PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Vecsey Column (JO to LA again)



Will Galen
12-23-2007, 01:03 PM
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12232007/sports/nets/la_has_plan_at_ready_for_kiddnapping_net_871855.ht m
LA HAS PLAN AT READY FOR KIDDNAPPING NET


By PETER VECSEY

http://www.nypost.com/img/newsart/article_storybottom.gif
December 23, 2007 -- THE Lakers are angling to shoplift Jason Kidd, a Western hearing aide claims, for a couple draft picks, Kwame Brown's expiring contract ($9M), Jordan Farmar ($1M) and Vladimir Radmanovic ($5.6M with an additional $19.2M over the next three seasons). Not unexpectedly, the Nets aren't interested in assuming Radmanovic's long-term guarantee. There's nothing not to love about Farmar, yet New Jersey already has a promising, young caretaker in Marcus Williams.


Another time-tested source believes the Cavaliers (Drew Gooden) and Mavericks (Erick Dampier) are in better position to provide the Nets with frontcourt help, but neither team nor the Lakers can offer more than the Nuggets - an almost-rehabbed Nene or Marcus Camby vs. Kenyon Martin. According to my hall monitor, coach George Karl urgently wants Kidd to free Allen Iverson to concentrate exclusively on scoring. Aside from one of the two aforementioned big men, Denver is prepared to kick in Linas Kleiza and JR Smith.


Over the past year or so the Lakers have had designs on three players we know about - Kidd, Kevin Garnett (prior to being beat out by Boston) and Jermaine O'Neal. If Jackson's juggernaut is unable to pry loose Kidd, you would think the focus would be back on the Pacers' forward/center who definitely can be had, and it's not as if Donnie Walsh and Larry Bird are asking for anything outlandish.


The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap in the next two seasons, contingent, of course, on Jermaine proving to Lakers' management he's healthy enough to man up regularly alongside Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum. Good luck on that, though he hasn't looked so shaped up to run the break since he began lifting weights.


The Heat's $130M gamble ($40M left over the next two seasons) on Shaquille O'Neal harvested an instant title. In all likelihood, that'll have to satisfy owner Mickey Arison. Jerry Buss, ahem, owns eight championship rings. If he wasn't willing to reinvest long-term in Shaq, whose dominance was responsible for three of those, why would we think he'll gamble the kind of money we're talking about on Jermaine?
------------------------



Vecsey does seem to have the goods on the Pacers a lot. However I think this column is about as accurate as the one last Summer where he said JO to LA for Bynum and Odom was about to happen.

This time he thinks we get neither Bynum or Odom ? If that were the case I'm sure other teams would have more to offer than LA's junk.

The other thing that interested me was his statement that the plan was to "dump $44M off Indiana's cap in the next two seasons . . . "


That means dumping JO. The thing is it's not easy to 'dump' that much money. Looking at LA's player salaries, if you leave out Kobe, Bynum, and Odom, and go by the premise that $44m has to be dumped in two years, which excludes adding Walton, Radmanovic, and Fisher. Also that the Laker's would have to keep two point guards. Then that means the Lakers would HAVE to trade these six players for JO. Vujacic, Mihm, Karl, Brown, Crittenton, and Turiaf.


That means we would have to cut 4 players, and LA would be down to nine. The Laker's would then have to sign several players just to comply with NBA rules on roster size. (Basically 12)


No doubt they would resign any Laker's we dropped. Still, as they say on MythBusters, "This Myth is Busted."

It is interesting that Vecsey thinks the Pacers want to dump JO and his salary.

Naptown_Seth
12-23-2007, 02:05 PM
I'm with you Will. When the logic behind it is nowhere near reality you have to have doubts.

And as has been pointed out many, many times before, including on this very subject, PV talks a lot of s*** that never comes to be. On one hand a person might defend him with "well, things change, you never know" but frankly I hear that and think why bother reporting it then. If your stories are going to be 80-90% wrong does it really matter why? The fact is that PV saying it usually means it's not about to happen.

I'm still waiting on the Bender to LA trade to come through.

BlueNGold
12-23-2007, 02:07 PM
It is interesting that Vecsey thinks the Pacers want to dump JO and his salary.

The Pacers will need to make a major trade within the next year or so if they intend on signing their young players. Otherwise, they walk ala Fred Jones and we may end up with nothing.

None of this surprises me, particularly when you have Bird as the GM who fired JO's lover (Zeke).

tdubb03
12-23-2007, 02:30 PM
LET IT DIE VECSEY

Shade
12-23-2007, 02:40 PM
Maybe a 3-way deal that would net the Lakers Kidd, with JO and Farmar going to NJ? Who would we get, then? :shrug:

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 02:56 PM
Maybe a 3-way deal that would net the Lakers Kidd, with JO and Farmar going to NJ? Who would we get, then? :shrug:

The same players. JO and Kidd make the same exact amount of money. So if Jo went to Jersey and Kidd went to LA, it follows that we would be taking LA's scraps again. If that were the case it would make more sense for us to deal with NJ for their scraps and let them keep Kidd.

Bball
12-23-2007, 03:46 PM
The same players. JO and Kidd make the same exact amount of money. So if Jo went to Jersey and Kidd went to LA, it follows that we would be taking LA's scraps again. If that were the case it would make more sense for us to deal with NJ for their scraps and let them keep Kidd.

If we've decided that the best we can hope for in a JO trade is a salary dump (and we've also decided a salary dump is something we need to do), then why not 'help' a couple of teams out with us simply hoping for a 'payback of the favor scenario' down the road. Plus we'd also probably be doing JO a favor as well if we've decided we're as good without him as with him.

Addition by subtraction....

The days of thinking JO has any appreciable market value are fading fast... if not already gone...

-Bball

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 04:07 PM
why not 'help' a couple of teams out with us simply hoping for a 'payback of the favor scenario' down the road.


HeHeHe!

No doubt you were speaking in general terms when you said help a 'couple' teams since there's 'one' JO.

QuickRelease
12-23-2007, 04:25 PM
"Man up regularly alongside Odom and Bynum?" Well then what on earth does Vecsey think the Lakers could offer without one, or both of those two? My gut feeling is that we will see the trade deadline come and go without a major move for us. I think, unless there's a major collapse between now and the trade deadline, they'll be willing to let the season play out. I would like to know if anyone thinks JO will look hard at opting out after the season, or do you think he'll stay put?

sportsmusicxboxpacer
12-23-2007, 04:35 PM
tradeing JO been overratedl ately i dont see any trade now will benfits us in long run

Evan_The_Dude
12-23-2007, 05:01 PM
tradeing JO been overratedl ately i dont see any trade now will benfits us in long run

:confused:

NorCal_Pacerfan
12-23-2007, 05:04 PM
JO is getting healthy. He's adapting to this system. He LOVES coach. The team is gelling after a horrible end to last season and a completely new system has been put into place. If JO looks around, we're doing pretty damn good atm. I don't see JO getting traded unless we start dropping games like crazy.

wintermute
12-23-2007, 05:05 PM
The Pacers will need to make a major trade within the next year or so if they intend on signing their young players. Otherwise, they walk ala Fred Jones and we may end up with nothing.


well, fred jones wasn't re-signed supposedly because of his lack of work ethic, but it isn't a stretch to think that financial considerations were a factor too.

if we don't make a salary dump by this season's trading deadline, then we'll have trouble re-signing david harrison. last year, it wouldn't have been much of a loss, but now that he's finally playing well it would be a pity to lose him because of money. shades of brad miller and all.

it gets worse in '09, because we'll have to fit in extensions to danny and ike. foster's contract expiring in '09 helps, but you'd think we'd want to re-sign him.

so yes, it wouldn't surprise me if we're still looking to move j.o. for financial reasons, despite him playing well. sure i'd rather move murphy first, but good luck finding a taker for him.

Anthem
12-23-2007, 06:18 PM
I have no problem moving Jermaine, and I really like him. But I can't imagine a deal to LA that makes sense... especially with Bynum off the table (I don't care about Odom except as salary filler).

I still think NY is the way to go.

Bball
12-23-2007, 06:27 PM
HeHeHe!

No doubt you were speaking in general terms when you said help a 'couple' teams since there's 'one' JO.

Someone mentioned a 3 way involving NJ then someone else said we didn't need LA to do that deal and could deal direct with NJ for their scraps. That got me to thinking that management might be happy with our current collection of players minus JO. So they might be open to being a partner in a deal with all it getting us was a near term salary dump and some good karma because we enabled a couple of other teams to make a deal they wanted to do.

I'm not predicting anything... just throwing out a 'what if' here that might make Vecsey's comment a little more sensible sounding (since he seems to be saying JO to LA wouldn't include LO or Bynum).

-Bball

rexnom
12-23-2007, 06:32 PM
I have no problem moving Jermaine, and I really like him. But I can't imagine a deal to LA that makes sense... especially with Bynum off the table (I don't care about Odom except as salary filler).

I still think NY is the way to go.
I'm all about NY if we're gonna trade JO - it's the only team that will give us a great deal.

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 07:21 PM
I'm all about NY if we're gonna trade JO - it's the only team that will give us a great deal.

Stephon Marbury and David Lee for JO works. We could then buy Starbury out and save a bit of money.

The thing is JO's contract is up in two years and all we have to do is not resign him. In that respect I don't know what Vecsey means that we plan to dump $44m off our cap in two years. That will happen automatically.

Lord Helmet
12-23-2007, 07:25 PM
Oh God........

Bball
12-23-2007, 07:26 PM
Stephon Marbury and David Lee for JO works. We could then buy Starbury out and save a bit of money.

The thing is JO's contract is up in two years and all we have to do is not resign him. In that respect I don't know what Vecsey means that we plan to dump $44m off our cap in two years. That will happen automatically.



The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap in the next two seasons

It's all in how you use your Vecsey decoder ring. The way you are reading it he could've said:

The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap AFTER the next two seasons

I'm reading it to mean that dump would come sometime WITHIN the next two seasons.

Or it could be:

The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap FOR the next two seasons

...Can't really say which way we're supposed to read it...

-Bball

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 08:21 PM
It's all in how you use your Vecsey decoder ring. The way you are reading it he could've said:

The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap AFTER the next two seasons

I'm reading it to mean that dump would come sometime WITHIN the next two seasons.

Or it could be:

The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap FOR the next two seasons

...Can't really say which way we're supposed to read it...

-Bball

At first I did read it that the dump would come over the next two seasons. However, I looked at all the teams salaries and I don't see how we could dump the whole $44m until the end of two years.

Bottom line, Vecsey doesn't know anything as usual, he just thinks this is what Bird will try to do. It's beside the point that I agree with him.

aero
12-23-2007, 08:48 PM
If we could give them Murphy and O'Neal id do the trade in a heart beat. That would free up alot of cap space and let us play in the off season to pick up a solid free agent.

Anthem
12-23-2007, 09:12 PM
I had worked out a trade I was fine with. I'll find it.

EDIT: Ah, forget it. Basically it was Marbury/M.Rose/Lee/Pick for Jermaine/Troy. Both teams get better... NY gets stronger up front (and allows them to try moving Curry, since he's in Zeke's doghouse) and get rid of two guys who really want out... Rose and Marbury.

Pacers get massive salary cap relief, Starbury either plays backup 1 or gets bought out, and they get a prospect and a pick.

rexnom
12-23-2007, 09:34 PM
If we can somehow get NY's pick next year and/or David Lee then I am 100% in. In fact, I'd do filler + their unprotected 2008 1st round pick for JO - that's a typical Isiah trade, right? And he likes JO way more than Curry.

EDIT: Upon further consideration, I'd even do JO for filler and the right to swap picks with NY.

wintermute
12-23-2007, 09:41 PM
The plan is to dump $44M off Indiana's cap in the next two seasons.


seems clear to me. jermaine is owed $44m over the next 2 seasons. dumping jermaine's contract will thus save us $44m off our cap over the next 2 seasons.

a lakers deal doesn't seem likely to me either. what vecsey says is that the lakers are offering kwame, farmar, and rad to the nets for kidd. he then goes on to speculate that if the nets turn it down (which they will), then the lakers will offer the same package for j.o.

imo we will turn it down for the same reason that the nets will - vlad rad's long contract. lakers don't have another short contract to trade other than lamar, and they probably don't want to do that.

knicks - a possibility i guess. if they're willing to take jermaine and troy for shorter contracts (like marbury and rose) then our management will likely have to think about it.

edit: just saw anthem's knicks trade. yup, probably the only thing that makes sense with the knicks

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 09:45 PM
I had worked out a trade I was fine with. I'll find it.

EDIT: Ah, forget it. Basically it was Marbury/M.Rose/Lee/Pick for Jermaine/Troy. Both teams get better... NY gets stronger up front (and allows them to try moving Curry, since he's in Zeke's doghouse) and get rid of two guys who really want out... Rose and Marbury.

Pacers get massive salary cap relief, Starbury either plays backup 1 or gets bought out, and they get a prospect and a pick.

I considered including Murphy. I jettisoned the idea when I realized I was including two bigs and only getting back one. The Pacers won't do that. We are on the edge of having enough bigs now.

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 09:48 PM
If we can somehow get NY's pick next year and/or David Lee then I am 100% in. In fact, I'd do filler + their unprotected 2008 1st round pick for JO - that's a typical Isiah trade, right? And he likes JO way more than Curry.

EDIT: Upon further consideration, I'd even do JO for filler and the right to swap picks with NY.

Utah owns NY's 2008 pick. (Top 23 protected)

wintermute
12-23-2007, 10:10 PM
I considered including Murphy. I jettisoned the idea when I realized I was including two bigs and only getting back one. The Pacers won't do that. We are on the edge of having enough bigs now.

lee and rose? both a little undersized sure, but we'll have enough bodies

Will Galen
12-23-2007, 10:20 PM
All you guys that want to get rid of Murphy, what makes you think the Pacers do? Sure, if the right trade comes along, but Murphy fits in O'B,s system.

Add him to the trade and get Rose included? I don't think the Pacers would do that.

avoidingtheclowns
12-23-2007, 10:23 PM
does vescey mean kobe is coming to indy? he said JO would play alongside odom and bynum, not kobe.
















i'm kidding.
























but not really.





















but kinda.

Kegboy
12-23-2007, 10:51 PM
Thank you ATC. I was getting ready to post that it was obvious the answer was we're getting Kobe.

:yay2:

Anthem
12-23-2007, 11:51 PM
seems clear to me. jermaine is owed $44m over the next 2 seasons. dumping jermaine's contract will thus save us $44m off our cap over the next 2 seasons.
Nope. We'd still have to pay whoever we traded JO for.

OnlyPacersLeft
12-24-2007, 12:06 AM
wow...just dump JO for nothing? that's what we should do!
uhg i hate vescey i really do...he always says "This is a done deal"
he's such a toole...

Young
12-24-2007, 01:01 AM
Wow the part of the article that stands out to me is in regards to Jason Kidd on the Nuggets.

Potentially the Nuggets could have Kidd, Iverson, Anthony, Martin, and Camby probably. That's pretty sick. I have always wanted to see a Kidd/Iverson backcourt. I don't expect it to happen but i'd be pretty sweet to see I think.

Arcadian
12-24-2007, 01:14 AM
I think Pete is just talking conjecture. I'd rather trade with LA than NY. We're are just getting our lockerroom to a level of respectablity without bring in their malcontents.

CableKC
12-24-2007, 02:51 AM
I have no problem moving Jermaine, and I really like him. But I can't imagine a deal to LA that makes sense... especially with Bynum off the table (I don't care about Odom except as salary filler).

I still think NY is the way to go.
There is nothing from the Knicks that would make sense for the Pacers.

tdubb03
12-24-2007, 02:54 AM
I know you can't really put anything out of the realm of possibility with NY, but they've got Curry and Randolph. Unless we take one of them back it'd be stupid to take JO from us.

rexnom
12-24-2007, 06:00 AM
I considered including Murphy. I jettisoned the idea when I realized I was including two bigs and only getting back one. The Pacers won't do that. We are on the edge of having enough bigs now.
Rose could play if necessary.

indygeezer
12-24-2007, 08:13 AM
Look around...see all of those empty seats in Conseco? That means lost money. The PO money can help ease the pain a bit and the last I looked we were in 5th place. As long as we are in this position no trade which would jeopardize that standing is going to happen.

Unless this group falls apart do not look for any player movement until after the season. TPTB have ALWAYS been about "make the playoffs first and then see what happens".

Besides....any trade that left Tinsley in Indianapolis would be a PR disaster. Like it or not...he's still the lightening rod over Conseco as far as the general public is concerned.

rexnom
12-24-2007, 08:15 AM
Man, I wish NY still had their pick...why did they have to go trading it?!

Naptown_Seth
12-24-2007, 08:55 AM
well, fred jones wasn't re-signed supposedly because of his lack of work ethic, but it isn't a stretch to think that financial considerations were a factor too.

if we don't make a salary dump by this season's trading deadline, then we'll have trouble re-signing david harrison. last year, it wouldn't have been much of a loss, but now that he's finally playing well it would be a pity to lose him because of money. shades of brad miller and all.

it gets worse in '09, because we'll have to fit in extensions to danny and ike. foster's contract expiring in '09 helps, but you'd think we'd want to re-sign him.

so yes, it wouldn't surprise me if we're still looking to move j.o. for financial reasons, despite him playing well. sure i'd rather move murphy first, but good luck finding a taker for him.
Yeah I didn't agree with that example, it's going to look more like the dreaded Brad Miller situation rather than the "not interested" Fred Jones version.

I've stayed firmly in the keep JO camp, but naturally I hate Troy's deal for his output. JO isn't giving his bang for buck either, but his impact is far, far greater at least. Even JO "reduced" right now is still a pretty nice commodity.

One thing to consider is moving Ike or Danny before the resign, or hope for a sign and trade (but then you think Miller again IMO, as in walking anyway so you get poor value).

The cap/lux tax situation is still a really big mess. The trade complainers like myself weren't just talking about talent issues which is why I don't "let it go". It's not over with yet for me to let go, just like the Croshere/Bender contract signings weren't over with when it came time to resign Brad Miller.

Naptown_Seth
12-24-2007, 09:01 AM
Look around...see all of those empty seats in Conseco? That means lost money. The PO money can help ease the pain a bit and the last I looked we were in 5th place. As long as we are in this position no trade which would jeopardize that standing is going to happen.

Unless this group falls apart do not look for any player movement until after the season. TPTB have ALWAYS been about "make the playoffs first and then see what happens".

Besides....any trade that left Tinsley in Indianapolis would be a PR disaster. Like it or not...he's still the lightening rod over Conseco as far as the general public is concerned.
I'm not for trading Tins either and I'm certainly not sympathetic to the general public view on Tins, but I must concede your point here. Playoffs are extra money and a playoff chase would have to add fans to the seats later in the year too, both of which are critical to TPTB.

My only concern is some much tougher stretches yet to come, the team's inconsistant play and playing style (the nature of freewheeling), and the finish last year after 29-24. As much as the collapse last year hurt, this year it would be devastating.

This year it's not just about winning, it's about survival.

2Cleva
12-24-2007, 10:54 AM
- Camby is the bait from Denver to get Kidd.

- If Indy doesn't think JO can lead the team to a ring, it makes little financial sense to keep him at his salary combined with his injury history.

- Can't see Indy taking Radmanovic. A deal would have to be three-way sending him for a young piece or last year K. Maybe Miami?

If Indy can get a young PG like Farmar, combined with last year Ks and maybe another young prospect like Dorrell Wright or someone, and a 1st - thats not bad. Better than what Philly got for Iverson.

naptownmenace
12-24-2007, 12:22 PM
All you guys that want to get rid of Murphy, what makes you think the Pacers do? Sure, if the right trade comes along, but Murphy fits in O'B,s system.

Add him to the trade and get Rose included? I don't think the Pacers would do that.

Each of these trades leave the Pacers much worse afterward than they are now. It'd be a pure salary dump trade and TPTB aren't going to do that as long as they are in the playoff hunt - and I don't think they should either.

Murphy has actually played well the last 4-5 games and he's played well in games earlier. It seems that the DNP that Obie slapped on him got his attention.

OnlyPacersLeft
12-24-2007, 05:01 PM
Look around...see all of those empty seats in Conseco? That means lost money. The PO money can help ease the pain a bit and the last I looked we were in 5th place. As long as we are in this position no trade which would jeopardize that standing is going to happen.

Unless this group falls apart do not look for any player movement until after the season. TPTB have ALWAYS been about "make the playoffs first and then see what happens".

Besides....any trade that left Tinsley in Indianapolis would be a PR disaster. Like it or not...he's still the lightening rod over Conseco as far as the general public is concerned.

so what your saying is...if we trade away the guys with charechter issues...and lose oh i don't know 40-50 games....everyone will show up because he isn't there? they show up to watch us lose because the guys play hard and are good off the court but they lose a lot of games...Doesn't intrigue me but ok...Frankly i don't care what the guys do on their own time...i just want W's!

Oneal07
12-24-2007, 05:50 PM
He works for Magic Johnson lol

McKeyFan
12-24-2007, 06:28 PM
Is there a deal that works adding fillers where JO goes to LA, Kidd goes to the Pacers, and Tinsley goes to New Jersey?

indygeezer
12-24-2007, 06:51 PM
so what your saying is...if we trade away the guys with charechter issues...and lose oh i don't know 40-50 games....everyone will show up because he isn't there? they show up to watch us lose because the guys play hard and are good off the court but they lose a lot of games...Doesn't intrigue me but ok...Frankly i don't care what the guys do on their own time...i just want W's!

In the spitit of the holidays I'm not going to answer this inane reply.

OnlyPacersLeft
12-24-2007, 07:32 PM
Is there a deal that works adding fillers where JO goes to LA, Kidd goes to the Pacers, and Tinsley goes to New Jersey?
still want tinsley and JO gone huh? boy our fan base is bad.
Not only do they boo the players ( the little fans that show up to the games) but they want our best players gone...sounds awesome!

Bball
12-24-2007, 08:45 PM
still want tinsley and JO gone huh? boy our fan base is bad.
Not only do they boo the players ( the little fans that show up to the games) but they want our best players gone...sounds awesome!

JO is just not that important. I'll grant you, Tinsley is... especially given the current makeup of the team and dearth of quality PG's... but we'd never miss JO.

-Bball

McKeyFan
12-25-2007, 01:24 AM
still want tinsley and JO gone huh? boy our fan base is bad.
Not only do they boo the players ( the little fans that show up to the games) but they want our best players gone...sounds awesome!

I'm being positive, not negative.

I want Kidd.

They say he's a pretty good point guard.

Trader Joe
12-25-2007, 01:28 AM
Giving up JO AND Tins for Kidd at this point in his career would be absolutely pointless.

McKeyFan
12-25-2007, 10:08 AM
Giving up JO AND Tins for Kidd at this point in his career would be absolutely pointless.

Agreed. We have to get more to make the trade worth our while. I'm just wondering if there's a way to do it.

Mourning
12-25-2007, 10:49 AM
There is nothing from the Knicks that would make sense for the Pacers.

I aggree with Anthem here. I think there's definitely some things that the Knicks could offer us that is at the very least "interesting" or that makes "sense". The Knicks 2008 first rounder (IF they still have it)? David Lee? Massive salary cap relief? Dumping Murphy's massive contract (who I don't hate like some of you seem to do, am not a big fan either though ;))?

And, yes, I like JO too, but like others have written before the franchise needs to start thinking about the longer term with regards to resigning our younger players.

If it's not done it will create a huge hole into the Pacers budget. Or better said IF the matter is not somehow resolved then we just won't be able to resign our young talents to new contracts and will have to let them walk or S&T them for peanuts.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Oneal07
12-25-2007, 12:24 PM
I'm being positive, not negative.

I want Kidd.

They say he's a pretty good point guard.

Tinsley is playing 100 times better than Kidd right now. And our record is better than theirs (New Jersey). I don't want us to break this team up. Maybe if we stay inconsistent, then yeah, but I believe we have something good right now, why mess it up?

This team still has a lot of room to grow. Remember we should be atleast 7 games over .500 right now, but due to inconsistencies and blown leads we are still 2 games over .500. It's somewhat of a good thing

Mourning
12-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Tinsley is playing 100 times better than Kidd right now.

I like how Jamaal is playing, but I would have to SERIOUSLY disagree with you here. Kidd is still way better then the Tinman.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

Major Cold
12-25-2007, 05:12 PM
We did resign Fred Jones but rescinded when we were pulling either the Marquis trade and/or the Harrington trade.

Will Galen
12-25-2007, 05:44 PM
We did resign Fred Jones but rescinded when we were pulling either the Marquis trade and/or the Harrington trade.

Ah, someone who makes the same kind of mistakes I do! (grin) Misstate what you mean.

Actually we didn't resign him to a contract we rescinded a contract offer.

Kofi
12-26-2007, 02:44 AM
No outside commercials on this site pls.

Also; tradeproposals have their own forum.

thank you
(able)

Unclebuck
12-27-2007, 01:31 PM
Think we could get Bynum for JO and Granger now - or do you think the Lakers would want Williams also.

indygeezer
12-27-2007, 01:59 PM
Think we could get Bynum for JO and Granger now - or do you think the Lakers would want Williams also.


I think they'd give up Kobe before Bynum at this point.

Unclebuck
12-27-2007, 02:06 PM
I think they'd give up Kobe before Bynum at this point.

Yeah, I would think right now if the lakers announced they wanted to trade Bynum (teams wouldn't believe it, or they would think there is somehting wrong there) every team in the league would go after him hard. His trade value is about as high as players such as Howard, James and those type players.

JayRedd
12-27-2007, 02:12 PM
Tinsley is playing 100 times better than Kidd right now.

Lay off the eggnog.

JKidd has 7 triple-doubles already this year and is averaging 11, 10 and 9.