't afford to resign Miller (in the same offseason as JO and Reggie), and that's why we got crap in return. With JO, we have the leverage right now. With Dale, we did too.

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 06:14 PM
Source here says to best of his knowledge Bynum is a must. Says before Walsh had let it be known Bynum or no deal .

Harrison and Foster are the most likely Pacers aside from JO to be moved.

Alpolloloco
06-11-2007, 06:23 PM
Ok, that sounds better.

JO/Foster/Harrison for Bynum/Odom/Kwame/Vujacic/#19 I can live with.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 06:24 PM
There is no disclosure in this. if Bynum is not going out which is a 00.4 chance then that means getting rid of Tinsley is worth more then getting Bynum back.

DD thats correct right?

LoneGranger33
06-11-2007, 06:25 PM
Ok, that sounds better.

JO/Foster/Harrison for Bynum/Odom/Kwame/Vujacic/#19 I can live with.

I can't...meaning I would die. Suicide, probably. Maybe a heart attack.
JO/Murphy for Bynum/Odum/#19/anyone else.
I would even take Vladmir.


Tinsley is not to the point where we need to trade him a la Stephen Jackson. Was Stephen Jackson even at that point? I dunno. I never hear the home crowd. But I assume they don't boo JT every time he misses, is introduced, etc.

CableKC
06-11-2007, 06:27 PM
I personally heard it through rumors, that's why I never really post the rumors I hear. I have a fraternity bro who works with the Pacers. He's not deep in the organization, but does work most home games, and travels with the team every now and then when they're on the road.
I was asking DaSmash about his comment about "what was on the table".

It's unclear to me if his comment was based off of "information from a source"...or if its based off of what "rumors that we have heard from AP/blogs/articles.

indygeezer
06-11-2007, 06:38 PM
And weren't the problems all Rick's fault anyway? Why change coaches AND rebuild the roster at the same time. That makes no sense. How can TPTB think Rick failed them AND think they need to rebuild the roster too?

A trade like this (which would be terrible) where you are apparently dumping Tinsley says to me that they don't think Rick was the reason Tinsley struggled. Either that or they are back to chasing the "anti-thug" crowd who don't buy tickets anyway.


Well then, if it is ALL RC's fault TPTB can bring Sarunas back and have the All-Star PG they thought they had.

LoneGranger33
06-11-2007, 06:40 PM
Well then, if it is ALL RC's fault TPTB can bring Sarunas back and have the All-Star PG they thought they had.

Yay! And then Maceo will stay too!

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 06:47 PM
Pacers have shopped Murphy and Dunleavy no interest in the least.

Foster and Harrison being moved doesn't mean the Laker trade necassarily could be for expiring contract and/or picks.

Tinsley interest around the league is minimal. Smashed the logic LA sources told me is getting rid of Tinsley was worth no Bynum , I find that hard to believe.

Pacer writer Mike Wells says Odom is perfect fit here . At this point all bets are off.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 06:52 PM
When did Mile Wells say that DD?

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 07:00 PM
as much as it's hard to believe...we are going to miss tinsley when we give him away for nothing.

CableKC
06-11-2007, 07:00 PM
Pacers have shopped Murphy and Dunleavy no interest in the least.
That's not surprising.....Bird is the only guy willing to take them on.


Tinsley interest around the league is minimal.
I'm confused here......are you saying that BECAUSE the interest in Tinsley is "minimal" that it contradicts what your source said about Tinsley being included in the deal?


Smashed the logic LA sources told me is getting rid of Tinsley was worth no Bynum , I find that hard to believe..

I'm trying to make sense of what you are suggesting here. Are you suggesting that because there is little interest in Tinsley....that it disproves what your LA source told you about Bynum not being included?

or

Are you finding it hard to believe that the price for taking on Tinsley is Bynum remaining a Laker?

Maybe because the sentence appears to be "fragmented"...I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.


Pacer writer Mike Wells says Odom is perfect fit here . At this point all bets are off.

The problem is that this doesn't disprove that Bynum won't be included.

Anthem
06-11-2007, 07:01 PM
Source here says to best of his knowledge Bynum is a must. Says before Walsh had let it be known Bynum or no deal.
I'm confused.

Isn't that the opposite of what you just said?

CableKC
06-11-2007, 07:08 PM
I'm confused.

Isn't that the opposite of what you just said?
I think DiamondDave00 is referring to his sources in Indy...as opposed to his sources in LA.

Tom White
06-11-2007, 07:15 PM
I think DiamondDave00 is referring to his sources in Indy...as opposed to his sources in LA.

I think he's hearing voices.

Scary voices.

I also think his story will be made into a very troubling movie thriller starring Bruce Willis.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 07:22 PM
No, Whitely is much, much worse. He doesn't even watch the freakin' games.

Then how do you explain comments similar to and specifically the Gerald Wallace one?

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 07:23 PM
wait...move JO...Move FOSTER AND HARRISON!? WHY!? WHAT THE HELL IS OUR FRONT OFFICE THINKING? Bynum better become shaq because they are really smoking rocks if they are moving pretty much our whole front line for this kid,.

Shade
06-11-2007, 07:24 PM
Then how do you explain comments similar to and specifically the Gerald Wallace one?

While the Gerald Wallace thing is ridiculous, Whitely has come up with some mind-numbing doozies in his day.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 07:31 PM
100th post :)

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 07:39 PM
Yeah LA says Tinsley taken off hands is price to keep Bynum. I think Bynum from everything I was told previously is what Walsh wants most. But Indy source says minimal Tinsley interest period. To me Walsh would say I'll keep Tinsley give me Bynum.

In other works direct opposite reports from here and LA.

Hicks
06-11-2007, 07:44 PM
Couple things.

1) Notice it's Donnie Walsh talking to the Lakers

2) I know some people still think Tinsley's wonderful or at least very good and are keeping their heads from exploding right now, but even I as someone who could live with Tinsley leaving because of what I see and what I hear behind the scenes thinks this is an insane level to stoop to to dump him. It's stupid.

3) These "conflicting reports" further confirms my suspicions that no one knows anything.

indygeezer
06-11-2007, 07:47 PM
There is no disclosure in this. if Bynum is not going out which is a 00.4 chance then that means getting rid of Tinsley is worth more then getting Bynum back. DD thats correct right?

Which I always believed anyway.

OnlyPacersLeft
06-11-2007, 08:06 PM
these rumors are all stupid...in the end watch it be the original trade vescey reported...lol

Hicks
06-11-2007, 08:16 PM
these rumors are all stupid...in the end watch it be the original trade vescey reported...lol

Nah, at this rate JO will be in a Pacers uniform this October, or he'll get traded to some other team we haven't been talking about much.

Harddrive7
06-11-2007, 08:24 PM
Nah, at this rate JO will be in a Pacers uniform this October, or he'll get traded to some other team we haven't been talking about much.

That's what I'm thinking. It's going to be a trade out of left field that no one here or anywhere else thought about.

Maybe we get KG and some change with upside.

Isaac
06-11-2007, 08:28 PM
I disagree. We are talking about trading a major star to a city like Los Angeles. That is not going to be a quiet thing that happens and comes out of nowhere.

I also think eventually LA will bend over and give us whatever we want because I believe Kobe thinks they are getting Jermaine, and doesn't care at what cost. LA has been rumored to get so many high profile players but has failed, and Kobe is sick of it. He wants Jermaine, so they will do it.

owl
06-11-2007, 08:36 PM
Really everyone needs to calm down. I have decided to let the Bird/Walsh team do its thing. I am not going to go nuclear if I do not see what I think should happen and for your own sanity I advise the same for everyone else.
PFFLing serves no purpose. Frankly I find this a very interesting period
in Pacer history and I remain hopeful.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 08:43 PM
I agree with owl let the negotiation people do there thing.

!Pacers-Fan!
06-11-2007, 08:58 PM
if this happens...then bird and walsh r definately smelling coke...

Trader Joe
06-11-2007, 09:02 PM
If we...
If we trade JO...
*Trying to collect himself so he doesn't lose it completely, Deep Breath*
If we trade JO for that pile I'll protest outside of Conseco so vehemently that I will end up being taken to jail and you can book that. This deal would cripple this franchise for a decade.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 09:04 PM
Couple things.

1) Notice it's Donnie Walsh talking to the Lakers

2) I know some people still think Tinsley's wonderful or at least very good and are keeping their heads from exploding right now, but even I as someone who could live with Tinsley leaving because of what I see and what I hear behind the scenes thinks this is an insane level to stoop to to dump him. It's stupid.

3) These "conflicting reports" further confirms my suspicions that no one knows anything.

if reports are conflicting, isn't more likely bowzer is the one making the calls?


Nah, at this rate JO will be in a Pacers uniform this October, or he'll get traded to some other team we haven't been talking about much.


we're trading JO to the Yakima Sun Kings

Oneal07
06-11-2007, 09:04 PM
YA right. . .Tat's sounds like BS to me

NapTonius Monk
06-11-2007, 09:10 PM
You mean, like signing all those big name FAs that want to come play in Indy?

touche'

SpADeD
06-11-2007, 09:14 PM
touche'
<img src="http://www.cinemablend.com/images/features/stiller.jpg">

NapTonius Monk
06-11-2007, 09:15 PM
From the last couple of moves the franchise has made, they've shown that they're pretty good at keeping their actions under wraps. We were taken off guard by the GS trade and the JO'b hiring. Who knows what they're doing/jbg

SpADeD
06-11-2007, 09:17 PM
Indeed I hope this is malrki. Not to mention I can't remember the last time a deal was actually posted on the net that went through, everything the Pacers seem to do comes out of left field.

PacerFan31
06-11-2007, 09:31 PM
If we...
If we trade JO...
*Trying to collect himself so he doesn't lose it completely, Deep Breath*
If we trade JO for that pile I'll protest outside of Conseco so vehemently that I will end up being taken to jail and you can book that. This deal would cripple this franchise for a decade.

I second that!

RomanGabriel
06-11-2007, 10:10 PM
Just as the month of April is reknowned for being a period of complete misinformation/disinformation leading up to the NFL draft, I think the same of the month of June for NBA talk. GMs and agents working behind the scenes to maximize their positions. Bottom line, the sole, solitary reason for doing any deal with the Lakers absolutely has to net the Pacers Mr. Bynum. Otherwise, I trust that TPTB have the common sense to move on to other suitors, or God forbid to stand pat if need be. TPTB are smart enough to see this, right? Please say yes.

BlueNGold
06-11-2007, 10:39 PM
Just as the month of April is reknowned for being a period of complete misinformation/disinformation leading up to the NFL draft, I think the same of the month of June for NBA talk. GMs and agents working behind the scenes to maximize their positions. Bottom line, the sole, solitary reason for doing any deal with the Lakers absolutely has to net the Pacers Mr. Bynum. Otherwise, I trust that TPTB have the common sense to move on to other suitors, or God forbid to stand pat if need be. TPTB are smart enough to see this, right? Please say yes.

There is some wisdom.

I want JO and Tinsley to be traded, but I do not want Brown, Odom, Walton and the #19 for that. "Fire Bird" should be the first thread out there if such a trade is announced. JO should never go that cheaply. I don't care how much they want to move him. He demands a double team on offense and is a tremendous shot blocker on defense. I want him traded more than most people on this board and would never go for that deal.

The #19 could net us nothing at all. Brown is a salary cut. Walton adds nothing. We have a huge stable of SF's (Williams, Granger, Dunleavy, Quis, Marshall). He is not even as good as Dunleavy. Odom is the only real asset for JO and Tinsley...and he does nothing to help our rebuild. He will actually hinder Ike's development and possible Williams. No, that's a horrible deal. I woundn't do it, but we would be better off dealing JO and Tinsley for Wally and West. At least we would get a solid PG and a good shooter in return.

aero
06-11-2007, 11:09 PM
Andrew Bynum or bust!

gilpdawg
06-11-2007, 11:20 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me.

I ain't necessarily a Bynum advocate, but he is literally the only piece of real value to our future that the Lakers can offer us. If we ain't getting him and settle for this type of deal, it's officially time to send Larry packing.
If they do this deal, I won't support this team until we have new PTB. Sure, I'll still be a fan, but I won't buy tickets and I won't pay for League Pass to watch them from out of state either. I'll check box scores and listen to Mark and Slick on Sirius.

diamonddave00
06-11-2007, 11:51 PM
After doing some checking I was told Pacers brass has not backed down on Bynum , still asking for Odom and probably Brown . JO would not be the only player going to LA Tinsley or Daniels and even Foster could end up in the trade.

Smashed_Potato
06-11-2007, 11:54 PM
Oh my god, i will wet my pants if the Lakers got Foster i absolutely love him as a player.

avoidingtheclowns
06-11-2007, 11:58 PM
Oh my god, i will wet my pants if the Lakers got Foster i absolutely love him as a player.

why not as a human being, smashed? there is more to jeff than constantly grabbing balls you know...

Bball
06-12-2007, 12:01 AM
2) I know some people still think Tinsley's wonderful or at least very good and are keeping their heads from exploding right now, but even I as someone who could live with Tinsley leaving because of what I see and what I hear behind the scenes thinks this is an insane level to stoop to to dump him. It's stupid.


I have my personal doubts Walsh would hide anything about Tinsley even IF it wasn't already common knowledge to LA's TPTB. Maybe I'm wrong and Walsh would believe it's 'let the buyer beware' but I have my doubts. He wouldn't want to burn any bridges...or teams... IMO.

-Bball

grace
06-12-2007, 12:05 AM
I have my personal doubts Walsh would hide anything about Tinsley even IF it wasn't already common knowledge to LA's TPTB. Maybe I'm wrong and Walsh would believe it's 'let the buyer beware' but I have my doubts. He wouldn't want to burn any bridges...or teams... IMO.

-Bball

If we know about the behind the scenes stuff I'm sure the whole NBA does too.

beast23
06-12-2007, 12:11 AM
Reports? WHat reports? The source your quoting from is purely WISHING and not being realistic.

The trade on the table is:
O'Neal & (Tinsley or Murphy) for
Odom, Bynum,Kwame & the 19th pick in the draft.
I don't always go along with all of your posts, but your logic is sound in this one. I agree that the Pacers would seem to hold the position of advantage in the negotions.

There aren't a lot of other players in the caliber of JO to help out the Lakers, and those that are may or may not be on the market, or may not be able to be combined with the right players/salaries to build an acceptable trade.

If the trade goes down, as much as I'd like to see Tinsley somewhere else, I'd probably want to see Murphy traded, since we would be getting back a SF/PF (Odom) and two centers.

I'm not really excited about getting back Sasha or Farmar either one... at least not enough to give up Tinsley in this trade. I would seek an additional trade that involves Tinsley following this initial trade... maybe something that could move the Pacers up much higher in the draft order than just #19.

beast23
06-12-2007, 12:14 AM
I'm telling you guys, the Lakers are holding on to Bynam for dear life so they can use him to go get Jason Kidd from the Nets.

They need more than just JO to appease Kobe.When the Lakers give up Odom and Brown to get O'Neal, they won't have the assets and salaries available to get their hands on Kidd. However, they might be able to come up with what is required to get Artest.

And if they are dumb enough to combine Artest with Kobe and JO, I'll be staying up late to watch a lot of Laker games... because I think the 3-ring circus will be very entertaining.

Bball
06-12-2007, 01:04 AM
If we know about the behind the scenes stuff I'm sure the whole NBA does too.

The question is... Do we really know the full story and every last account?

Probably not. That's what is scary.

-Bball

Arcadian
06-12-2007, 01:15 AM
And if they are dumb enough to combine Artest with Kobe and JO, I'll be staying up late to watch a lot of Laker games... because I think the 3-ring circus will be very entertaining.

Jackson+Kobe+Ron+JO+Tins. I can't not watch.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 01:28 AM
If Foster is possibly included........the following trade would work from a Salary/Contract POV.

JONeal+Foster+(Tinsley or Marquis )
Outgoing 2007-2008 salary for Pacers - $31.71 mil

for

Kwame+Bynum+Odom+19+(Sasha or Farmar or Maurice Evans )
Outgoing 2007-2008 salary for Lakers - $26.30 mil ( if Farmar is included ) or $27.07 mil ( if Sasha or Evans is included )

I am hoping that IF any iteration of this trade happens...I would much rather send Tinsley ( obviously ) over Marquis. But I would guess that the Lakers would want Marquis instead Tinsley.

If TPTB insist on Kwame's Expiring Contract...while getting back the majority of their Lakers starting Frontcourt.....IMHO, its not unreasonable for the Lakers to ask for some players back to help fill their Frontcourt. To tell you the truth.....even I think that the Pacers asking for all the "tradeable assets" that the Lakers have while asking them to take on Tinsley....just for JONeal...is alot. If Tinsley is included as well and Kwame must be included....then Foster's shorter contract ( compared to our other Frontcourt player ) is the preferable player that the Lakers would want. But if the Lakers want Foster.....then I don't want to give up Marquis....they would have to take Tinsley.

I would prefer to keep Marquis since he's our only real SG and his contract could come off at the same time as Odom's ( in the 2009-2010 season ) IF TPTB decide not to pick up his Team Option.

IMHO.....the best deal that the Lakers could get IF TPTB insist on a trade based around:

Kwame+Odom+Bynum+19+filler ( that is less then $2mil in contracts )

is:

JONeal+Marquis+Foster

but for the Pacers, the obvious deal that I think that the Pacers can get is:

JONeal+Tinsley+Foster

Smashed_Potato
06-12-2007, 01:34 AM
DD, is there a good chance the Lakers can get Foster in the deal or was this based on speculation from you're source?

BoomBaby31
06-12-2007, 01:35 AM
Jackson+Kobe+Ron+JO+Tins. I can't not watch.

I live in L.A so i'll get to watch them all. :) Maybe this is why Lakers tickets went up AGAIN.

About the trade. I could deal with Sasha, Kwame, Lamar and Pick for JO and filler but not JO and Tins. We need to stand our ground and at least get Bynum.

BoomBaby31
06-12-2007, 01:40 AM
If Foster is possibly included........the following trade would work from a Salary/Contract POV.

JONeal+Foster+(Tinsley or Marquis )
Outgoing 2007-2008 salary for Pacers - $31.71 mil

for

Kwame+Bynum+Odom+19+(Sasha or Farmar)
Outgoing 2007-2008 salary for Lakers - $26.30 mil ( if Farmar is included ) or $27.07 mil ( if Sasha is included )

I am hoping that IF any iteration of this trade happens...I would much rather send Tinsley ( obviously ) over Marquis. But I would guess that the Lakers would want Marquis instead of Tinsley and Foster.

I could deal with this trade if it was Farmar and not Sasha. Even though foster is the man we'd be getting a good budding true PG in Farmar, young talent Bynum, a 19th overall, a decent Vet for this Young team, and Kwame who isn't all that bad. Honestly we would be lucky to get this because, you never get what you are suppose to for your All-Stars.

Karmakillaz
06-12-2007, 01:42 AM
We need to stand our ground and get Bynum regardless.

If trading JO does not result in rebuilding in earnest I would just assume to keep JO.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 02:01 AM
I could deal with this trade if it was Farmar and not Sasha. Even though foster is the man we'd be getting a good budding true PG in Farmar, young talent Bynum, a 19th overall, a decent Vet for this Young team, and Kwame who isn't all that bad. Honestly we would be lucky to get this because, you never get what you are suppose to for your All-Stars.

I'm only guessing...but the JONeal+Foster+Tinsley deal is the best deal for us. But I have a feeling that it will be JONeal+Foster+Marquis. For the Lakers...this seems to be the most reasonable to accept IF they had to give up every trading asset that they have.

Foster would fill whatever need to help their depleted Frontcourt and is much cheaper then Murphy.

Marquis has a shorter contract then Tinsley ESPECIALLY if his 2009-2010 Team Option is not renewed. As some here on PD have suggested...its hard to believe that we can get a better PG then Tinsley on the Market. If that is the case....then in order to clear up the clutter at the SG/SF rotation that we have with Marquis/Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne.....I wonder if TPTB would decide to give up Marquis just to make the deal happen.

That would leave us with:

PG - Tinsley / Farmer or Sasha / McLeod
SG - Dunleavy / 19th Pick / Greene
SF - Granger / Shawne
PF - Odom / Ike
C - Bynum / Murphy / Harrison

I would obviously prefer to keep Marquis....but I have a feeling that he's the one to go IF we insist on Kwame's Expiring contract.

Young
06-12-2007, 02:10 AM
Here is what the deal should be, makes the most sense for both teams IMO.

Pacers Get:
- Andrew Bynum
- Kwame Brown
- Aaron McKie (S&T to a non guaranteed contract, just for salary purposes)
- Cash
- 19th Pick

Lakers Get:
- Jermaine O"Neal

We cut Mckie then hopefully draft a backcourt player at 19.

We don't need Brian Cook, we would have plenty of frontcourt players with Bynum, Brown, Ike, Jeff, and David.

I would think the Lakers want to win now if they want Jermaine, so keeping Lamar Odom over Bynum would make more sense for them IMHO.

Kobe, Lamar, and Jermaine would be a very dangerous 1-2-3 punch. They need to add a big and a point but that can be done. It really wouldn't take much.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 02:32 AM
Here is what the deal should be, makes the most sense for both teams IMO.

Pacers Get:
- Andrew Bynum
- Kwame Brown
- Aaron McKie (S&T to a non guaranteed contract, just for salary purposes)
- Cash
- 19th Pick

Lakers Get:
- Jermaine O"Neal

We cut Mckie then hopefully draft a backcourt player at 19.

We don't need Brian Cook, we would have plenty of frontcourt players with Bynum, Brown, Ike, Jeff, and David.

I would think the Lakers want to win now if they want Jermaine, so keeping Lamar Odom over Bynum would make more sense for them IMHO.

Kobe, Lamar, and Jermaine would be a very dangerous 1-2-3 punch. They need to add a big and a point but that can be done. It really wouldn't take much.
IMHO....I respectfully disagree......it comes down to a matter of getting the most Trade value out of moving JONeal.

Although Kwame's expiring Contract is worth something to TPTB....I would argue that Odom's contract ( that expires one year later ) is worth more...from a Player POV. If needed...we can get more for Odom...if he had to be moved.

Young
06-12-2007, 02:35 AM
IMHO....I respectfully disagree......it comes down to a matter of getting the most Trade value out of moving JONeal.

Although Kwame's expiring Contract is worth something to TPTB....I would argue that Odom's contract ( that expires one year later ) is worth more...from a Player POV. If needed...we can get more for Odom...if he had to be moved.

Yeah I understand where you are coming from.

But i'm not thinking of it as we can get more for Odom because in all honestly, I really don't want to keep on moving a bunch of players.

For me, it comes down to Bynum or Odom and I would take Bynum. It's all about re building for us right now and I just think that Bynum has a chance to be really special.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 02:56 AM
Yeah I understand where you are coming from.

But i'm not thinking of it as we can get more for Odom because in all honestly, I really don't want to keep on moving a bunch of players.

For me, it comes down to Bynum or Odom and I would take Bynum. It's all about re building for us right now and I just think that Bynum has a chance to be really special.
I'm still going on the assumption that the best trade that the Lakers and Pacers can make involving Bynum and JONeal is

JONeal for Odom+Bynum+19th+filler

Since I have no problem moving or simply letting him expire.....the Pacers get the better player in return with Odom. Given Bird and JO'Bs comments about trying for the Playoffs...as opposed to rebuilding...I would think that they would want Odom for the short term. Kwame won't get us there....I just don't think that we will go into a "complete rebuild" mode...which is where we will be with getting Kwame...instead of Odom.

The Lakers will still have Kwame to make a move for some other player....as to who they can get...I have no clue...but they should be able to get someone halfway decent. This doesn't even take into consideration that they can somehow get Grant Hill.

Will Galen
06-12-2007, 04:24 AM
Here's a rumor off the Star board.
http://www2.indystar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199053
Post #10

JBear1
Registered User

Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 15

Re: Whats the latest on the Pacers/Lakers deal?

Here's the Latest news from LA. According to KLAC radio (The guy reporting it isn't 100% reliable, but more reliable than Vecsey) sources have told them that the Lakers and Indy have agreed in principle on trading Odom and Bynum for O'Neal. What they're negotiating is the overall trade. Indy wants to expand it to include Kwame and Tinsley. They also want the #19 pick. Supposedly the Lakers have offered one or the other.

Either Odom, Bynum, Sasha, and #19 for JO.

Or Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Sasha for JO and Tinsley. Supposedly Indy is deciding which way they'd rather go.
--------------------------------

It's all speculation, so one rumor is as good as another. According to this one we've agreed to Bynum and Odom. The choice is do we include Tinsley or not? That's a hard call!

Plus in the first trade we are trading 1 player for 4, whereas in the 2nd trade it's 2 players for 4.

If this rumor is true, then I think what we do would depend on who we could get with the 19th pick. And in this particular trade we wouldn't know until after the 19th pick is made.

I think we would do the 2nd choice if LA added their #40th pick.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is Bird hates LA from his playing days, so does anyone really think he's going to make a trade that makes him look bad?

One other thing. A post always gets stickied before the draft that has all the latest rumors in it. So why not sticky this one?

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 04:30 AM
Well then, if it is ALL RC's fault TPTB can bring Sarunas back and have the All-Star PG they thought they had.
Exactly my point, as in "why fire Rick when you admit you have a huge freaking roster mess that you created yourself". :)

JOB appears competent, though I think his defense-first, lots of chucking offense is going to end up putting up similar point totals to Rick's "through the post" version and make people just as nuts. I mean wasn't the 1500 attempts under RC a few years ago bad enough? At least at a 34% rate.


Will, that rumored choice makes the most sense I've heard yet. That's the kind of realistic negotiations I would expect. I'd take the 19 and keep Tins. Team is roster short and money short as it is so replacements aren't out there. Now of course if there was something else in mind to follow this then that would change the thinking obviously.

Mourning
06-12-2007, 04:33 AM
Both those propositions sound pretty reasonable for both sides, Will. Thanks for passing it along :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 04:56 AM
these rumors are all stupid...in the end watch it be the original trade vescey reported...lol
You mean like Stan Van Gundy being the new Pacers head coach?

Obviously it appears that JO is gone for certain. I understand it and perhaps in some ways can agree with it, but honestly I also hate it. JO is one of the top Pacers ever. I know he couldn't be Reggie, but he as a guy that could score and defend in a combo as well as nearly any other Pacer we've seen.

If that era is truly ending, which it appears it is, then it sure bums me out.


Also, I'm with Hicks regarding Tinsley. Of course no surprise there because I didn't think it was worth dumping Jackson to get 2 players that NO ONE ELSE WANTS. Sheesh, at least Jack can still be traded right now.

You keep Tins if it means getting Bynum, and I'm not even sold that Bynum will become something special. But if you are starting over then you need to get players that MIGHT become something a lot more than you need to get rid of a MLE paid PG who happens to underachieve and flash instances of disinterest.

And the 19th pick....a guy like Rudy might fall into that area, that would be very interesting.

Mourning
06-12-2007, 05:00 AM
You mean like Stan Van Gundy being the new Pacers head coach?

Obviously it appears that JO is gone for certain. I understand it and perhaps in some ways can agree with it, but honestly I also hate it. JO is one of the top Pacers ever. I know he couldn't be Reggie, but he as a guy that could score and defend in a combo as well as nearly any other Pacer we've seen.

If that era is truly ending, which it appears it is, then it sure bums me out.


Also, I'm with Hicks regarding Tinsley. Of course no surprise there because I didn't think it was worth dumping Jackson to get 2 players that NO ONE ELSE WANTS. Sheesh, at least Jack can still be traded right now.

You keep Tins if it means getting Bynum, and I'm not even sold that Bynum will become something special. But if you are starting over then you need to get players that MIGHT become something a lot more than you need to get rid of a MLE paid PG who happens to underachieve and flash instances of disinterest.

And the 19th pick....a guy like Rudy might fall into that area, that would be very interesting.

Wow! Could it be true that we actually completely aggree again!? :cheers:


;)

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

DisplacedKnick
06-12-2007, 08:01 AM
Either Odom, Bynum, Sasha, and #19 for JO.

Or Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Sasha for JO and Tinsley. Supposedly Indy is deciding which way they'd rather go.

Unless Sasha's a lot better than anything I've heard you about have to go with the first deal.

If it was just a choice between the two, I happen to think the Kwame salary savings is better than the 19 pick considering the Pacers situation, but you can't count on getting a PG who can come in and play big minutes right away at 19.

In either case, the one thing you have going for you is that Sasha can hit the 3. He's still only 23 - maybe he can turn into an NBA SG - at least a spot shooter off the bench.

Unclebuck
06-12-2007, 08:52 AM
Either Odom, Bynum, Sasha, and #19 for JO.

Or Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Sasha for JO and Tinsley. Supposedly Indy is deciding which way they'd rather go.





The upside of doing the second deal is that Kwame's contract is 3 years shorter than Tinsley's. Kwame only has one year left. And you get Tinsley off the team.

The upside of the first deal is you get the 19th pick.

If I had to decide I'd take the second deal. Unless the Pacers really like who is available at 19.

if this "report" is true - then the trade won't go down until the draft and until the 19th pick is "on the clock" because the Pacers should wait to see who is there before deciding which trade to take.

RWB
06-12-2007, 09:01 AM
if this "report" is true - then the trade won't go down until the draft and until the 19th pick is "on the clock" because the Pacers should wait to see who is there before deciding which trade to take.

Hard to wait on #19 if the Ps have their eyes on moving up in the draft.

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 09:56 AM
Hard to wait on #19 if the Ps have their eyes on moving up in the draft.

If we trade JO and Tinsley, I don't think we have the pieces to "move up." Unless we were gonna use Ike, Danny, or Shawne, which I don't see happening.

As for these options, I don't know. It comes down to if TPTB want to give up on Tinsley, plain and simple. There's always the fear that Jamaal will get his head on straight if he goes somewhere else, but I think that's mitigated by him going to LA. Regardless of if he and Phil get along, you can't put a true point in the Triangle. Payton desperately wanted a ring and even he couldn't stand it.

I'm just afraid we're gonna regret it either way. Either we keep Tinsley and he bottoms out, or we trade him, LA trades him somewhere else, and he flourishes.

Now, if we could get them to take Tinsley and give us Farmar instead of Sasha, I'd be a lot happier.

indyman37
06-12-2007, 11:06 AM
The trade on the table is:

O'Neal & (Tinsley or Murphy) for

Odom, Bynum,Kwame & the 19th pick in the draft.
But if we include Tinsley, aren't the Lakers going to keep the pick? I would rather trade Murphy and take the 19th pick any day.


The Pacers have let the Lakers know that the only way that they will not include Bynum is if they (the Lakers) aquire a draft pick between 5 to 10 in this years draft along with the 19th pick.
:drooling:...but I really would like to have Bynum. If the Pacers acquired a top 10 pick I would faint. I'm torn. Even though we won't get a top 10 pick any way...


Odom is under contract for 2 more years and could come here for half the season and then be dealt. But there will be NO 3 or 4 teams involved with this trade...just the PAcers and the Lakers...
Bye bye 3-way with Boston...


If this trade happens (the pacers still could pull out, causing the Lakers to up the anty again) It will either happen 3 days before the draft or during the draft...that way physicals are completed and other things ( 1 more trade) that is in the works.
I really want to see another deal after (hopefully) the LA deal gets done. I'm not sure exactly want I would want to get though, it all depends on the JO trade.


If that is the case....then in order to clear up the clutter at the SG/SF rotation that we have with Marquis/Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne.....I wonder if TPTB would decide to give up Marquis just to make the deal happen.
I really believe that if we did trade Tinsley, and we didn't get a starting PG back, Jim O'Brien would use Quis as our PG. Larry and Donnie had said that last year they wanted RC to use Daniels at the point, but Carlisle was in that phase where he didn't really even play Quis. So I think the log jam would be some what relieved even though we would still have a mess.

Hicks
06-12-2007, 11:16 AM
Both those propositions sound pretty reasonable for both sides, Will. Thanks for passing it along :).

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

It was posted on the "big" JO/LA thread a few days ago.

Anthem
06-12-2007, 11:18 AM
JO+Murphy for Odom, Kwame, Bynum, and #40 and #48.

Best trade for the Lakers, best trade for the Pacers.

indyman37
06-12-2007, 11:22 AM
JO+Murphy for Odom, Kwame, Bynum, and #40 and #48.

Best trade for the Lakers, best trade for the Pacers.
In your mind, what do we use the picks for? Do we use them and try to get quality players in the second round? Or do we trade them?

LoneGranger33
06-12-2007, 11:26 AM
JO+Murphy for Odom, Kwame, Bynum, and #40 and #48.

Best trade for the Lakers, best trade for the Pacers.

Yeah, I'd love that trade. Kwame has some burn left in him (I mean, he's only 25!). And I think Odom has trade value still, that is, if we don't keep him. Plus, we get rid of Murphy, who I personally was disappointed with this last season, but whom admittedly might be well-suited for O'Brien's system. Oh yeah, and we lose our franchise player. :(

LoneGranger33
06-12-2007, 11:27 AM
In your mind, what do we use the picks for? Do we use them and try to get quality players in the second round? Or do we trade them?

Ya gotta use 'em. Or package them with players to get higher picks. This team needs to participate in the draft (otherwise, I'll be real bored for another couple months!)

indyman37
06-12-2007, 11:28 AM
Ya gotta use 'em. Or package them with players to get higher picks. This team needs to participate in the draft (otherwise, I'll be real bored for another couple months!)
I really would like to see them used to get a higher pick, but thats just in my mind.

indygeezer
06-12-2007, 11:36 AM
And with the 5th pick in the NBA Draft, The Indiana Pacers select.....


Jonathan Bender.

2Cleva
06-12-2007, 11:42 AM
Latest update



Laker Fans (Everywhere): Why is it so quiet on the JO to LA front? Is the deal dead?

<!-- displayed mode -->http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Marc Stein: (11:16 AM ET ) No. I think it's fair to say that deals will happen closer to the draft because teams don't want to make a move too soon in fear of missing out on the best deal.

<!-- displayed mode -->

<HR width="80%" noShade SIZE=1>Eddie (ID):: Please don't tell me we're sending Odom, Bynum & the 19th pick for JO! That's way too much! What about Bynum, Kwame, Radmanovic and the 19th pick? The salaries work out, too.


<!-- displayed mode -->http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Marc Stein: (11:17 AM ET ) Lakers aren't bargaining from a position of strength because everyone knows how desperate they are. Even if you subbed a signed-and-trade Luke Walton for Radmanovic -- and suck a deal obviously couldn't happen until after free agent starts July 1 -- I imagine Indy still says no.

Robobtowncolt
06-12-2007, 11:44 AM
Kinda rude for Stein to be telling Laker fans to suck on a deal.

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 11:47 AM
Lakers aren't bargaining from a position of strength because everyone knows how desperate they are. Even if you subbed a signed-and-trade Luke Walton for Radmanovic -- and suck a deal obviously couldn't happen until after free agent starts July 1 -- I imagine Indy still says no.

I like the Freudian-typo.

avoidingtheclowns
06-12-2007, 11:50 AM
he imagines indy would say no to acquiring another SF in walton? i wonder why...

Slick Pinkham
06-12-2007, 11:52 AM
Larry Bird is good at sucking deals.

:brick:

DisplacedKnick
06-12-2007, 11:59 AM
Kwame has some burn left in him (I mean, he's only 25!). (

Kwame's a win-win. Everyone's down on him because he hasn't (and never will) live up to the hype of being the top pick but he's a very good position defender and can score a little in the post.

If by some miracle he performs well, you have the edge in re-signing him (right now he's just about an MLE-level player IMO) and if he sucks, you get cap relief.

Or you can S&T him next summer.

Or trade his expiring contract around the deadline for something good.

Make that a win-win-win-win

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 12:06 PM
The problem with Kwame is he may put up good numbers just because it's a contract year, we sign him to a long contract, and he goes back to being lazy.

FrenchConnection
06-12-2007, 12:07 PM
The problem with Kwame is he may put up good numbers just because it's a contract year, we sign him to a long contract, and he goes back to being lazy.


He's not lazy, he's "country strong!"

Speed
06-12-2007, 12:09 PM
I acutally agree with what Kobe supposedly said, if you include Odom and Bynum in any deal for JO, it's a lateral move for them. Now thats a Laker perspective, from a Pacer perspective any deal that does not include both is unfair, so I still have huge doubt a straight up trade goes down with only these two teams.

Do the Pacers like Luke Walton, # 19, and Farmar enough to even make a difference if they are coupled with Bynum and K Brown with no Odom, I doubt it. But the Lakers really have no use for youth.

Are the Lakers willing to take any long term overpaid players to make it worth the Pacers while, like Murphy who would seem to fit the Triangle. I don't know.



My guess is the only way it happens with Odom is if the Lakers think JO is way better than LO is now and is better than Bynum will be in the next two years, combined.

The only way the Pacers do it, without Odom, is if they think Granger is an Allstar and can be a franchise player and Bynum could be possibly be those things too.

That is why I don't see it working especially since Walsh is still around, but just my opinion.

2Cleva
06-12-2007, 12:13 PM
The reason why a deal is so hard to make is both teams have made bad deals over the years and both are trying to fix all of them (bad acquisitions, worse contracts, no depth) in one blow.

Not happening. Both sides need to make some concessions or talk to another team.

avoidingtheclowns
06-12-2007, 12:19 PM
The reason why a deal is so hard to make is both teams have made bad deals over the years and both are trying to fix all of them (bad acquisitions, worse contracts, no depth) in one blow.

Not happening. Both sides need to make some concessions.

the biggest problem is that the pacers don't have to take a bad deal. so if they do take one its worse than the laker perspective because the lakers have been put into a poor bargaining position by kobe. the pacers are really under no absolute need to trade JO. should it happen? probably. but it doesn't have to, especially with a new coach. and at the very least we don't have to trade JO to the lakers if other deals are more appealing.

so if the pacers get a bad deal that can only be attributed to poor management. if the lakers get a bad deal its because of unattractive players/contracts and their star's meltdown.

ChicagoJ
06-12-2007, 12:21 PM
Uh, Kobe, trades are supposed to be "lateral" moves.

That's what happens when both teams are trying to "win" the trade.

Would the Lakers be better after trading for JO? Probably not. But the window with Kobe is starting to close so the Lakers need to try something.

Would the Pacers be better after trading for Bynum/Odom? Probably not. But next "window" in the East is a few years away so the Pacers should start building with youth toward that opportunity (or else the Hawks will beat them to it.)

That sounds lateral to me. So its probably a "fair" trade.

Its funny how the last two trades, in which the Pacers were allegedly without leverage, have the other teams looking to unload the guys that the Pacers didn't really want either (Artest, SJax). They might have had a short-term honeymoon, but the fact that those players are on the market again - for chemistry reasons - speaks volumes.

Bball
06-12-2007, 12:51 PM
have the other teams looking to unload the guys that the Pacers didn't really want either (Artest, SJax).

And if true, it sure didn't take their teams as long as it did the Pacers to start looking to make that move. ...Altho nobody has actually moved yet.

-Bball

Will Galen
06-12-2007, 12:54 PM
Its funny how the last two trades, in which the Pacers were allegedly without leverage, have the other teams looking to unload the guys that the Pacers didn't really want either (Artest, SJax). They might have had a short-term honeymoon, but the fact that those players are on the market again - for chemistry reasons - speaks volumes.

Where did you read Jax was on the market again? I just read yesterday JRich was on the market. Of course that was just a headline and I didn't read the artical.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 01:03 PM
I really believe that if we did trade Tinsley, and we didn't get a starting PG back, Jim O'Brien would use Quis as our PG. Larry and Donnie had said that last year they wanted RC to use Daniels at the point, but Carlisle was in that phase where he didn't really even play Quis. So I think the log jam would be some what relieved even though we would still have a mess.
Don't get me wrong.....I would include Tinsley in the deal if the Lakers would be willing to take him on. I just get the sense that they won't.

There were 2 things I was trying to highlight in my post. First, IF the Pacers insist on taking on Kwame's Expiring Contract ( and therefore another contract is included ), I think that the Lakers are going to insist on taking on Marquis instead of Tinsley. Second, although TPTB would probably want to move Tinsley ( for obvious reasons ), I wonder if TPTB would "cave-in" to the Lakers ( just to get the deal done ) and "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" by including Marquis so that we could find a way to give more minutes to a Dunleavy/Granger/Shawne SG/SF rotation while keeping a "somewhat acceptable" PG option in Tinsley.

I would have ZERO problem with Marquis running and starting at the PG spot.....whenever I use Marquis as my Starting PG on NBA2K7, he seems to do fairly well. If it works on a video game...it should work in real life right? :D

CableKC
06-12-2007, 01:07 PM
Kwame's a win-win. Everyone's down on him because he hasn't (and never will) live up to the hype of being the top pick but he's a very good position defender and can score a little in the post.

If by some miracle he performs well, you have the edge in re-signing him (right now he's just about an MLE-level player IMO) and if he sucks, you get cap relief.

Or you can S&T him next summer.

Or trade his expiring contract around the deadline for something good.

Make that a win-win-win-win
If Foster is included in the deal....I honestly wouldn't mind signing him to a reasonable deal. But if he costs too much...I would let him go.

Bball
06-12-2007, 01:10 PM
Where did you read Jax was on the market again? I just read yesterday JRich was on the market. Of course that was just a headline and I didn't read the artical.

Are you telling me Jay led me astray??

:kickcan:

-Bball

Will Galen
06-12-2007, 01:11 PM
I would have ZERO problem with Marquis running and starting at the PG spot.....whenever I use Marquis as my Starting PG on NBA2K7, he seems to do fairly well. If it works on a video game...it should work in real life right? :D

I think players that run are better than players that don't. I think they get around a lot faster!

Will Galen
06-12-2007, 01:13 PM
Are you telling me Jay led me astray??

:kickcan:

-Bball

If so, me too. (grin)

Mourning
06-12-2007, 01:15 PM
It was posted on the "big" JO/LA thread a few days ago.

Ah, ok. That explains why I had missed it then, I'm in the middle of moving to a new house, so I haven't has as much time to check the forum as I nornally like to do.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

avoidingtheclowns
06-12-2007, 01:18 PM
RE: Jax being available... I don't know if there are strong rumors about it, but it was the sense of at least one oakland/san fran columnist that the warriors would and should be parting ways with SJax while he had a revival during the playoffs. they'd be looking to move him because of his playoff meltdowns and fearing that it was only a matter of time until he retrogressed into an artest-like sacramento situation.

i don't know if there is anything beyond that, though.

DisplacedKnick
06-12-2007, 01:40 PM
If Foster is included in the deal....I honestly wouldn't mind signing him to a reasonable deal. But if he costs too much...I would let him go.

He'd have to really improve his numbers to be worth more than the MLE.

Right now that's the most I'd give for him. He'd have to show he's a lot more than a 8-6 guy who plays decent defense to go above that.

Hicks
06-12-2007, 01:40 PM
All I've read is a local GS columnist wanting/expecting him to be shopped. Otherwise nothing.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 01:58 PM
the biggest problem is that the pacers don't have to take a bad deal. so if they do take one its worse than the laker perspective because the lakers have been put into a poor bargaining position by kobe. the pacers are really under no absolute need to trade JO. should it happen? probably. but it doesn't have to, especially with a new coach. and at the very least we don't have to trade JO to the lakers if other deals are more appealing.

so if the pacers get a bad deal that can only be attributed to poor management. if the lakers get a bad deal its because of unattractive players/contracts and their star's meltdown.
With all this "rumored" chatter between the Lakers and the Pacers coupled with all this "apparent urgency" from the Lakers Front Office to try to make significant move to "placate" Kobe.....if a deal could have happened...it would have happened by now.

I am completely guessing here.....but if the Lakers offered Kwame+Bynum+19th pick+filler for JONeal ( the best possible deal that the Lakers can put up WITHOUT giving up Odom )...if TPTB were that desperate to move JONeal and get back Bynum....they would have accepted it by now.

But until JONeal does force TPTB to do something...its obvious that there is no pressing need to specifically make any deal from the Pacers POV. I really think that TPTB are waiting for better offers to come in from other teams....which may or ( more then likely ) may not....or they are waiting for the Lakers to "blink" and give up a few more consessions before consummating anything.

This does give me some solace in all these "No Bynum" rumors....but there is still a small part of me that wouldn't be surprised if we end up with a deal that does not involve Bynum.

Will Galen
06-12-2007, 02:06 PM
With all this "rumored" chatter between the Lakers and the Pacers coupled with all this "apparent urgency" from the Lakers Front Office to try to make significant move to "placate" Kobe.....if a deal could have happened...it would have happened by now.

Teams usually wait until the last minute when the best offers come in. Another thing. sometimes what deal is accepted depends on whether a certain player is there to be drafted.

For instant say the rumors are true and the Lakers have two offers on the table, one that includes the #19 pick and the other that doesn't. The Pacers might wait to see who is there at the #19 pick before deciding on which deal they want.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 02:08 PM
I think players that run are better than players that don't. I think they get around a lot faster!
Funny guy.....:-p

pwee31
06-12-2007, 02:36 PM
I know it's Pincus, but here's the Lakers Draft article he post yesterday.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22287.shtml

CableKC
06-12-2007, 02:48 PM
I know it's Pincus, but here's the Lakers Draft article he post yesterday.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_22287.shtml
Not much to read there other then speculation on Pincus' part. I'm not knocking him....its clearly written from a Laker POV.....but nothing new that hasn't been written already.

Mourning
06-12-2007, 02:58 PM
That's indeed a really one-sided Lakers-POV article. First he mentions the Pacers want to rebuild and then he only mentions pick#19 and not Bynum? :crazy: Like Odom alone is going to make it worth it to us (he mentions us beying able to "compete" with Odom around :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I thought he was talking about us wanting to rebuild a few sentences earlier? :D)

And Odom and Bynum are too much for JO? :wtf: has Eric been drinking the last few years? I would rather keep Jamaal then go into his proposed "dumping" Jamaal onto the Lakers idea and I am not a fan of the Jamaal we have seen the last few years at all.

I'm surprised he doesn't want a Pacers pick after such an article :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:.

Kegboy
06-12-2007, 02:59 PM
Pincus's article makes me feel that maybe it's better to just call this off. His "compromise" means that neither team gets any real benefit. Trades are supposed to benefit both teams, not neither.

IOW, if Bynum is still untouchable, forget it. We can do better elsewhere.

Mourning
06-12-2007, 03:02 PM
Pincus's article makes me feel that maybe it's better to just call this off. His "compromise" means that neither team gets any real benefit. Trades are supposed to benefit both teams, not neither.

IOW, if Bynum is still untouchable, forget it. We can do better elsewhere.

:amen:

Bynum AND Odom with Bynum more then Odom beying the key for us doing this deal.

Smashed_Potato
06-12-2007, 03:19 PM
I have no idea why people are assuming Bynum is not in the deal. I spoke with someone in the know yesterday at night and he told me directly there is a better chance the deal gets done with Odom held off.

Bynum will be in the deal.

LoneGranger33
06-12-2007, 03:21 PM
For instant say the rumors are true and the Lakers have two offers on the table, one that includes the #19 pick and the other that doesn't. The Pacers might wait to see who is there at the #19 pick before deciding on which deal they want.

I dunno about the rest of you guys, but this makes a lot of sense to me from a Pacers standpoint.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:42 PM
Don't get me wrong.....I would include Tinsley in the deal if the Lakers would be willing to take him on. I just get the sense that they won't.

There were 2 things I was trying to highlight in my post. First, IF the Pacers insist on taking on Kwame's Expiring Contract ( and therefore another contract is included ), I think that the Lakers are going to insist on taking on Marquis instead of Tinsley. Second, although TPTB would probably want to move Tinsley ( for obvious reasons ), I wonder if TPTB would "cave-in" to the Lakers ( just to get the deal done ) and "kill 2 birds with 1 stone" by including Marquis so that we could find a way to give more minutes to a Dunleavy/Granger/Shawne SG/SF rotation while keeping a "somewhat acceptable" PG option in Tinsley.

I would have ZERO problem with Marquis running and starting at the PG spot.....whenever I use Marquis as my Starting PG on NBA2K7, he seems to do fairly well. If it works on a video game...it should work in real life right? :D
Till he gets hurt again, and as long as he ignores JOB's advice and passes up the 3PA chances instead.

Naptown_Seth
06-12-2007, 03:53 PM
For instant say the rumors are true and the Lakers have two offers on the table, one that includes the #19 pick and the other that doesn't. The Pacers might wait to see who is there at the #19 pick before deciding on which deal they want.
Makes sense to me as well.


All I've read is a local GS columnist wanting/expecting him to be shopped. Otherwise nothing.
Exactly. And I hate to kill this horse but that guy is way off base I think. Jackson is not going to do anything worse than what he just did for them. He lost his cool with the refs, got tech'd a few times, got fined, turned it over, took bad shots, got cold with his jumper....
and
played great defense, got hot with his jumper, gave his team an emotional spark, was actually a calming influence on teammates at times, helped win games, and so on.


I never said the guy was without fault which is why I was in so many debates around here about it, I just get sick of the cartoon version of Jackson that people pick up on due to the brawl and the vague version of Rio (like people turning firing a gun in the air into firing AT a car driving away).

That writer is afraid of the bad side of Jackson. Guess what, YOU JUST SAW IT. Those losses to Dallas, the struggles vs Utah. That's the bad part, and it is annoying. The good part was your team was in round 2 after beating the #1 seed. How was it going before the trade in recent years?

I think people here want him on the market to boost morale about the GS trade. Frankly it's too late for that when I hear rumors like "there is NO market for Dunleavy or Murphy". GS hit round 2, the Jack/Al portion is done with and it didn't make Indy look good. Now we must move on to how they deal with this end of it which is not done with by any stretch.

Rather than Jack on the market to boost morale, how about Dunleavy finding his 3 and some defense instead. That's what I'm interested in.

avoidingtheclowns
06-12-2007, 04:31 PM
Teams usually wait until the last minute when the best offers come in. Another thing. sometimes what deal is accepted depends on whether a certain player is there to be drafted.

For instant say the rumors are true and the Lakers have two offers on the table, one that includes the #19 pick and the other that doesn't. The Pacers might wait to see who is there at the #19 pick before deciding on which deal they want.

the only problem here is if the pacers are interested in trying to move up from #19 they'd need it before the move.

also chances are one of fernandez, belinelli, n. young, crittenton, almond would be available. something tells me they'd prefer one of them to having vujacic as the best PG option on the team by dumping tinsley for brown and no pick.

FrenchConnection
06-12-2007, 04:44 PM
Rather than Jack on the market to boost morale, how about Dunleavy finding his 3 and some defense instead. That's what I'm interested in.


Bingo. I always believe that after a trade, you have to evaluate that trade in terms of how well the players you got fit into the system, and not how well the players you traded do on their new teams. By that time, there are other to the discourse.

RWB
06-12-2007, 04:51 PM
Interesting point gentlemen. Forget salaries, would you rather have Dunleavy on this team or Stephen Jackson?

I'd rather have Dunleavy.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 05:03 PM
Till he gets hurt again, and as long as he ignores JOB's advice and passes up the 3PA chances instead.
I have no problems with Marquis passing up on a 3pt Attempt....he's not that good of a 3pt shooter.

I would much rather Marquis take a 2pt shot that is more comfortable with rather then a 3pt shot that he sucks at. IMHO...he's a PG/SG version of Corey Maggette....he can draw fouls.....but absolutely sucks at taking 3pt shots.

CableKC
06-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Interesting point gentlemen. Forget salaries, would you rather have Dunleavy on this team or Stephen Jackson?

I'd rather have Dunleavy.
Great...you just opened up another can of worms......this thread is now going to go downhill....just like the "Official GSW Playoff" thread that transformed into the "Why SJax trade was good and bad for the Pacers" thread.

Anthem
06-12-2007, 06:06 PM
Interesting point gentlemen. Forget salaries, would you rather have Dunleavy on this team or Stephen Jackson?
Is there an option for "neither?" In a vacuum Dun is better for Indy than Jack was, but right now all he's doing is band-aiding the gaping wound that is our SG rotation.

bellisimo
06-12-2007, 06:48 PM
why do we always go around in circles? When a thread becomes long...it seems to manage to find its way back into the GS trade? can't we just let bygones be bygones and instead of discussing the same topic that we have for the past few months...come up with something new? oh right...it is the off-season afterall....

mike_D
06-12-2007, 08:03 PM
the only problem here is if the pacers are interested in trying to move up from #19 they'd need it before the move.

also chances are one of fernandez, belinelli, n. young, crittenton, almond would be available. something tells me they'd prefer one of them to having vujacic as the best PG option on the team by dumping tinsley for brown and no pick.

You could probably get the same type of talent at #8 as you would with pick 19 especially if your looking at two guards.I don't think it makes that much sense to move up.

pwee31
06-12-2007, 08:38 PM
You could probably get the same type of talent at #8 as you would with pick 19 especially if your looking at two guards.I don't think it makes that much sense to move up.

Unless there's a certain player that you are targeting, and you think he won't fall to you.
You can say same type of talent, but you still want the guy that you think fits with your team best

Jose Slaughter
06-12-2007, 08:39 PM
The Lakers have several free agents, would the Pacers have any interest in Smush Parker, Chris Mihm or Ronnie Turiaf?

I know these guys would only be "filler" but each could have at least some value for the Pacers.

Isaac
06-12-2007, 08:59 PM
I would love Ronnie Turiaf. He's one of the many energy guys I would like to have if we were to trade Jeff Foster. David Lee and Renaldo Balkman being the others.

RWB
06-13-2007, 12:00 AM
Great...you just opened up another can of worms......this thread is now going to go downhill....just like the "Official GSW Playoff" thread that transformed into the "Why SJax trade was good and bad for the Pacers" thread.


Sorry about that I will indeed drop the Dunleavy/Jackson talk.

Young
06-13-2007, 12:06 AM
Is there an option for "neither?" In a vacuum Dun is better for Indy than Jack was, but right now all he's doing is band-aiding the gaping wound that is our SG rotation.

Agree.

I wouldn't mind Dunleavy if we weren't so stacked at small forward and so weak at the 2. On top of that his salary is insane for him.

But anyways I just want this whole Jermaine O'Neal thing to get over with. I just want something to get done with. The sooner the better IMO.

Naptown_Seth
06-13-2007, 03:09 AM
Well in regards to why the GS deal would pop up here, I think it's pretty obvious. That was the LAST DEAL the team made, and it's just now getting to the half year point, let alone a full season removed. It's an obvious reference point on how TPTB are currently making deals (including the surprise factor) and most obviously strongly shaped the current roster and financial situation.

The only reason someone wishes it away totally is because it really was that awful. I understand not wanting to completely rehash old debates and I agree with that aspect, but leaving it out totally makes about as much sense as not mentioning how the Pacers ended up with no pick in the upcoming draft.

I don't think anyone need apologize for the fact that it was brought up again, as long as it doesn't become the focus of this thread. It's one factor, not the whole shebang.


In that light, back to the JO thing. I said it before and I'll repeat it for emphasis. Honestly I'd just as soon have JO back as anything. I think the LA trade COULD help the team, but it could fail too. It's not so obvious that it just has to happen. To me it's too much about "we gotta change faces just because", and as I've pointed out they already changed coaches which is no small thing.

If indeed the players were simply tired of Rick's system then why not avoid a risky deal and just let JOB fix everything with a fresh approach?

Naptown_Seth
06-13-2007, 03:14 AM
I have no problems with Marquis passing up on a 3pt Attempt....he's not that good of a 3pt shooter.

I would much rather Marquis take a 2pt shot that is more comfortable with rather then a 3pt shot that he sucks at. IMHO...he's a PG/SG version of Corey Maggette....he can draw fouls.....but absolutely sucks at taking 3pt shots.
Some confusion I think. My point was that Quis would have to pass up the 3 in order to be a good PG. He's dreadful from 3 and should never take another one.

Here's where the concern hits. In Dallas he limited the attempts, but in Indy his 3PA went up quite a bit, to around 1 per IIRC. Now just imagine if you make this worse by sticking him in the JOB gameplan.

Quis working his way into the lane is a strength. Passing, eh, 3pt shooting, yech. He's not really a PG creator type, but he does create his OWN shot. He really is a SG/SF attack type (vs shooter type), not a PG. That would feel a bit rigged to me, an approach they were taking just due to the roster balance problems.

ChicagoJ
06-13-2007, 02:44 PM
Time to kill some misperceptions again.


I wouldn't mind Dunleavy if we weren't so stacked at small forward and so weak at the 2. On top of that his salary is insane for him.


Is Dunleavy even "overpaid"?

06/07 - $7.4
07/08 - $8.2
08/09 - $9.0
09/10 - $9.7
10/11 - $10.6

That's not that bad for a starting caliber SF.

Granted, we've got to move Granger for a starting SG, and that wouldn't be my first choice but not its probably our only choice.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=31574&page=2


Here's where the concern hits. In Dallas he limited the attempts, but in Indy his 3PA went up quite a bit, to around 1 per IIRC. Now just imagine if you make this worse by sticking him in the JOB gameplan.


You sure about that? He attempted 26 3FGs last season in forty-five games. That's what - 0.6 per game?

http://www.nba.com/pacers/stats/index.html

Ah, I see what you're doing. This was slighly higher than his career average of 0.52 per game, but in your defense it is "substantially" higher than 05-06 where he shot a whopping 19 3FGAs in 62 games for Dallas, 0.3 3FGA per game. So if you're going to make a big deal about his number of 3FGAs doubling from last season to this season, the stats might be true but its still a non-event.

Especially compared to a brain-dead player like Streakin' Jackson who doesn't shoot much better as a % but still attempts more than four 3FGAs per game. Oh sure, every once in Streakin' Steve will give you a 3-4 game out there. The problem is the five straight 1-5/1-6 games along the bumpy ride.

32%- 35% shooting from beyond the arc is not a high enough percentage to justify that volume of shots, but I don't mind the guy shooting one 3FGA every other game, especially with our dribble-out-the-24-second-clock offense, Marquis was bound to take a few forced 3FGAs just to beat the buzzer.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=30998

Young
06-13-2007, 04:36 PM
Jay I still considered Dunleavy overpaid considering that he doesn't give you big time point production and he isn't a great defender. He plays defense as good as he can, he knows how to play defense within a team. But because we need a real shooting guard and because we already have Granger at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for Dunleavy is very low.

DaSMASH

I trust what you are saying. So say we do the deal with the Lakers once Lamar's shoulder clears up and stuff. That means the deal is pretty much Jermaine, Tinsley for Odom, Bynum, Brown, and 19. Correct? That would give us a rotation of:

Bynum/Foster/Harrison
Odom/Brown/Murphy/Ike
Granger/Williams
Dunleavy/Daniels
McLeod/Armstrong

Granted Odom can play the three with Granger at the two and Daniels at the one I think the depth chart above is more likely what we will see.

Obviously a big time overload at the 4-5 spots. Big time. Is there any way that we send Brown or Odom to a third team for some backcourt help?

What about sending Odom to the Knicks for something like Crawford/Rose to Indiana? Not for sure if the Knicks would deal Crawford for Odom though since they have Lee and Jefferies, both are versatile forwards.

I really am not for sure I even want Odom in Indiana anyway if the rumor is true that he doesn't want to be here.

The Pacers would still have to make two more trades. Odom, Brown, Murphy, or Jeff would have to go.

avoidingtheclowns
06-13-2007, 04:55 PM
Jay I still considered Dunleavy overpaid considering that he doesn't give you big time point production and he isn't a great defender. He plays defense as good as he can, he knows how to play defense within a team. But because we need a real shooting guard and because we already have Granger at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for Dunleavy is very low.

DaSMASH

I trust what you are saying. So say we do the deal with the Lakers once Lamar's shoulder clears up and stuff. That means the deal is pretty much Jermaine, Tinsley for Odom, Bynum, Brown, and 19. Correct? That would give us a rotation of:

Bynum/Foster/Harrison
Odom/Brown/Murphy/Ike
Granger/Williams
Dunleavy/Daniels
McLeod/Armstrong

Granted Odom can play the three with Granger at the two and Daniels at the one I think the depth chart above is more likely what we will see.

Obviously a big time overload at the 4-5 spots. Big time. Is there any way that we send Brown or Odom to a third team for some backcourt help?

What about sending Odom to the Knicks for something like Crawford/Rose to Indiana? Not for sure if the Knicks would deal Crawford for Odom though since they have Lee and Jefferies, both are versatile forwards.

I really am not for sure I even want Odom in Indiana anyway if the rumor is true that he doesn't want to be here.

The Pacers would still have to make two more trades. Odom, Brown, Murphy, or Jeff would have to go.

DaSMASH said something about another trade but provided no other insight.

but if i were to guess, the next trade would involve foster. he's our only other tradeable commodity that we'd be willing to part with. i would think houston would be quite interested. phoenix too. maybe dallas. mainly because of his defense on duncan.

kept
06-13-2007, 05:39 PM
I've read that the information is from a well placed source that Bynum will not be included in the trade. But that could change. I think that Indy has two options: Go financial and trade O'Neal and Tinsley, which would mean Odom, Brown and the 19th pick from the Lakers. Or hold out for Bynum. I think we all know Indy's wishlist for O'Neal as Odom, Bynum and the 19th pick; but there is no certainty that the Lakers will just bend over.

Since Tinsley has been shopped for two years and no one wants him, and the impression I get from a team that has said it will not exercise its MLE, I do think the Pacers take the financial approach.

ChicagoJ
06-13-2007, 05:44 PM
Jay I still considered Dunleavy overpaid considering that he doesn't give you big time point production and he isn't a great defender. He plays defense as good as he can, he knows how to play defense within a team. But because we need a real shooting guard and because we already have Granger at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for Dunleavy is very low.

I'd like to agree with you, but because we need a real shooting guard and because already have a difficult-to-trade Dunleavy at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for (easier-to-trade) Granger is very low.

If we stop comparing Dunleavy's contract to players on their rookie contracts, $37.5 over the next four for a SF averaging 14 points, 6 rebs, 2.5 assists and 1 steal per game seems about right. He's not overpaid.

Murphy, based on what he showed during 2007, should be arrested for stealing. But that doesn't mean Dunn's overpaid.

speakout4
06-13-2007, 05:55 PM
I'd like to agree with you, but because we need a real shooting guard and because already have a difficult-to-trade Dunleavy at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for (easier-to-trade) Granger is very low.

If we stop comparing Dunleavy's contract to players on their rookie contracts, $37.5 over the next four for a SF averaging 14 points, 6 rebs, 2.5 assists and 1 steal per game seems about right. He's not overpaid.

Murphy, based on what he showed during 2007, should be arrested for stealing. But that doesn't mean Dunn's overpaid.
Dunleavy is overpaid but at least tries to earn his salary which can not be said of Murphy. That's exactly what I can't abide about Murph-he just does enough to stuff his stats-plays hard against weak teams and weak opponents and disappears when a game is on the line.

Hicks
06-13-2007, 06:04 PM
Uh, if you added "big time point production" and "great defense" to Mike's game, he'd be severely UNDERPAID and would be looking for a near-max deal.

Gamble1
06-13-2007, 06:05 PM
Dunleavy is overpaid but at least tries to earn his salary which can not be said of Murphy. That's exactly what I can't abide about Murph-he just does enough to stuff his stats-plays hard against weak teams and weak opponents and disappears when a game is on the line.

So what your really trying to say is that Murphy is a Pacer, right..

speakout4
06-13-2007, 06:20 PM
So what your really trying to say is that Murphy is a Pacer, right..
I have a lot more respect for the average Pacer than I do for Urphy. Llike one or two others he refuses to engage.

rexnom
06-13-2007, 06:25 PM
The thing about Dunleavy is this: please don't confuse him with Murphy. He is a decent player who will probably find his shot and play decent team defense under Obie. Also, if overpaid, he isn't severely overpaid. The problem with Dunleavy is that he plays the same position as two of our young guns (Shawne and Danny). That's the root of the problem. I've seen Anthem hit on this multiple times but most people seem to forget this. That's what we should be criticizing Dunleavy for (though it's not really his fault that he was used out of position). That's why I wouldn't mind a trade sending either Shawne or Danny out for a decent young PG or SG...say Jarrett Jack, for example (Portland has a glaring hole at SF).

diamonddave00
06-13-2007, 06:30 PM
Personally I don't do the Odom, Brown and 19 for JO and Tinsley. It leaves us weak at pg -does clear space but only gives us Odom for 2 years unless we sign him to a 45 mil 3 year extention. Adds only pick 19 to youth even in a strong draft chances of a star at 19 are slim.

I hold out for Andrew Bynum , he may never be a star but its worth the risk a 20 year old 7' 270 center with skills at his worse I see him being a 14-16 ppg 9-11 rpg ,2-3 bpg player within the next 3 years.

Adding Bynum, to Diogu, Granger, Williams and perhaps 19 seems like a good foundation to build on. With vets we have currently they have time to develop in next couple years, if we miss the playoffs another lottery pick is added in next years draft. If we make the playoffs they gain experience.

This team is going nowhere next season -no matter who we get for JO .So in my opinion we add youth Bynum, and 19 and rebuild now. Diogu, Granger ,and Williams is a nice youth base to add to -do it now. Odom if we get him great but he's only a stop gap 2years or a huge extention. Strip the team down a little go young and aim for the future. Jim O'Brien is not the best choice for this but so be it.

Deal Foster and Harrison who have value for picks even if only a late 1st or a pair of high 2nds.

We are stuck with Murphy and Dunleavy . Baston is leaving , Marshall and Greene are nothing special I ok letting them go or keeping them. Same with Armstrong and McLeod. Daniels if healthy can help , prob stuck with Tinsley.

So next year if we accept Bynum, Brown , #19 , prob Vujacic, and Cook for JO the roster would look like this. Take Almond , Fernandez or Crittenden at 19 whoever is there.

SF -- Granger, Williams
pf- Murphy , Diogu, Cook
c- Bynum, Brown, (Foster and/or Harrison if not dealt)
sg- Dunleavy, Daniels, Almonds, Marshall
pg- Tinsley,Vujacic (perhaps Farmar) Armstrong or McLeod, Greene

If Foster is dealt prob add an expiring contract and a high #2 low #1. If they make the playoffs great -if not a lottery pick after next season and Brown's 9 mil cleared from cap. Perhaps a taker for Cook .
Just my ideas on what to do. But to me if JO goes to Lakers the kid center Bynum is a must.

Smashed_Potato
06-13-2007, 06:39 PM
DD, anything new on the Pacers front? its been way to quiet.

blanket
06-13-2007, 06:40 PM
Personally I don't do the Odom, Brown and 19 for JO and Tinsley. It leaves us weak at pg -does clear space but only gives us Odom for 2 years unless we sign him to a 45 mil 3 year extention. Adds only pick 19 to youth even in a strong draft chances of a star at 19 are slim.

I hold out for Andrew Bynum , he may never be a star but its worth the risk a 20 year old 7' 270 center with skills at his worse I see him being a 14-16 ppg 9-11 rpg ,2-3 bpg player within the next 3 years.

Adding Bynum, to Diogu, Granger, Williams and perhaps 19 seems like a good foundation to build on. With vets we have currently they have time to develop in next couple years, if we miss the playoffs another lottery pick is added in next years draft. If we make the playoffs they gain experience.

This team is going nowhere next season -no matter who we get for JO .So in my opinion we add youth Bynum, and 19 and rebuild now. Diogu, Granger ,and Williams is a nice youth base to add to -do it now. Odom if we get him great but he's only a stop gap 2years or a huge extention. Strip the team down a little go young and aim for the future. Jim O'Brien is not the best choice for this but so be it.

Deal Foster and Harrison who have value for picks even if only a late 1st or a pair of high 2nds.

We are stuck with Murphy and Dunleavy . Baston is leaving , Marshall and Greene are nothing special I ok letting them go or keeping them. Same with Armstrong and McLeod. Daniels if healthy can help , prob stuck with Tinsley.

So next year if we accept Bynum, Brown , #19 , prob Vujacic, and Cook for JO the roster would look like this. Take Almond , Fernandez or Crittenden at 19 whoever is there.

SF -- Granger, Williams
pf- Murphy , Diogu, Cook
c- Bynum, Brown, (Foster and/or Harrison if not dealt)
sg- Dunleavy, Daniels, Almonds, Marshall
pg- Tinsley,Vujacic (perhaps Farmar) Armstrong or McLeod, Greene

If Foster is dealt prob add an expiring contract and a high #2 low #1. If they make the playoffs great -if not a lottery pick after next season and Brown's 9 mil cleared from cap. Perhaps a taker for Cook .
Just my ideas on what to do. But to me if JO goes to Lakers the kid center Bynum is a must.

The last scenario you mention - Brown/Bynum/Vujacic/Cook/#19 for JO - is not a valid trade financially. Not sure by just how much it's off (maybe the $3M that can be included in trades would offset the difference), but as-is it doesn't work.

I think the only viable way for LA to trade for JO without including Odom is to include VladRad, which I don't think even Bird would go for.

CableKC
06-13-2007, 06:53 PM
The last scenario you mention - Brown/Bynum/Vujacic/Cook/#19 for JO - is not a valid trade financially. Not sure by just how much it's off (maybe the $3M that can be included in trades would offset the difference), but as-is it doesn't work.

I think the only viable way for LA to trade for JO without including Odom is to include VladRad, which I don't think even Bird would go for.
Yeah DD......I would think that you would go for the "include a resigned Aaron McKie and $$$ to cover his buyout" deal that you suggested rather then take on Cook's 3 year / 10 mil contract.

diamonddave00
06-13-2007, 06:56 PM
Actually its valid July 11 th when Cook's salary jumps to 3.5 mil from either 1.5 or 1.8. Bynum, Brown, Vujacic, and Cook's salaries jump almost 3.5 mil next season while JO's jumps 1.7 with those changes it fits the 75% +$100,000 rule. Raises Lakers salaries from 13.1 mil to 16.6 mil while JO's moves from 18.0 to 19.7. The Lakers could send 3 mil max to off-set part of Cook's jump.The money can not be used as a filler but can be used as incentive in a trade and draft picks have no monetary value in a trade.

There is no way Bird touches Radmanovic's deal. Waiting till July 11 means the Lakers pick for us on draft night . There are a couple other ways to work the deal adding Maurice Evans ,to the package is one.

Or the simple Odom, Bynum, Vujacic for JO option. I just think the Bynum, Odom, Brown and 19 for JO , Tinsley or Daniels seems a little of a stretch. My major point is to me and what I've been told; to Walsh is getting Bynum a possible star young center in any deal that sends JO to the Lakers. The other things we get are extras.

LoneGranger33
06-13-2007, 06:59 PM
I'm still a big proponent of:
JO and Murphy for Odom, Kwame, Bynum, and #40 and #48.

Anything less would upset me. Anything more would pleasantly surprise me.

diamonddave00
06-13-2007, 07:04 PM
If you can talk the Lakers into that deal Lone Granger 33 -I'd toss David Harrison and Orien Greene in to sweeten it for Lakers.

JO, Murphy, Harrison, and Greene for Bynum, Odom, Brown , 40 and 48.

LoneGranger33
06-13-2007, 07:08 PM
If you can talk the Lakers into that deal Lone Granger 33 -I'd toss David Harrison and Orien Greene in to sweeten it for Lakers.

JO, Murphy, Harrison, and Greene for Bynum, Odom, Brown , 40 and 48.

Give me the phone number. I can negotiate.

Hicks
06-13-2007, 11:02 PM
I could care less about 2 second round picks, personally. Almost certainly worthless unless they're sweeteners for another trade.

Anthem
06-13-2007, 11:14 PM
If you can talk the Lakers into that deal Lone Granger 33 -I'd toss David Harrison and Orien Greene in to sweeten it for Lakers.

JO, Murphy, Harrison, and Greene for Bynum, Odom, Brown , 40 and 48.
I've proposed that exact trade no less than twice.

avoidingtheclowns
06-14-2007, 12:54 AM
then why won't buss take it, anthem?

DisapointedPacerFan
06-14-2007, 01:03 AM
we need bynum in this deal....i dont care if we dont get the #19..but we need bynum..he diogu, and granger for the future of the pacers is crazy

mcampbellarch
06-14-2007, 01:40 AM
just checking, but I hope I am not alone in thinking Brown does not do a lot for the team. I would much rather see Baston playing more. I even think the Hulk has more raw talent, just needs a coach.

spazzxb
06-14-2007, 01:48 AM
just checking, but I hope I am not alone in thinking Brown does not do a lot for the team. I would much rather see Baston playing more. I even think the Hulk has more raw talent, just needs a coach. don't worry, browns just an expiring contract.

Naptown_Seth
06-14-2007, 02:49 AM
Uh, if you added "big time point production" and "great defense" to Mike's game, he'd be severely UNDERPAID and would be looking for a near-max deal.
Which he is more than halfway to already. The MAX he could have gotten in 2005 first year was 12 I think, and he got 8.5. The MLE was only around 5 at the time.

MAX is James and Melo. Are you saying that if Mike scored 17 a night and could play defense that he'd be Melo or James? Okay, maybe great defense is asking too much IF you tell me he can get back to hitting a 3pt shot and leading the team in points from time to time.

But cripes, Jackson played some defense and certainly was able to shoot the 3 better than 28% and could occassionally lead the team in scoring on a given night (without taking 25 shots that is), and he's only getting around $6m.

Tayshaun Prince got almost exactly the same extension at basically the same time for perspective on it. Is Mike really already on par with Prince? Doesn't Prince play great defense AND score the ball when asked to do so?



Mike doesn't have the worst deal in the NBA, but that doesn't mean its not bad and that he doesn't need to add SEVERAL dimensions to his overall production in order to make good on the contract. Forget great defense, how about SOME defense.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:13 PM
Jackson's streaky, turnover prone, disruptive and out of control nutcase, so while his PPG stats might be worth more money than he's actually making, only one team was even willing to give him the MLE because there's more to his game than stats. And its not positive. You can say SA wanted him back after the championship. They wanted him so badly that they offered him MUCH LESS than the MLE, which is why he took the one year deal with Atlanta. (And I say that's evidence that Spurs didn't really want him back when they didn't outbid Altanta's not-very-large offer, although Fool and others quickly refute that evidence by pointing to the lowball offer and a fluff piece from the SA paper that they "wanted" him back even though they really wanted to get him out of Ginoboli's way.)

Dunleavy is not overpaid. He's better than a MLE player. He's a long way from having a max contract.


Which he is more than halfway to already. The MAX he could have gotten in 2005 first year was 12 I think, and he got 8.5. The MLE was only around 5 at the time.

Bad numbers again.

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/indiana.htm

He got $6.6 in 05/06. He gets up to $8.2 in the third year of the contract, not the first year.

You can make a case against Dunleavy all you want, but quit lying about the numbers.

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 12:17 PM
Are we having this discussion again?

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:26 PM
Mike doesn't have the worst deal in the NBA, but that doesn't mean its not bad and that he doesn't need to add SEVERAL dimensions to his overall production in order to make good on the contract. Forget great defense, how about SOME defense.

One steal per game.

One of the league leaders in taking charges.

He may not be a Bruce Bowen lockdown defender (neither was your boy Jackson, though), but he's a solid team defender and IMO that's more important.

He's an okay shooter, well-above average passer, great court vision, solid team defender, and he generally makes smart plays without forcing mistakes.

He's worth the contract he has. If he was making a Murphy-like salary, he might be slighly overpaid.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:27 PM
Are we having this discussion again?

As long as the lies, mis-truths, and misconceptions keep getting repeated, yes.

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 12:34 PM
As long as the lies, mis-truths, and misconceptions keep getting repeated, yes.

Well there is nothing I hate more than lies, mis-truths and misconceptions - so go at it. Jay I agree with you 100% on Mike Dunleavy by the way

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:37 PM
Jay I agree with you 100% on Mike Dunleavy by the way

Well, that's rare... must mean one of us is wrong!

:D

Arcadian
06-14-2007, 12:42 PM
He makes starter money. Would he be a starter if we had a shooting guard?
How many teams would he start for?

Unclebuck
06-14-2007, 12:47 PM
He makes starter money. Would he be a starter if we had a shooting guard?
How many teams would he start for?

Without going down team by team. I'd say he'd start for about 20 NBA teams - mostly at small forward - depending who the shooting guard is. For example is Lebron and McGrady small forwards or shooting guards - doesn't really matter but Dunleavy could team with those two very nicely.

I consider Mike a starting caliber NBA player.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 12:49 PM
If we had a SG, who would start at SF, Granger or Dunleavy?

My guess is that Dunleavy would get the nod for another year or two.

Granger may ultimately be better, right now its a probably a tossup.

Shade
06-14-2007, 12:56 PM
Dun is overpaid, but not Troy Murphy-level overpaid.

As far as Jack vs. Dun, Jack is a much better defender, but a worse passer, turnover-prone, and loaded with attitude problems. They're about equal shooting-wise.

Jack would be worth more than his contract in the same way that Artest would be worth more than his contract, if they didn't have the excessive baggage. If there's anything we should have learned by now, it's that you can't judge a player solely on his on-the-court game (of which Jack's is overrated, anyway). You have to factor in the player's attitude and behavior as well, which can devalue the overall package in the case of Jack and Ron.

If you take away the "issues," I'd rather have Jack than Dun. Otherwise, I take Dun over Jack. There isn't a big enough gap between their games/contracts to put up with all the BS Jack brings to the table.

Arcadian
06-14-2007, 01:31 PM
I disagree with him starting over Danny. But I'd say he'd start for about 15 teams. Those aren't very good teams and doesn't mean he is a top 15 sf. So yeah he's getting paid about what he should.

ChicagoJ
06-14-2007, 01:36 PM
For a bit more perspective, Dunleavy is the 83rd highest paid player in the league.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries07.txt

If he's overpaid by a half million or maybe even a million dollars, how are any of us going to know the difference?

Wally Sczerbiak makes $4.4 million more per year than Dunleavy. Now *that's* overpaid. Antawn Jamison makes twice as much as Dunleavy.

:chill:

Arcadian
06-14-2007, 01:41 PM
So isn't the question should we be paying for a starting caliber SF when we look to be rebuilding around forwards (Williams, Granger, Ike)?

RWB
06-14-2007, 01:47 PM
So isn't the question should we be paying for a starting caliber SF when we look to be rebuilding around forwards (Williams, Granger, Ike)?

This posted by Jay earlier in this thread.........

I'd like to agree with you, but because we need a real shooting guard and because already have a difficult-to-trade Dunleavy at the 3 I just feel that our level of need for (easier-to-trade) Granger is very low.


Sounds pretty similar thoughts between the two of you.

Shade
06-14-2007, 01:57 PM
For a bit more perspective, Dunleavy is the 83rd highest paid player in the league.

http://www.eskimo.com/~pbender/misc/salaries07.txt (http://www.eskimo.com/%7Epbender/misc/salaries07.txt)

If he's overpaid by a half million or maybe even a million dollars, how are any of us going to know the difference?

Wally Sczerbiak makes $4.4 million more per year than Dunleavy. Now *that's* overpaid. Antawn Jamison makes twice as much as Dunleavy.

:chill:

The Pacers are also in the bottom half of the league (16th) in terms of overall salary.

Anthem
06-14-2007, 02:06 PM
I think the biggest issue, for me, isn't that he's overpaid by half a mil but that we have an 8-million-dollar forward playing shooting guard.