PDA

View Full Version : Do the Pacers now have to move O'Neal



Jose Slaughter
06-15-2007, 02:55 PM
With all the talk of moving O'Neal has it gotten to the point where the Pacers now have to move him? If not to the Lakers, then somewhere.

Young
06-15-2007, 02:56 PM
Yes I think they do.

But not because of the talks with O'Neal.

But because I believe that Jermaine wants to be traded. But it's JMO. I think that Jermaine knows that this team won't be sniffing a championship anytime soon and he is better off playing with Kobe in LA.

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 02:58 PM
No.

I believe he and management are on the same page here. If a deal can be had that makes the Pacers better and puts JO in a good situation (ie, mutally beneficial) then it will happen.

If not, it won't. And the Pacers will keep their best player.

It isn't like JO's agent (as far as we know) is negotiating a trade and coming back to the Pacers with a "do this, or else" stance.

Los Angeles
06-15-2007, 03:00 PM
No - the players and executives do not live in the same world as the fans. There is always a lot of talk, and while it seems more accelerated right now, why would one or the other stop being professional about it?

JO is not Ron Artest.

Unclebuck
06-15-2007, 03:03 PM
This is just my opinion, but I think JO came within an inch of demanding a trade. Pacers told him to keep it quiet, keep it out of the media and we'll look to move you. Ther question is what if th pacers don't come up with a deal they like, would JO be willing to come back - I think only if he believes the pacers are trying to win now and trying to put tgether a very good team.


Jay - it is great having you back - has worked eased up for you a little

Young
06-15-2007, 03:03 PM
I'm just speculating but I just believe that Jermaine would rather play elsewhere. I feel it makes sense.

He doesn't have to come out and demand a trade publicly in order to ask TPTB for a trade.

But hey i'm just speculating here.

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 03:13 PM
No, but if they do keep him we can't stand pat either. This summer something has to change.

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 03:14 PM
No, but if they do keep him we can't stand pat either. This summer something has to change.

The coaching change and last season's big trade aren't enough for you?

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 03:22 PM
Not unless we envision a backcourt of O'Brien and Dunleavy.

The biggest draw back to playing in the East is that you can believe that you are better than you really are just because you make the playoffs.

Will Galen
06-15-2007, 03:25 PM
Not unless we envision a backcourt of O'Brien and Dunleavy.

The biggest draw back to playing in the East is that you can believe that you are better than you really are just because you make the playoffs.



Who's O'Brien?

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 03:33 PM
Jim O'Brien. Sorry. I was just saying that neither move fixes our backcourt.

Shade
06-15-2007, 03:36 PM
With all the talk of moving O'Neal has it gotten to the point where the Pacers now have to move him? If not to the Lakers, then somewhere.

Of course not. Were that the criteria for moving a player, pretty much everyone would have been traded by now.

Shade
06-15-2007, 03:41 PM
Yes I think they do.

But not because of the talks with O'Neal.

But because I believe that Jermaine wants to be traded. But it's JMO. I think that Jermaine knows that this team won't be sniffing a championship anytime soon and he is better off playing with Kobe in LA.

Unless, of course, the Lakers intend to bring in Artest to supplement him. Do you really think he wants to go through that again?

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 03:47 PM
No.

I believe he and management are on the same page here. If a deal can be had that makes the Pacers better and puts JO in a good situation (ie, mutally beneficial) then it will happen.

If not, it won't. And the Pacers will keep their best player.

It isn't like JO's agent (as far as we know) is negotiating a trade and coming back to the Pacers with a "do this, or else" stance.
I agree.

Hey, it's a miracle. :D

Naptown_Seth
06-15-2007, 03:56 PM
The biggest draw back to playing in the East is that you can believe that you are better than you really are just because you make the playoffs.
I'll take 50 wins and losing 4-1 in the Finals every year just because we are "fooled" by the East. Winning is winning. I don't think Orlando is that far off, East or otherwise. And I'm pretty sure they don't think they are finished and need no more work. In fact name a team in the East that just because they made the playoffs probably figures "good enough".


They aren't fixing the backcourt with the rumored JO trade anyway. The #19 is not likely to yield a backcourt solution, unless someone gets lucky and Rudy (or other) is there AND pans out. Farmar is not a fix either, he's okay as a backup and doesn't appear headed anywhere but that.

So that means that it's about Bynum (frontcourt ala Dale for JO), some salary relief that has little impact on next season, and perhaps the chance to keep fans satisfied with a pick this summer since they are probably about to experience another tough season and are restless.

Otherwise the main fixes don't start to kick in till NEXT summer and beyond. JO doesn't have to be traded now for that to remain true.


Now if this was JO for Kidd or Kobe, that's instant backcourt help meant to solve the problem ASAP. That's not a rebuild, that's a redistribution of the talent. Doesn't sound like they are doing that.

JayRedd
06-15-2007, 03:57 PM
"All this talk" has been the same speculatory newspaper articles that have had JO's name in them for like 2 years now.

I agree with Jay that JO is fine with the idea of Larry/Donnie having discussions with other GMs about him. I think he understands it's not a "we have to get this guy out of here" situation, and just more of a "we have to explore all our options" thing.

Anthem
06-15-2007, 03:57 PM
I don't see why they'd trade for Ron when they could sign Hill.

ChicagoJ
06-15-2007, 04:13 PM
Jim O'Brien. Sorry. I was just saying that neither move fixes our backcourt.

Silly me. I thought you were saying Jim O'Brien would beat out Tinsley for the starting PG spot.

Hey, its possible...

:brick:

Arcadian
06-15-2007, 04:23 PM
Naptown Seth,
Keeping JO means that we are trying to win now. If winning now means making into the East then we are fine. If winning now means being in the mix for a championship we are a ways off.

By the way as the team stands I don't think winning 50 games and losing 4-1 in the finals is in the Pacers future. What I mean is missing the playoffs in the East then turning around and saying just because we could make the playoffs in the East next year doesn't mean that we are any good or have a bright future. The difference between us and Orlando is they have a young All Star, we have an aging one.

The Laker trade or any trade would be for re-building. Bynum is still a couple years off. So fixing our backcourt so that we could be a top team wouldn't be the point.

LoneGranger33
06-15-2007, 04:50 PM
We should only NOT trade him if we send some of our younger guys away for a player to help us contend, say Paul Pierce.

CableKC
06-15-2007, 04:54 PM
I'm just speculating but I just believe that Jermaine would rather play elsewhere. I feel it makes sense.

He doesn't have to come out and demand a trade publicly in order to ask TPTB for a trade.

But hey i'm just speculating here.
I agree with what you say.

Out of sheer loyalty to the Organization.....I wouldn't be surprised if JONeal did ( as UB suggested ) work things out with TPTB to stay quiet so that they can work something out to move him to play with Kobe.

I wish we can reload and make a run for the Playoffs with JONeal....but even some of us here don't think that is going to happen given what limited offseason changes that we can make that does not involve JONeal. How can JONeal...a guy that sees what is going on inside the organization...not see this too? I just don't get the sense that he is willing to stay on this "mediocre" team and continue to do what we did before. Hopefully JO'B can make a difference...but I don't think that JONeal wants to wait around to see if that happens.

IMHO, I think that the second that he thinks that his chances of ending up with Kobe is beginning to dimiish ( as we get closer to the draft ), I wouldn't be surprised if these "rumored" comments begin to pop up more and more as we get close to the Free Agency signing period.

But the second that he says something and forces the Pacers to take a "lesser" deal....we're screwed.

NapTonius Monk
06-15-2007, 05:14 PM
Nope, but I sure like the idea of trying to get out from under Troy Murphy's contract. Man, that thing is like a super albatross. I think I could stomach Dunleavy's deal, but there is no way Murphy should ever be making 10-12 million dollars for playing the role of Michael Doleac senior.

Roaming Gnome
06-15-2007, 05:21 PM
"It's just business"

Jermaine seems mature enough to reallize that if the Pacers can't move him...he may have to play for us a little longer. I'm guessing that he probably did tell managment that he wanted to leave, but I'm sure management told him that their first responsibility is to making the best move for the team and its fans....So, be patient.

I think he does reallize that his best move is to work with TPTB, instead of Artesting his way out of town. Yeah, he can opt out...but, that WILL limit him to where he wants to go. I'm sure he knows that it is the same sorry teams that have free money to spend on a contract like his. Best to be traded and keep your contract instead of opting out and taking a pay cut!

beast23
06-15-2007, 05:23 PM
I agree with Buck when he says that the Pacers have probably agreed to move Jermaine, as long as Jermaine keeps it out of the press.

But to answer the question... I believe the Pacers do have to move Jermaine. But he has one more year on his contract before he can exercise his option. Therefore, he does NOT have to be moved this summer, but IMO he does have to be moved prior to the trading deadline in February 2008.

Tom White
06-15-2007, 05:33 PM
Gnome makes a good point when he mentions JO's contract.

I don't think the Pacers have to trade him because of the scuttle of this off season. I think the Pacers have to trade him from a dollars point of view.

The final year of JO's contract pays him $23M. I can't even find a word that describes what I think about that number. Rediculous comes close. Anyway the point is, if he is not traded, do you re-sign him at the end of his deal? If so, for how much? I doubt he will want to take a cut. Maybe, but he does think a lot of his own value.

Murphy's contract may be bad, but JO's contract is holding this team hostage when it comes to trying to improve.

Before you flame me about this, just let me say I would feel the same way if it were another player making that $23M. I don't think there is ANY PLAYER worth that kind of money.

NuffSaid
06-15-2007, 05:34 PM
This is just my opinion, but I think JO came within an inch of demanding a trade. Pacers told him to keep it quiet, keep it out of the media and we'll look to move you. The question is what if the Pacers don't come up with a deal they like? Would JO be willing to come back? I think (he would) only if he believes the Pacers are trying to win now and trying to put tgether a very good team.

BINGO!

I think that's exactly what's happening now, and hopefully JO comes to realize it sooner rather than later. I think JO has felt the weight on his shoulders over the last 3-4 yrs and I sympathize with him, but that's part of being a leader.

My point, however, is except for the "youth movement" the majority of the problems JO spoke of during his April 19th press conference (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SPORTS04) (click on video link barring JO's image) or have been taken care of already:

1) New coach = new offense (uptempo).

2) New offense = less reliance on him in the low-post.

3) Improved team defense = less stress on his body.

4) Improved emphasis on youth development = the youngsters play better and gain valuable experience.

The only other issue (and I'm speculating here) is JO's relationship w/Bird can only be worked out either man-to-man or one of them has to go, and believe me it will be JO long before it's Bird. So, from my perspective JO has a far better chance to move forward by remaining than he does by leaving (or being shipped out).

Gamble1
06-15-2007, 05:44 PM
I think the Pacers haven't painted themselves into a corner by just talking.
I mean no one knows what other deals are out there in the first place and surely the Pacer brass haven't been eager to start a rebuilding process.

The best possible deal for the team isn't necessarily the one that JO would agree too. Which is why I am not getting my hopes up.

Tom White
06-15-2007, 05:45 PM
1) New coach = new offense (uptempo).

2) New offense = less reliance on him in the low-post.



Where the heck is Bball to bring up JO's famous "eigth game of the season" tirade?

By the way, I agree with Bball on that subject.

Oneal07
06-15-2007, 06:25 PM
I still don't see Jermaine winning a championship in Los Angeles, there's not enough fire power there!!! He should stay in the East were anyone can beat anyone. . .If anything he should stay in Indiana for another year and then opt out. Isn't that what Finley did and look. . .He's got a ring now!!!

Peck
06-15-2007, 06:45 PM
The answer to the question is no and yes.

No the Pacers don't have to move him. Even if he demanded a trade he is under contract and unless he is willing to eat a year of salary he will play. No there is no great popular uprising to see him moved on, so it's not like the club is getting pressure to move him on. In fact they will face quite the opposite problem if they ever do trade him.

Yes the Pacers have to trade him if they ever intend to improve as a team. New coach or not I just don't believe J.O. will ever accept being a part of a system that is not built around him unless there is a clear cut better player than him on the floor (al Bryant).

The team will continue to stagnate trying to put round pieces in square holes in a vain attempt to make a player who avg. 20/10 the center piece of a championship team.

A fresh start for everybody is in order here, including Jermaine. Maybe if he could get to a team that didn't expect him to be the big man he would be better off as well.

But I will contend that his production in the lineup will be easily replaced.

speakout4
06-15-2007, 07:02 PM
The answer to the question is no and yes.

No the Pacers don't have to move him. Even if he demanded a trade he is under contract and unless he is willing to eat a year of salary he will play. No there is no great popular uprising to see him moved on, so it's not like the club is getting pressure to move him on. In fact they will face quite the opposite problem if they ever do trade him.

Yes the Pacers have to trade him if they ever intend to improve as a team. New coach or not I just don't believe J.O. will ever accept being a part of a system that is not built around him unless there is a clear cut better player than him on the floor (al Bryant).

The team will continue to stagnate trying to put round pieces in square holes in a vain attempt to make a player who avg. 20/10 the center piece of a championship team.

A fresh start for everybody is in order here, including Jermaine. Maybe if he could get to a team that didn't expect him to be the big man he would be better off as well.

But I will contend that his production in the lineup will be easily replaced.

If I were JO and was the go-to-guy and no one else was a good runner-up I would also want to be traded. He has nothing to look forward to other than being beaten up daily by the double teams in his face. Jo's longevity as a player depends on a bryant or pierce or someone like that.

Will Galen
06-15-2007, 07:27 PM
I'm in the camp of everybody who says NO.

We had to trade Ron, JO isn't even close to that kind of situation.

speakout4
06-15-2007, 07:31 PM
I'm in the camp of everybody who says NO.

We had to trade Ron, JO isn't even close to that kind of situation.

JO is a rapidly depreciating asset and you know what happens when that asset fully depreciates.

pizza guy
06-15-2007, 07:54 PM
Yes, JO has to be traded.

But it's like Peck said...for the good of the Indiana Pacers. His value is still going to get us good value in return right now, but not much longer. Time to go, JO.

--pizza

NuffSaid
06-15-2007, 11:10 PM
Yes the Pacers have to trade him if they ever intend to improve as a team. New coach or not I just don't believe J.O. will ever accept being a part of a system that is not built around him unless there is a clear cut better player than him on the floor (al Bryant).

The team will continue to stagnate trying to put round pieces in square holes in a vain attempt to make a player who avg. 20/10 the center piece of a championship team.

A fresh start for everybody is in order here, including Jermaine. Maybe if he could get to a team that didn't expect him to be the big man he would be better off as well.

Glad U brought that up. I honestly believe this new coaching staff will bring out the best in every player. I wasn't sure about JOB's hiring at first, but the more I learn about him the more I'm impressed. It might take another year or two before they begin to play as one unit, ala, the Spurs, Pistons or Suns, but I believe JOB will get them to gel eventually. The biggest issue, whether JO is retained or not, is who will become the #2 option?

Granger? Quis? MDjr? It's up in the air at this point, but getting one of these players to step up their game to take the pressure off of JO is crucial. To that, I think JOB and his staff will get one of these guys to do just that under the new "system". Still, JO has to accept that even if he goes over to the Lakers, it's going to take at least another yr or 2 before things really start to come together. So, in one respect it's up to him....show some patients or jump ship.

Frank Slade
06-16-2007, 12:10 AM
Without biting the hand that fed me this tidbit :rimshot:

Just being careful since I forgot to ask permisssion to relay any of this.
And I am really not one for saying "my sources", or just telling everything I know for gossip's sake..but in this case...:spy:

They are a well known and respected person sort of the media variety perhaps, that is in contact with the club regularly. No big deal I just don't want to put their name out there considering the nature of the comment.

They told me today,after I asked them to assess the chances of JO and Tins being traded by draft day..


I think there's a better than 50 percent chance of O'Neal being traded. I think Bird is done with him, as he should be (O'Neal's too soft, too egotistical, not a leader). Hard to get a read on Tinsley's situation. Maybe 50-50 on that one..... I wouldn't be surprised to see him back next season. Some in the organization believe Tinsley would be much better in O'Brien's system than Carlisle's.

heywoode
06-16-2007, 12:17 AM
Sorry to be off topic, but Frank, check your PM folder...you're over quota and can't receive my latest!

Tom White
06-16-2007, 09:26 AM
Without biting the hand that fed me this tidbit :rimshot:

Just being careful since I forgot to ask permisssion to relay any of this.
And I am really not one for saying "my sources", or just telling everything I know for gossip's sake..but in this case...:spy:

They are a well known and respected person sort of the media variety perhaps, that is in contact with the club regularly. No big deal I just don't want to put their name out there considering the nature of the comment.

They told me today,after I asked them to assess the chances of JO and Tins being traded by draft day..

That phrasing, "better than 50% chance", sounds familiar. Seems that I remember Montieth, and maybe Benner using that same phrase. Probably was listening to the local sports radio shows when I heard that.

indygeezer
06-16-2007, 09:39 AM
In any yes/no situation, there is always a 50/50 chance. Either yes or no. So that barely requires a source to determine that the chances are better than 50/50 (51/49 ????)

Sorry Frank, not meaning to dog ya....I just don't like that type response from anyone when a question is asked of them.

Frank Slade
06-16-2007, 09:43 AM
In any yes/no situation, there is always a 50/50 chance. Either yes or no. So that barely requires a source to determine that the chances are better than 50/50 (51/49 ????)

Sorry Frank, not meaning to dog ya....I just don't like that type response from anyone when a question is asked of them.

No problem, I just posted it because of who actually said it and the way he described Jermaine and the fact he thought Larry was done with him. Not so much breaking news as far as the 50% of course..

I do get your point Geezer,although the Yes or No scenario is not always 50% for instance will I see a pig fly today ? Either they will or they won't 50% chance perhaps? Will Manning be traded from the Colts this year,either he will or he won't , 50% chance ? ;)