PDA

View Full Version : Trading JO this summer, might be the worst move the Pacers ever make



Unclebuck
04-17-2008, 08:27 AM
I have posted these thoughts before, so I will keep it short and sweet. But after reading Kravitz column, I decided to start a thread on this topic.

Trading JO this off season would probably be the worst move the Pacers have ever made. Jo's trade value has never and will never be lower than this summer. He has two years left on his deal, so starting around the trade deadline (next February)his trade value increases slightly, and then next summer it increases by the day, and continues to increase each day during the following regular season. (and of course there is always the long shot that perhaps JO can stay a little healthier next season and that will also increase his trade value) The fact of the matter is that JO's trade value will never be any lower than it is right now.

So of course Kravitz wants the Pacers to trade JO now, and he'll be the first one to criticize the Pacers when a bad deal is made.

Sure, I think it would be best for the franchise if JO is playing somewhere else next season - but I truly believe in this situation, waiting to trade him in a year or two will help the Pacers franchise in the long run. In fact trading JO at the right time will likely be a more important decision than any draft pick the Pacers take over the next two years.




Here is Bob's column

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/SPORTS15/804170487/1088/SPORTS04&template=printart


Bob Kravitz

No. 1 priority for Bird: Deal Tinsley and O'Neal


It's great that Herb Simon has chosen to transform himself from a hands-off owner to a hands-on kind of guy. And it's great that Simon hired Jim Morris, the noted businessman and philanthropist, to run the company's off-the-court operation. If Morris can survive Darfur, he can survive the Indiana Pacers.

Probably.

But all of the front-office shuffling will be rendered meaningless if the guy running the basketball operation, Larry Bird, doesn't accomplish two things this summer:

He must get rid of Jamaal Tinsley. Trade, buyout, set him adrift on an Arctic ice floe. Whatever.

He must trade Jermaine O'Neal.

If those two players are still here when we meet again in October, the Pacers will have made no progress toward rebuilding this team, and the leash on Bird will become dramatically shorter.

Tinsley's act grew stale about four years ago. It doesn't matter how his various off-court issues have been resolved by the courts. The perception of him is never going to change, not here.

And to think, one pick after Tinsley was chosen 27th in the 2001 draft, the San Antonio Spurs selected a point guard named Tony Parker.

What's French for "Ouch!''?

With O'Neal, it's not a personality or perception issue; it's his salary. When he was given the maximum contract in 2003, most of us applauded that deal, viewing O'Neal as the team's new centerpiece and Reggie Miller's heir apparent.

Now, though, he's a $40 million albatross who, if he stays in Indiana, destroys any Pacers hopes for future cap flexibility.

Can a brother make a suggestion? How about sending O'Neal to the Knicks for Stephon Marbury. Yes, Marbury is a waste, but he has only one year left on his deal. If the Pacers are willing to bite the bullet for one season, more than $20 million will come off the books in 2009-10.

During a Wednesday afternoon news conference to announce the team's front-office changes, Bird fell short of saying he would trade O'Neal, but he made it abundantly clear that he's going to try. And that would be best for both of them. Face it: O'Neal doesn't fit with coach Jim O'Brien's style, and both parties know it. Add to that the fact that O'Neal and Bird have had a contentious relationship since Bird fired Isiah Thomas, and you have a bad marriage that's headed for a divorce.

O'Neal didn't want to talk about his future or whether Wednesday's game might be his last as a Pacer.

When a deal gets done, it's not important whether Bird gets full or even partial value for O'Neal, whose injury problems make him a tough sell. What Bird and this franchise need is cap flexibility. They need to take on an expiring contract or two, giving them freedom to make some moves in the next few years.

This franchise has got to accept the fact that getting better might mean getting worse, a lot worse, first.

"I think at the small forward and two guard, we're pretty well set with Danny (Granger), Shawne (Williams) and Mike (Dunleavy),'' Bird said. "Any time you go into the draft, you look for point guards and you look for big guys. It's according to what's going to be there. If there's a point guard we really like, we have to look at him. But if there's a big man there, you always like the bigs.

"At the four position we could use another guy. We've got a lot of holes to fill.''

Does that sound like O'Neal is in Bird's plans?

"I'm sure he (O'Neal) will look at all his options, and we'll look at ours,'' Bird said. "Throughout the summer, we'll probably be talking to some teams and seeing what kind of interest they have in him. He hasn't told us if he wants to stay here or if he wants to go somewhere else, but there comes a time in any player's basketball career that you want to try to do what's best for yourself and for your team.''

Goodbye, Jermaine.

Good guy, good representative of this franchise. But it's time. It's just time.

Time, finally, to rebuild.

There will be exit interviews today between Bird and the players, and you would think, and hope, it will mark the last time several enter the Fieldhouse as members of the home team.

Tinsley is gone. Marquis Daniels is on the chopping block. David Harrison is history. Kareem Rush was relegated to the bench the last few weeks. Shawne Williams? You wonder. He's still young, cheap and talented, but . . . And O'Neal has almost certainly played his final game as a Pacer.

The franchise made some strong and necessary front-office moves Wednesday afternoon. Simon needed to get more involved in this business. Morris, who told WFNI-1070, "We will not have bums here,'' seems to have the right idea. But ultimately it's about winning, and second, it's about winning with palatable players.

That leaves it up to Bird.

If Tinsley and/or O'Neal are still here in October, the clock on Larry Legend's reign starts ticking.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Putnam
04-17-2008, 08:30 AM
I find it noteworthy that he mentions the possibility of buying out Tinsley if they can't make a deal. If a silly scribbler with no ties to the organization and no motivation but to stir up talk and trouble mentions it, can an actual buyout be far behind???

Seriously, can anyone discuss knowledgeably what a buyout of Tinsley might cost, what benefits to the team would balance the straight-up loss, and so forth? I'm assuming they'd pay less than the full amount owed, but that it would still be an awesome chunk of money coming out of Herb's pocket.



(Buck, thanks for combining the threads.)

croz24
04-17-2008, 08:33 AM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

Vince Neil
04-17-2008, 08:53 AM
Seriously, can anyone discuss knowledgeably what a buyout of Tinsley might cost, what benefits to the team would balance the straight-up loss, and so forth? I'm assuming they'd pay less than the full amount owed, but that it would still be an awesome chunk of money coming out of Herb's pocket.



Can a price be put on the negative publicity Tinsley has accumulated? A huge chunk of money already has come out of Herb's pocket the last few years (low attendance and playoff revenue). I'm sure the Pacers brass has already discussed the financial impact of a buyout of Tinsley as one of their options.

Speed
04-17-2008, 08:54 AM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

I gotta say I'm against moving Granger for almost anything at this point. He turns 25 next week and just averaged 19.6 and 6.1, while guarding the other teams best wing guy. Very few people in the league I'd trade him for.

Otherwise, I can see both sides of it. If you can move JO now for expiring contracts, you do it. If not you hold on to him cuz his contract is up the same time Lebron and Melo's is, I think, among others. If teams can get a big expiring contract the same year those two become available, they think they have a shot at him.

As far as getting cap room to sign a free agent and/or your own guys long term (Granger) and honestly that is the only reason to worry about the cap. I've always thought outside free agents won't come here, but then I was thinking about Utah who has picked up Boozer and Okur in the last couple of years. That kinda makes me think.

I'm thinking the game plan needs to be to basically unload as much cap as possible and try to coincide the Granger resigning with going after a Free agent with potential, draft well, then you have a shot a turning it around and maybe into a contender. In this scenario, you do need to move JO for the first expiring contract(s).

I know I'm oversimplifying things, but I think you NOW need to focus everything around Granger and when you will sign him to a long term contract. Thats at least a game plan and Utah is a pretty good model for it.

count55
04-17-2008, 09:04 AM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

Did Danny run over this guy's cat or something?

RamBo_Lamar
04-17-2008, 09:16 AM
First off, it seems I missed the official announcement, but CONGRATULATIONS
(I think) to Unclebuck for his promotion to Admin status.

I like the part about the "Arctic ice floe", and hope they do find a way to
move these guys without losing too much.

And as soon as O'Neal is moved, I hope they've learned their lesson about
caving in to these player's agents and never hand out another max contract
again.

Tom White
04-17-2008, 09:19 AM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

Why do people want to keep posting about trading the most productive players on the team?

I understand that sometimes a team must let go of a good player along with a lesser player in order to get the other team to make a deal, but you don't do that with your most productive (or at least one of the top two) player.

In addition, to say we should trade Granger for "prospects" in order to be able to reduce the asking price for O'Neal makes absolutely no sense to me.

Anthem
04-17-2008, 09:20 AM
never hand out another max contract again.
Youch.

rexnom
04-17-2008, 09:28 AM
I think it sounds like Bird is fairly set with Dunleavy at the two.

Jonathan
04-17-2008, 09:31 AM
KRAVITZ:
How does JO not fit into JOB's System? When O'Brien was hired he was exicited about coaching Jermaine. He loved the fact he was a post prescence and played D. JOB preaches Defense; That is the number one reason IKE & Graham do not get minutes. The fact BOB MY KNOB KRAVITZ wants to ship him for Marbury is PATHETIC. Our organization was embarressed by the Club Rio incident; Let's not forget Steph's testimony in the sexual harrassment case.
Buying out Tinsley? Bird has already said if you this and he goes to another team ie Cleveland and makes them better it is a huge loss. I think all this talk of trading Tinsley is just that TALK.

Uncle Buck, Please never post a Kravitz article again.

Dr. Goldfoot
04-17-2008, 10:14 AM
I'm a huge Tinsley fan. He's an important piece but a player relied on this much can't miss so much time. On the other hand, teams can't just start cutting players. Tinsley can still grab pieces from other teams. Maybe they wont be starting material, or young prospects, or first round picks but they'll be something. Something preferably healthy.

I feel the same way about O'Neal. Great player, great impact, too much time missed etc....

I don't agree with Kravitz on this issue. "At all costs" is never a good idea. JO's value has been discussed and team management knows alot more than we do (I assume). I think the same thing applies to Jamaal.

Also, after missing the playoffs for the second year, I don't think the Pacers are set at any position including small forward/shooting guard. There are some likable guys (Diener), consummate professionals ( Foster), even borderline stars (Dun & Granger). Really though, this team is starting behind the eight ball and they have to start thinking like that. Cutting players outright, trading cornerstone players in desperation, relying on borderline NBA players to fill out rotations(not just fill up the bench) isn't gonna cut it. The plan has to be a little more well thought out and executed with precision.

Sollozzo
04-17-2008, 10:30 AM
They should have traded him last summer. His value will never be that high again (well, I guess it will be high in a year to a team that wants a large contract coming off the books).

Rajah Brown
04-17-2008, 10:33 AM
UB-

I've come around to your point of view. Assuming J.O. isn't willing
to opt-out as part of a sign and trade deal, the chance of moving
him now in any deal that doesn't just make things worse is slim
and none.

If we can find some team dumb enough to trade a contract and
a talented young prospect and/or a draft pick (ala a Marbury and
Lee or Marbury, Lee and a 1st round pick deal), then great, do
it. But otherwise, being him back, limit his minutes to 30 or so
a game next year and then shop him when his contract moves
from being an albatross to being attractive.

As for Tinsley, whatever. Trade him, pay him to sit in the stands,
whatever. I could care less about him.

sweabs
04-17-2008, 10:34 AM
They should have traded him last summer. His value will never be that high again (well, I guess it will be high in a year to a team that wants a large contract coming off the books).
I suggested trading him after the 2003 season in a deal for Bosh. I was ridiculed at the time.

Sollozzo
04-17-2008, 10:37 AM
I suggested trading him after the 2003 season in a deal for Bosh. I was ridiculed at the time.

Too bad we didn't, Bosh has been better than JO for a couple of years now and his career is still on it's upside while JO's is on it's downside.

Unclebuck
04-17-2008, 10:40 AM
I suggested trading him after the 2003 season in a deal for Bosh. I was ridiculed at the time.

My understanding is the Pacers tried to make that trade (not sure if it was summer of '03 or '04) but the Raptors said no

sweabs
04-17-2008, 10:41 AM
My understanding is the Pacers tried to make that trade (not sure if it was summer of '03 or '04) but the Raptors said no
I am almost certain they were trying to do that trade a year later (in '04). By then, it was too late. Bosh had started to blossom into the player he is today, and everyone and their Grandma knew he would turn into a real good player. I was hoping for more of the Dale Davis/JO type of trade (getting the guy before he blossoms and shows signs of excellence).

I think they could have done it in '03. Don't you?

Shade
04-17-2008, 10:41 AM
:kravitz: continues to show his ignorance.

rexnom
04-17-2008, 10:42 AM
They should have traded him last summer. His value will never be that high again (well, I guess it will be high in a year to a team that wants a large contract coming off the books).
Very true. JO was a legitimate all-star last year. Not trading him this off-season was one of the biggest mistakes we've made in recent years. And for this franchise, that's saying a lot.

RomanGabriel
04-17-2008, 10:58 AM
[quote=Unclebuck;700092]

Trading JO this off season would probably be the worst move the Pacers have ever made. Jo's trade value has never and will never be lower than this summer. He has two years left on his deal, so starting around the trade deadline (next February)his trade value increases slightly, and then next summer it increases by the day, and continues to increase each day during the following regular season. (and of course there is always the long shot that perhaps JO can stay a little healthier next season and that will also increase his trade value) The fact of the matter is that JO's trade value will never be any lower than it is right now.

I agree completely. Folks like Kravitz are being extremely simplistic and ignorant when they basically say they want to close their eyes and magically make JO and Tinsley disappear, damn the consequences. To trade JO when his trade value is at its nadir could have devastating effects that would take years to recover from. Also, people keep forgetting that the man is 29 years old, not 39.

BillS
04-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Very true. JO was a legitimate all-star last year. Not trading him this off-season was one of the biggest mistakes we've made in recent years. And for this franchise, that's saying a lot.

Yeah, gee, every successful franchise got there by trading their legitimate all-stars. How could we have missed that opportunity?

MyFavMartin
04-17-2008, 11:25 AM
I agree completely. Folks like Kravitz are being extremely simplistic and ignorant when they basically say they want to close their eyes and magically make JO and Tinsley disappear, damn the consequences. To trade JO when his trade value is at its nadir could have devastating effects that would take years to recover from. Also, people keep forgetting that the man is 29 years old, not 39.

Ditto.

Hold on to JO for a good offer. His value increases as his contract nears expiration. Bosh and Lebron expire at the same time as JO. Who wants 09-10 capspace?

NapTonius Monk
04-17-2008, 11:32 AM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

Croz man, you can drop this Trade Granger thing. It will not happen. He's the one thing that's right about this organization. We have other good young pieces to sweeten a deal, but Danny ain't one of em. I understand what you're saying, but trading Danny would probably be the benchmark for stupid moves by The Big LB.

Shade
04-17-2008, 11:37 AM
Ditto.

Hold on to JO for a good offer. His value increases as his contract nears expiration. Bosh and Lebron expire at the same time as JO. Who wants 09-10 capspace?

Agreed 100%.

It's gonna take us a few years to rebuild anyhow. That max contract could go a long way to helping accomplish the task.

mildlysane
04-17-2008, 11:43 AM
Honestly, I do not see the reason for freeing up cap-space. It isn't like any top notch free agent is going to come to Indy. Never have never will. I say keep JO. Our team seemed to play a little better with him in the lineup this last time.

Swingman
04-17-2008, 11:54 AM
Honestly, I do not see the reason for freeing up cap-space. It isn't like any top notch free agent is going to come to Indy. Never have never will. I say keep JO. Our team seemed to play a little better with him in the lineup this last time.

I think the plan would be to trade JO to a team that wants the cap space. The offers for JO should increase in value when JO has an expiring contract.

Naptown_Seth
04-17-2008, 12:05 PM
Byron Scott, not a top notch FA. Yep, that's what they said at the time.


I totally agree with Buck, separate from my enjoyment of JO's A game (not always around lately I'll admit) but instead in the "gotta deal him, what's the best way to do it" mode.

His value is at a low point. The team doesn't have a lot of options for filling up the roster with talent just yet, so why not make moving him one of the FINAL steps instead of step 1 when it's not a good time to do it?

Might as well paint the walls right before you start redoing the wiring and plumbing. Herb needs to be smart about this and fix things that are most ready to be fixed and save the other jobs for when the timing is better.

Naptown_Seth
04-17-2008, 12:09 PM
BTW, you know who gave Bob the idea to deal for Marbury? Wells. Listen to their radio show and you quickly realize that Bob's not very NBA-aware.

IIRC last week he was all confused about who Lowry was and kept getting his name wrong. So how can you trust his opinions on what this NBA team should do when he doesn't even know what any other NBA teams are doing?


And cutting/buying out Tinsley is an idiot move or one done with an overwhelming sense of pure desperation. Is Tinsley about to murder Granger or rob a bank? If not then cool it on the buyout, you get jack squat from it but will take the financial hit, a great lose-lose situation. Losing on a trade in terms of talent or financials is okay if it's within reason, but a buyout is the worst level of trade loss.

ABADays
04-17-2008, 12:59 PM
There is no question in my mind that both Tinsley and JO would have been traded after last season if a deal could have been struck. They couldn't come up with one because of Tinsley's "attitude" tag and JO's "injury prone" tag. Now we are in a situation where one scenario is as bad as the other - no upside to be found.

In the myriad of comments, someone mentioned JO's max contract. I will never waiver from the fact this was a mistake. He may have been the closest thing the Pacers had to a max player but comparatively speaking Jermaine is not nor has he ever been a max player.

grace
04-17-2008, 02:19 PM
:kravitz: continues to show his ignorance.

Yet people keep agreeing with him. :crazy:

grace
04-17-2008, 02:22 PM
Ditto.

Hold on to JO for a good offer. His value increases as his contract nears expiration. Bosh and Lebron expire at the same time as JO. Who wants 09-10 capspace?


There is no way in hell that Lebron will play for the Pacers.

CableKC
04-17-2008, 02:24 PM
"I think at the small forward and two guard, we're pretty well set with Danny (Granger), Shawne (Williams) and Mike (Dunleavy),'' Bird said. "Any time you go into the draft, you look for point guards and you look for big guys. It's according to what's going to be there. If there's a point guard we really like, we have to look at him. But if there's a big man there, you always like the bigs.

"At the four position we could use another guy. We've got a lot of holes to fill.''
Man....unless Bird thinks that Westbrook can run the point....then that means that we're gonna draft either Augustine or Collison ( assuming that Love is gone ) :banghead:

CableKC
04-17-2008, 02:30 PM
Seriously, can anyone discuss knowledgeably what a buyout of Tinsley might cost, what benefits to the team would balance the straight-up loss, and so forth? I'm assuming they'd pay less than the full amount owed, but that it would still be an awesome chunk of money coming out of Herb's pocket.
If the Simons buy out Tinsley....I would think that the difference is that the Simons pay him a couple of mil less then he is owed, he won't be sitting at the end of the bench in his suit but will still show up in our Salary cap for years to come.

Honestly....given the likely financial situation that we are in now....I don't see how the Simons can afford to throw money at Tinsley just to see him gone. Teams that are bulging with Revenue can do that....but small market teams like the Pacers can't afford to pay to have him leave.

d_c
04-17-2008, 02:32 PM
Man....unless Bird thinks that Westbrook can run the point....then that means that we're gonna draft either Augustine or Collison ( assuming that Love is gone ) :banghead:

If Westbrook's ever able to run the point (which I doubt), it'll be several, several years.

Augustin wouldn't be a bad pick. In fact I think a lot of people would be pretty satisfied simply because he'd be an upgrade over Travis Diener and Flip Murray. Of course those sentiments would change when people realize his upside is Jameer Nelson and not Chris Paul. Then people would be scrutinzing all his weaknesses and demanding the Pacers draft another PG a couple years later because they want Chris Paul.

The Pacers just need more talent. Just take the most talented player available.

If Westbrook is available at #11, he would be an excellent pick that Pacer fans should be really happy with.

Suaveness
04-17-2008, 02:33 PM
Trading Jermaine would not be smart, as others have mentioned. Plus, this team plays much better with him in the lineup. Give him 20-25 min a game. Maybe he won't get hurt that way, and we can play him the whole year.

NuffSaid
04-17-2008, 02:41 PM
I also agree with UB. Let's take a realistic view at trading JO:

1. Where would he go? You certainly don't want to trade him to a EC team, and if you do it would be foolish to trade him to a contender (in this case any team that made the playoffs in my book is a contender). So, the first place you look is at non-playoff teams, but you start first out on the WC. Seattle, Memphis and the Clippers would be ideal until you start to consider the financial dealings. That's when things become alittle bit more tricky.

2. At what cost to both sides? Staying with the Clippers, Sonics and Grizzlies as examples, it's difficult to image finding a win-win scenario for either side. The Clippers might be the only negotiator considering the other two teams are clearly in the rebuilding phase. As such, it's difficult for me to conceive that they'd actually give up so many of their young "up-and-coming" pieces for an 11 yr vet. But here's the rub: These young teams need veteran leadership. So, one might be willing to take a chance on JO, but like Bird said you have to have a willing partner on the other end in order to make a trade work. And I really don't see many teams trying to absorb JO's $42M price tag by themselves which means you've got to include another team or two in the mix - very hard to do, but not impossible if one side is very willing to concede that they are truly going to rebuild.

3. That "willingness to rebuild" has to also be part of the Pacers mindset. Even with the Lakers/Grizzlies blockbuster trade, the Grizzlies didn't just give up one guy nor did the Lakers. However, as stated in paragraph #2 above, somebody was willing to give up a lot for a little in return all - for the sake of rebuilding. Are the Pacers willing to do that? Answer: NO! And frankly, I don't blame them.

Here's the truth of it: Bird may be tired of holding on to JO in the hopes that he becomes that player who can put his team on his shoulders and carry them to victory, but I get the sense that neither coach O'Brien nor Herb Simon shares his view. Coach has stated from the beginning that he sees JO as "the anchor of the defense". He showed his ability to do that in the limited time he returned to the court. Now, imagine if the focus for JO shifted from "can he be a 20/10 player" to "how many blocks, deflections, altered shots can he get per game" that go along with 10-15 ppg? In other words, would Bird be willing to settle for a JO who scores fewer points for a JO who is able to decrease an opponents points in the paint?

I will go on record and say this: "ANYONE who viewed JO as the type of player who could put his team on his shoulders and carry them to victory were fooling themselves. Don't misunderstand me, however. JO, hobbling or not, is still very effective. You just have to rethink how to use him. After all, basketball is and always shall be a Guard oriented game. Very few big men have changed the game so radically that they were able to single-handedly (or with alittle help from a teammate or two) lead his team to championship glory: Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson, Shaq, David Robinson. So, to think that somehow JO or any Center or PF will be able to do it in today's era of the game is simply ridiculous! IMO, in order for the Pacers to move forward they have to rethink who will make up their core group of players and start building around that core. Coach O'Brien has mentioned that core as: Danny Granger, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy, Jeff Foster and Jermaine Oneal. You now have to "identify" a PG and a 6th Man along with one other player to make up your top 8. Everyone from 9 down are expendable and should come in as "servicable role players" to complement the top 8. As for JO's future with the team, at this point it's more in his hands than Birds'.

We all know he can opt out this year. His "willingness to leave" will be based on how much he's made to feel welcomed from management as a Pacers not just for the next year or two but beyond. Think that through for a minute...

Bird sees reason to trade him; CEO Herb seems very willing to retain him; coach O'Brien sees where he can fit in with the team, but like Bird wants to know if he can be a dependable body out on the court. It's up to JO, but if he's not encouraged to stay I'm convinced he'll allow a trade to take place. Now, that's not saying "feed his ego". On the contrary. Nobody wants to be somewhere where he's not wanted. I believe JO wants to remain a Pacer. When he returned to the court I heard nothing but screaming fans who were happy to see him play again. I've never heard JO speak negatively against the team or the city of Indianapolis. If anything, he has chose his words carefully when discussing Bird. Thus, if he feels that Bird's commitment to him isn't as strong as his committment to the team, you can rest assured he'll be willing to leave. Hence, the reason I was glad to hear Herb Simon step up in support of retaining JO during the management level press conference.

Bottom Line: Unless he's convinced that he's no longer needed or welcomed, JO will stay if HE wants to stay. He won't be traded easily because not many teams will be able to take on his contract by themselves. In order for JO to be effective next year, the coaching staff will have to change their focus from a dominate offensive JO to a dominate defensive JO. But just as important, JO will have to return in the best condition of his life and prove his durability. If he sits for something as minor as a paper cut...

'Nuff Said.

CableKC
04-17-2008, 02:46 PM
There is no way in hell that Lebron will play for the Pacers.
I think that he is saying that teams will be more interested in acquiring a player like JONeal that has a huge Contract that expires the season before Lebron/Bosh/Wade becomes UFAs.

CableKC
04-17-2008, 02:52 PM
If Westbrook's ever able to run the point (which I doubt), it'll be several, several years.

Augustin wouldn't be a bad pick. In fact I think a lot of people would be pretty satisfied simply because he'd be an upgrade over Travis Diener and Flip Murray. Of course those sentiments would change when people realize his upside is Jameer Nelson and not Chris Paul. Then people would be scrutinzing all his weaknesses and demanding the Pacers draft another PG a couple years later because they want Chris Paul.

The Pacers just need more talent. Just take the most talented player available.

If Westbrook is available at #11, he would be an excellent pick that Pacer fans should be really happy with.
Since I don't think that Tinsley is going anywhere soon.....I don't mind having having Westbrook as our SG playing behind Granger/Shawne/Dunleavy in the SG/SF rotation with a secondary role as a 3rd option PG playing behind Tinsley and Diener ( when necessary ).

I don't want to gamble in this draft....cuz as you said...we need talent....but if Bird really thinks that we need to draft a Big Man or PG....I would much rather draft Love ( who will probably be gone ) as a Big Man or Westbrook over Augustine/Collison.

But who knows.....Bird will probably chase another Big Man like Marreese Speights, DeAndre Jordon or JaVale McGee.

Peck
04-17-2008, 03:02 PM
Before I agree with U.B.'s comment regarding J.O. I want two assurances.

1. Under no circumstance are we to build the team in any fashion around J.O., his day's of being top dog are over.

2. He is willing to not be the top dog over a season. It has been said that J.O. went to Danny and told him this was his team now, but J.O. did this at a time he knew he would not be back and when he came back he would be way out of shape.

So assuming, and believe me this is takes the kind of faith that you would have in the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot, that he comes back and is healthy all season long is he going to accept rebounding, defending and scoring when needed as his job title.

So far I'm not convinced considering I actually heard him say the other day he is going to come back next year and dominate. Now you can interperate that any way you like, but I've heard J.O. enough over the years to believe that that means I am going to be the M.V.P.

If that is the case, then no I don't agree.

However if the case is that he is willing to do the rebounding, shot blocking, post defense and score in double figures a game. Well then I am willing to rethink my entire stance on J.O.

But history is not on his side here, IMO.

McKeyFan
04-17-2008, 03:08 PM
Since I don't think that Tinsley is going anywhere soon.....I don't mind having having Westbrook as our SG playing behind Granger/Shawne/Dunleavy in the SG/SF rotation with a secondary role as a 3rd option PG playing behind Tinsley and Diener ( when necessary ).


If Tinsley is here and playing next year, I may possibly drop off as a Pacer fan.

I think Kravitz is touching correctly on a very exposed nerve in Pacerland. Last year, it was only the possibility of JOB reforming JT that kept me around. As expected, a proper dose of accountability from JOB led to our current scenario.

If he finds his way back on the court, it means Pacer management has learned no lesssons and that JOB's no-nonsense style is a pile of crap.

The consequences of not moving JT are more than financial. And the finances lost are greater than just his salary. Hopefully this summer they will finally get it.

Speed
04-17-2008, 03:10 PM
Nuff said:

I see your point. I'll add, I don't want them to unload JO because Bird doesn't like him, because he was mad about Isiah.

It's kind of about managing expectations. If I see him as Mutombo and by some miracle he plays 78 games next year then I like having JO. Not at that price, granted, but it is what it is.

I'd rather have a defensive lane prescence and bide my time to get a palatable deal than to make a bad deal.

UB is right about the expiring contract being his value point. I still see the possibility of a JO to Dallas or a JO to Phoenix for some expiring contracts and a few late first round picks. Maybe this offseason, that would be enough to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

One of Bird's problem is he doesn't like to do the dance and I like him for it, but its counter productive for a guy in his position.

Instead of eluding to moving him for the last two years, he should be pimping him for defensive player of the year and say what awful darned luck its been that he's been so injured.

This serves two purposes. It sends the signal to the league that JO has tons of value to the Pacers and he should to you too. Secondly, it lets JO know were his focus is or should be. JO says ya thats right, I am a top 3 shot blocker in the league.

Perception creeps towards reality, but Bird can't or won't roll that way.

It always reminds me of a mini version of Chapelles show "When keeping it real, goes wrong" or whatever it is called.

MyFavMartin
04-17-2008, 03:18 PM
I think that he is saying that teams will be more interested in acquiring a player like JONeal that has a huge Contract that expires the season before Lebron/Bosh/Wade becomes UFAs.

Correct.

I know hoopshype has some incorrect info, but some of these guys who become FAs have the option of opting out a year earlier - the same time JO's contract comes off the books.

Hence, a team like NY might be very interested in JO's contract.

Easy fixes right now could be Daniels, Harrison, and possibly Williams. Tinsley will require some creativity and convincing. The guy has talent though and a team that doesn't mind attitude or could overlook it like Denver could be interested.

croz24
04-17-2008, 03:28 PM
Croz man, you can drop this Trade Granger thing. It will not happen. He's the one thing that's right about this organization. We have other good young pieces to sweeten a deal, but Danny ain't one of em. I understand what you're saying, but trading Danny would probably be the benchmark for stupid moves by The Big LB.

i won't drop it because granger is the ONLY player we have worth a damn, and even then i view most of his production as a product of how bad we are as a team and the volume of shots he receives. i do not trust this organization to ever get us a top 5 pick in the nba draft, or at least not for another 10+yrs. people need to realize that one, granger is not as good as his production insists, and we will find ourselves vastly overpaying somebody who is NOT a franchise player. and two, that teams win championships with top 5 picks. that is a fact that can not be disputed. keeping danny granger maintains our mediocrity, especially at his age. at 25, granger has 5-6 peak years left. i don't think the pacers will be a contender in 5-6 years so what's the point? if you can trade granger straight up for a top 5 pick (not many busts 1-5) you have to do it imo. i'm tired of mediocrity and keeping granger will further that...

Unclebuck
04-17-2008, 03:32 PM
Before I agree with U.B.'s comment regarding J.O. I want two assurances.

1. Under no circumstance are we to build the team in any fashion around J.O., his day's of being top dog are over.

2. He is willing to not be the top dog over a season. It has been said that J.O. went to Danny and told him this was his team now, but J.O. did this at a time he knew he would not be back and when he came back he would be way out of shape.

So assuming, and believe me this is takes the kind of faith that you would have in the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot, that he comes back and is healthy all season long is he going to accept rebounding, defending and scoring when needed as his job title.

So far I'm not convinced considering I actually heard him say the other day he is going to come back next year and dominate. Now you can interperate that any way you like, but I've heard J.O. enough over the years to believe that that means I am going to be the M.V.P.

If that is the case, then no I don't agree.

However if the case is that he is willing to do the rebounding, shot blocking, post defense and score in double figures a game. Well then I am willing to rethink my entire stance on J.O.

But history is not on his side here, IMO.

He cannot and will not stay healthy - sure he might play a few more games next season - and he might look a lot healthier while he's playing, but he is incapable of staying healthy for more than about 15-20 straight games.

If JO is used like he was the past 9 or 10 games, and is able to play 30 minutes per game - the Pacers team could really benefit. (Pacers defense is much, much better when he's on the court) JO came into the NBA has a shotblocker, defender, rebounder - no one ever figured his offensive game would ever amount to much.

You might say well he'll never accept that type of role now - well he may not have any choice. I would love for him to average around 14-15 points a game - but more importantly than that - his shooting % must be over 45%.

I was just listening to Kravitz, and I think he said there is a 99.99% chance that JO is not on the Pacers next season. (My guess is Wells is feeding him this info - I'm sure Wells would never steer him wrong)

duke dynamite
04-17-2008, 03:33 PM
We will not get any player comparable in return to Danny's numbers if we trade him.

I disbelieve that Danny shouldn't be considered one of our main building blocks.

You've got to be out of your effin mind that Granger needs to be traded.

duke dynamite
04-17-2008, 03:42 PM
I was just listening to Kravitz, and I think he said there is a 99.99% chance that JO is not on the Pacers next season. (My guess is Wells is feeding him this info - I'm sure Wells would never steer him wrong)
That's just Kravitz being Kravitz. He obviously doesn't know what is right for this team. He is an over-opinionated columnist who always tried to put his underinformed two cents in.

In regards to JO, I have no problem with him being a pure defensive player. Putting up decent numbers in rebounds, blocked shots and so-on-so-fourth, would and is highly beneficial to this team. I think with more rest this summer, he can become that defensive spark we need. (I honestly agree with you, Buck, that it would be a big mistake letting go or trading O'Neal.) That spark just needs to be complimented with some "hard-nosed defense" from Danny and Mike. (Mike especially)

I hope this offseason Dun Dun can find his defensive touch. He shown us that his offense is worth the money we are paying him this season, and I look to see him become a lot smarter on the D side of things.

Now back onto Jermaine...

Today, LB will or should have sat with JO for the final team's player meetings. On Kevin Lee's radio show last night he said that the main topic of discussion between JO and Bird is whether or not he wants to remain with the team.

This offseason will be a wild one. Moving and shaking is always exciting, but I expect to see JO remain with the team for at least this next season, who knows how long after that...

Mourning
04-17-2008, 03:42 PM
Byron Scott, not a top notch FA. Yep, that's what they said at the time.


I totally agree with Buck, separate from my enjoyment of JO's A game (not always around lately I'll admit) but instead in the "gotta deal him, what's the best way to do it" mode.

His value is at a low point. The team doesn't have a lot of options for filling up the roster with talent just yet, so why not make moving him one of the FINAL steps instead of step 1 when it's not a good time to do it?

Might as well paint the walls right before you start redoing the wiring and plumbing.

Aggreed 100%. I was for trading him two years ago and last year, but trading him now would definitely be a mistake IMO.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

tdubb03
04-17-2008, 03:42 PM
In the post-game the other night Danny said something like "next year, I'm not sure what JO's going to do...but if he's..." then sort of stopped himself. It's not an exact quote. Is it really possible that JO could simply opt out, or am I over-analyzing?

duke dynamite
04-17-2008, 03:46 PM
In the post-game the other night Danny said something like "next year, I'm not sure what JO's going to do...but if he's..." then sort of stopped himself. It's not an exact quote. Is it really possible that JO could simply opt out, or am I over-analyzing?
This isn't against Danny or anything, but I would think that the only person(s) who really know what Jermaine has in mind is himself and/or Larry.

I wouldn't try to over-anaylize this quote. Granger seems to be a pretty honest guy, but I don't think he knows what JO is going to do. IMO, he saying that was more or less of a filler answer to a question he has no business addressing.

Young
04-17-2008, 03:50 PM
I think it would be nice to deal Jermaine. However that is much easier said than done. I would just rather keep Jermaine then deal him for Vince Carter. If that rumor turns out to be true and we make that swap that will be making a trade for the sake of making a trade. Awful deal.

I feel that are best chance to deal Jermaine was to the Lakers. However with Bynum developing and the Lakers getting Gasol we have no chance to deal him there.

Forget about value for a second, what teams even have legit interest in Jermaine at this point? Maybe the Bulls but that is kind of iffy. Is there really any team out that would have legit interest in Jermaine considering his salary and health concerns?

I like Jermaine and see use for him if healthy. Jamaal on the other hand no no. He has to go. But IDK he will also be difficult to move.

I'd be happy if Jermaine, Jamaal, amd Marquis can all be moved. However I have this funny feeling that it won't happen. That our biggest addition will be whoever we draft and our biggest subtraction will be David Harrison or Flip Murray.

BoomBaby31
04-17-2008, 03:54 PM
It's April 17th and we already have a "summer thread", hold on while I load my gun. :suicide:

OnlyPacersLeft
04-17-2008, 03:56 PM
jo's trade value has become lower and lower each season we have kept him on this team...the pacers need to trade granger pre-draft, which in turn would make trading jo much easier because it would then reduce our asking price after having received our 'prospect(s)' via the granger trade...

trade granger? are you nuts? and trading guys cause they are injury prone is so horrible...tinsley was having a fantastic season before he got hurt...and i'm sure it wasn't all his decision to play. We needed him because we couldn't have diener running the pg with no one backing him up before flip got here...JO out the door? we hear it ever year. Just another sour grapes writer trying to stir up trouble...w/e

croz24
04-17-2008, 04:01 PM
trade granger? are you nuts? and trading guys cause they are injury prone is so horrible...tinsley was having a fantastic season before he got hurt...and i'm sure it wasn't all his decision to play. We needed him because we couldn't have diener running the pg with no one backing him up before flip got here...JO out the door? we hear it ever year. Just another sour grapes writer trying to stir up trouble...w/e

same post i made on the 2nd page...i want a championship. anything else is a failure in my eyes...

i won't drop it because granger is the ONLY player we have worth a damn, and even then i view most of his production as a product of how bad we are as a team and the volume of shots he receives. i do not trust this organization to ever get us a top 5 pick in the nba draft, or at least not for another 10+yrs. people need to realize that one, granger is not as good as his production insists, and we will find ourselves vastly overpaying somebody who is NOT a franchise player. and two, that teams win championships with top 5 picks. that is a fact that can not be disputed. keeping danny granger maintains our mediocrity, especially at his age. at 25, granger has 5-6 peak years left. i don't think the pacers will be a contender in 5-6 years so what's the point? if you can trade granger straight up for a top 5 pick (not many busts 1-5) you have to do it imo. i'm tired of mediocrity and keeping granger will further that...

Mourning
04-17-2008, 04:04 PM
It's April 17th and we already have a "summer thread", hold on while I load my gun. :suicide:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Mourning
04-17-2008, 04:06 PM
I'd be happy if Jermaine, Jamaal, amd Marquis can all be moved. However I have this funny feeling that it won't happen. That our biggest addition will be whoever we draft and our biggest subtraction will be David Harrison or Flip Murray.

Ah, so you mean the samething that happenned as last summer?








;)

clownskull
04-17-2008, 04:52 PM
i agree with ub and several others. trading jo now is a huge mistake. his value is as low as it's gonna get really. every day that contract goes, the greater his value. we don't really have all that much longer to go and i don't think trying to move him for 40-50 cents on the dollar is at all a good move.
trading granger is also a huge mistake unless we were to get some seriously sweet offer. nobody should be untradeable but, the price has got to be pretty damn good or else it is just spinning your wheels or even moving backwards.

grace
04-17-2008, 05:53 PM
I was just listening to Kravitz, and I think he said there is a 99.99% chance that JO is not on the Pacers next season.

Of course there's a chance. There's a chance Granger might be traded too. The more :kravitz: says JO is leaving the more I think he's staying.

Justin Tyme
04-17-2008, 06:15 PM
Our team seemed to play a little better with him in the lineup this last time.


Yeah, but 20 plus million worth better?


It would be great if JO could come back healthy, but the odds on that aren't great. Trading JO is the best thing, as long as it's not for junk and bad contracts. The Pacers are rebuilding, and JO has no place in the rebuilding other than help get players who can help.

maragin
04-17-2008, 07:16 PM
The problem I see is there are plenty of people saying "Don't trade JO" and "Don't trade Granger" without any qualifiers on it. Any player on our roster should be movable for the right price. Bad deals are made every year, and it is quite possible that we could fleece someone.

I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't trade Granger unless we get value plus markup. Although offers of that sort seem far-fetched, he's not untouchable. I know plenty of people that would trade Granger if it got us the #2 pick in the draft (See the words "far-fetched" in the previous sentence).

We're a bad basketball team. In the summer heat, behind closed doors, we should be willing to listen to any deal.

To another note: While I normally agree with Nuff Said, I disagree that we couldn't trade JO to an EC team, or a division rival. I'd happily play against a team that would be sporting him 50/82 with the turn around clanks. I'd gladly trade him to a contender where he'd flourish if it helped our team not suck. No reason why we can't both benefit.

Roaming Gnome
04-17-2008, 07:25 PM
Before I agree with U.B.'s comment regarding J.O. I want two assurances.

1. Under no circumstance are we to build the team in any fashion around J.O., his day's of being top dog are over.

2. He is willing to not be the top dog over a season. It has been said that J.O. went to Danny and told him this was his team now, but J.O. did this at a time he knew he would not be back and when he came back he would be way out of shape.

So assuming, and believe me this is takes the kind of faith that you would have in the Loch Ness Monster or Big Foot, that he comes back and is healthy all season long is he going to accept rebounding, defending and scoring when needed as his job title.

So far I'm not convinced considering I actually heard him say the other day he is going to come back next year and dominate. Now you can interperate that any way you like, but I've heard J.O. enough over the years to believe that that means I am going to be the M.V.P.

If that is the case, then no I don't agree.

However if the case is that he is willing to do the rebounding, shot blocking, post defense and score in double figures a game. Well then I am willing to rethink my entire stance on J.O.

But history is not on his side here, IMO.

As much as I want to, it is hard to defy your logic. My concern isn't sole Jermaine thinking he is the man.... My concern is this coaching staff or mngmt acting like Jermaine should be more then the defensive post we're looking for.

In the end though, I'd still rather hold onto O'neal another year before really looking to make a deal. Once we get into that final year of his deal, it wouldn't matter if he was hurt and didn't play at all, his value would be strictly as an expiring contract. A very very large expiring contract that isn't tied to J.O.'s ability or lack there of.

NapTonius Monk
04-17-2008, 10:10 PM
i won't drop it because granger is the ONLY player we have worth a damn, and even then i view most of his production as a product of how bad we are as a team and the volume of shots he receives. i do not trust this organization to ever get us a top 5 pick in the nba draft, or at least not for another 10+yrs. people need to realize that one, granger is not as good as his production insists, and we will find ourselves vastly overpaying somebody who is NOT a franchise player. and two, that teams win championships with top 5 picks. that is a fact that can not be disputed. keeping danny granger maintains our mediocrity, especially at his age. at 25, granger has 5-6 peak years left. i don't think the pacers will be a contender in 5-6 years so what's the point? if you can trade granger straight up for a top 5 pick (not many busts 1-5) you have to do it imo. i'm tired of mediocrity and keeping granger will further that...

Seriously? You're starting the shot clock on Danny's peak, two years into his career? I disagree with your position, as do many GM's around the league, I'm sure. I think Danny Granger is every bit as good as his production suggests, and he will only get better. You never know what can happen in the NBA (note several Isaiah Thomas moves), but I'd say Danny Granger being a Pacer next year is as sure a bet as you can make as far as this team is concerned.

D-BONE
04-17-2008, 10:28 PM
He cannot and will not stay healthy - sure he might play a few more games next season - and he might look a lot healthier while he's playing, but he is incapable of staying healthy for more than about 15-20 straight games.

If JO is used like he was the past 9 or 10 games, and is able to play 30 minutes per game - the Pacers team could really benefit. (Pacers defense is much, much better when he's on the court) JO came into the NBA has a shotblocker, defender, rebounder - no one ever figured his offensive game would ever amount to much.

You might say well he'll never accept that type of role now - well he may not have any choice. I would love for him to average around 14-15 points a game - but more importantly than that - his shooting % must be over 45%.

I was just listening to Kravitz, and I think he said there is a 99.99% chance that JO is not on the Pacers next season. (My guess is Wells is feeding him this info - I'm sure Wells would never steer him wrong)

Man, there are a lot of ifs in all this. And you're basically admitting he's going to miss significant time. I'd agree with a HEALTHY JO (basically an oximoron at this point) who accepts a defensive/rebounding role (rebounding that he basically seemingly gets weaker at with each passing injury-shortened season) and is content to score 12-14 pts/game.

Unless he can recoup some of his pre-physical breakdown athleticism, he's little more than a shot blocker and lane clogger, which has it's place, but he's not even elite at that role at this point.

I have no problems cutting ties with him if we get something halfway decent, whatever that means. The JO'B show thread has speculation that VC may still be in the mix. Kind of hard to believe NJ would even consider that for JO right now. But if they did I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 01:21 AM
I have no problems cutting ties with him if we get something halfway decent, whatever that means. The JO'B show thread has speculation that VC may still be in the mix. Kind of hard to believe NJ would even consider that for JO right now. But if they did I'd do it in a heartbeat.


JO to NJ keeps popping up because NJ wants JO because his contract expires when Labron's does.

One of the ESPN guys was asked the question of who would be the front runner for Labron if he leaves Cleveland, New York or New Jersey, and he said NJ was way in front.

However, being front runners does them no good if they can't get far enough under the cap to sign Labron. JO would be an easy ticket.

BillS
04-18-2008, 10:48 AM
We all know he can opt out this year. His "willingness to leave" will be based on how much he's made to feel welcomed from management as a Pacers not just for the next year or two but beyond. Think that through for a minute...

His "willingness to leave" will be based on whether anyone will match his salary given his injury history. In other words, I don't think I'd worry about it even if management completely snubbed him.

His "willingness to be a team player while waiting for his next contract" is a whole 'nother story, and making him feel wanted at some level might keep him at least partly motivated.

Putnam
04-18-2008, 11:15 AM
JO to NJ keeps popping up because NJ wants JO because his contract expires when Labron's does.

One of the ESPN guys was asked the question of who would be the front runner for Labron if he leaves Cleveland, New York or New Jersey, and he said NJ was way in front.

However, being front runners does them no good if they can't get far enough under the cap to sign Labron. JO would be an easy ticket.


Great insight, Will Galen.


It just puzzles me how a guy with as much knowledge, insider information and acuity could have been so far off with his prediction.

Rajah Brown
04-18-2008, 11:32 AM
As far as NJ is concerned and vis-a-vis their apparent desire for
J.O.'s contract in preparation to sign LBJ in a couple years, any
deal discussion with them should start with Devin Harris. Period.

If Harris isn't part of the deal, I wouldn't waste 10 seconds
talking to them any further.

Speed
04-18-2008, 11:37 AM
As far as NJ is concerned and vis-a-vis their apparent desire for
J.O.'s contract in preparation to sign LBJ in a couple years, any
deal discussion with them should start with Devin Harris. Period.

If Harris isn't part of the deal, I wouldn't waste 10 seconds
talking to them any further.

I completely agree! That would be an impactful deal, but they'd never do it.

NuffSaid
04-23-2008, 02:26 PM
JO to NJ keeps popping up because NJ wants JO because his contract expires when Labron's does.

One of the ESPN guys was asked the question of who would be the front runner for Labron if he leaves Cleveland, New York or New Jersey, and he said NJ was way in front.

However, being front runners does them no good if they can't get far enough under the cap to sign Labron. JO would be an easy ticket.
Looks like Vinsanity's ankle surgery (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3363510) will qual the "JO-for-Carter" rumors long before they can make a revival in the mainstream press.

Naptown_Seth
04-23-2008, 03:35 PM
Of course there's a chance. There's a chance Granger might be traded too. The more :kravitz: says JO is leaving the more I think he's staying.
I'm kinda enjoying their new show, but seriously Eddie is right to mock Bob's total confusion when it comes to all matters NBA. He didn't know why the Pacers would want "Kirk" Lowry...yes, even after being told his name. He is not the go-to for Pacers insight, and frankly I think most of his opinions are fueled by watercooler talks with Wells.

Mourning
04-23-2008, 04:08 PM
JO to NJ keeps popping up because NJ wants JO because his contract expires when Labron's does.

One of the ESPN guys was asked the question of who would be the front runner for Labron if he leaves Cleveland, New York or New Jersey, and he said NJ was way in front.

However, being front runners does them no good if they can't get far enough under the cap to sign Labron. JO would be an easy ticket.

Exactly! Which is why we have to waite dealing JO now, because an expiring contract his size or a sum of contracts that size isn't as easy to come by as it sounds, so JO's contract will only increase in worth to JO the closer the expiration of it comes and they haven't gotten even anywhere near to be able to sign James.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

CableKC
04-23-2008, 05:35 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3363510


Carter has surgery to remove bone spur from right ankle
Posted on ESPN.COM
Written by the Associated Press

Updated: April 23, 2008, 3:03 PM ET

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- New Jersey Nets guard Vince Carter had surgery to remove a bone spur from his right ankle on Wednesday.


Dr. Martin O'Malley performed the surgery in New York, Nets president Rod Thorn said.

Carter will be on crutches for several weeks, followed by rehabilitation. He is expected to be ready for training camp.

Carter played in 76 games this past season, averaging 21.3 points, 6.0 rebounds and 5.1 assists. He led the team in scoring 36 times, assists 21 times and rebounding 15 times.

The 10-year veteran was one of only three NBA players (Kobe Bryant, LeBron James) to average more than 20 points, six rebounds and five assists throughout the season.

The eight-time All-Star holds career averages of 23.8 points, 5.5 rebounds and 4.2 assists.
I still think it's a bad idea to trade for VC cuz I simply don't think that he can play at the level that we would need him to play on a regular and consistent basis. He maybe able to roll out of the hanger decks as "Air Canada" and put on a show once in awhile, but I don't think that he can play at that level we would need him to for extended periods of time.

You guys will have to tell me if this type of ankle surgery is a good or bad thing for a player that depends on his explosiveness, quickness and athleticsm to score, but I'm weary of pinning our hopes on VC. VC just turned 32 in January and will be 34 years old by the end of his contract ( assuming that we don't pick up his Team Option, which I doubt we or anyone will ). Given his age, I just have a feeling that this won't be the last of his surguries given the amount of pressure that he puts on his legs. I'm more concerned that VC would lose the explosiveness in his legs in the coming years ( if not sooner ) and we will be stuck with a shell of a player with a huge Contract that is immoveable ( not like we don't have one already ).

On top of that.....VC is owed about $4+ mil in guaranteed $$$ over JONeal.......if TPTB are desperate enough to go after VC...I hope that they can get something more for him.

NuffSaid
04-23-2008, 06:29 PM
CableKC,

The way I see it is it's a crap-shoot either way.

If you trade JO for VC straight-up under both player's current injury circumstances you've placed the team (Pacers) in the same "questional productivity" quandry you started with not to mention you're simply trading good defense for solid offense. And then there's the side of this equation no one has spoken of yet and that's the decreased development of Granger as the future leader of the team. And then there's the "trio" factor, i.e., would there be enough basketball to go around for three offensive-minded players (okay, it's really more like 2.5 since Granger does play better defense than both Dunleavy and VC)?

With VC you're sure to get athleticism, but not as much defense as you'd like from a Guard. He works very well in Zone defenses because players can rotate accordingly, but I'm not too keen on his 1-on-1 defense though like most aggressive players he will get a steal or two here or there. Overall, I'm concerned about the overall team chemistry with this potential acquisition not to mention the question of do the Pacers want to deal with yet another injured player? I mean, by the time he's able to play (as reported) it will most likely be very close to the start of training camp. You'd want to know that he IS 100% long before then I'd suspect not right before the season began.