PDA

View Full Version : JO for Stephon?



kbunch
04-18-2008, 05:24 PM
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52046/20080418/jermaine_a_possibilty_for_knicks/

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="8" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="wiretap_key_header">Jermaine A Possibilty For Knicks?</td> </tr> <tr> <td>April 18, 2008 - 5:14 pm</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://realgm.com/images/nba/4.2/profiles/photos/2006/ONeal_Jermaine_ind.jpgNew York Post -
Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal (http://www.realgm.com/src_playerfile/454/jermaine_oneal/) might be a short-term possibility for the Knicks this offseason, according to the New York Post.

Donnie Walsh would prefer that the Knicks became a playoff team while he works on clearing out cap space over the next two years, similar to the quick rebuilding job he did in Indiana after their Finals appearance in 2000.

The Pacers and Larry Bird might be willing to take on some expiring contracts, specifically Stephon Marbury (http://www.realgm.com/src_playerfile/252/stephon_marbury/), to cut costs in exchange for O'Neal. </td></tr></tbody></table>




How would you all feel about trading JO for a season of Stephon and having his expiring contract next year either to clear space or try to move and get some better pieces and or draft picks?

JayRedd
04-18-2008, 05:26 PM
I'll do it as long as we buy-out Steph the second he gets here and take the cap hit for one year.

ilive4sports
04-18-2008, 05:26 PM
Id rather keep JO for the extra year on his own contract.

Moses
04-18-2008, 05:29 PM
Id rather keep JO for the extra year on his own contract.
Same. If we could somehow dump Murph and Tinsley in the process though, I'd be all for it.

BPump33
04-18-2008, 05:34 PM
I'll do it as long as we buy-out Steph the second he gets here and take the cap hit for one year.

I definitely don't want anything to do with Marbury except his expiring contract. I guess the question becomes: Do we want to live with paying JO and hoping his trade value goes up (again) or would we rather get rid of him, take the cap hit and move on from there.

This is what sucks. We absolutely never know what we're going to get out of JO/Tinsley. The optimist in me wants to keep JO around and hope that this camp in Vegas this summer brings him back to the old JO, however the realist in me says that he will never be anywhere near the old JO again and we should just cut our ties. What to do, what to do.

TMJ31
04-18-2008, 05:35 PM
I don't like it at all... Getting rid of J.O. right now is a bad move for the Pacers. We need to see how he comes back next year with his injury situation. *IF* we chose to not go forward with J.O. past this next year-- we can do much better than Steph's expiring contract once JO only has 1 yr left instead of 2

mrknowname
04-18-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't like it at all... Getting rid of J.O. right now is a bad move for the Pacers. We need to see how he comes back next year with his injury situation. *IF* we chose to not go forward with J.O. past this next year-- we can do much better than Steph's expiring contract once JO only has 1 yr left instead of 2

same story every year for JO and tinsley. they're always injured and i really doubt they take conditioning seriously. i don't see anyreason it'd be different this offseason.

time to move JO and tinsley this summer

DrBadd01
04-18-2008, 05:45 PM
This just an observation, but doesn't JO have the ability to opt out this year?

Cactus Jax
04-18-2008, 05:52 PM
This just an observation, but doesn't JO have the ability to opt out this year?

He could but he'd be an idiot if he did.

TMJ31
04-18-2008, 05:56 PM
This just an observation, but doesn't JO have the ability to opt out this year?

Yes, he does... But from his point of view...

He is making over 20Million a year.
If he opts out he will be offered nowhere NEAR that from any team in their right mind.

So if he opts out he is taking a massive pay cut no matter who he signs with.

No way J.O. opts out.

aero
04-18-2008, 06:00 PM
JO and Tinsley for Stephon a couple fillers and a 2nd rounder or something like that would be cool with me

DrBadd01
04-18-2008, 06:01 PM
Yes, he does... But from his point of view...

He is making over 20Million a year.
If he opts out he will be offered nowhere NEAR that from any team in their right mind.

So if he opts out he is taking a massive pay cut no matter who he signs with.

No way J.O. opts out.


I can see the fiscal perspective. But He has been making 10+ million a year for the last little while. What if he wanted to go for the ring? He opts out and goes and signs with the Spurs, Lakers, or Celtics for the 5 million dollar exception.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 06:02 PM
I just read that article and was thinking about posting it.

The whole thing reads;
---------------
Walsh's other chief aim in the offseason is strengthening the team's interior defense, which means trading either Eddy Curry or Zach Randolph, both poor defenders and shot-blockers.

Indiana's oft-injured Jermaine O'Neal could be a short-term solution for Walsh, who wants to be playoff-caliber even during the two seasons he looks to clear cap space for the free-agent crop of 2010. O'Neal's contract expires in 2010 and the cost-cutting Pacers could be willing to take Marbury's expiring contract plus a young player, such as Wilson Chandler, to save money.
--------------

It's bad speculation by a columnist, nothing more. Why bad? Because the Pacers aren't taking on players with suspect character issues. They keep saying that over and over and over and it seems hardly anyone is listening.

Two, how would the Pacers save money by taking on the combined contracts of Marbury and Chandler? According to online sites, they make a combined $23m, whereas JO makes $21m next year. It would add almost $2m to their payroll.

And as for saving them money the next year that wouldn't happen either, the Pacers would just spend it elsewhere.

As to trading for Marbury and buying him out? The answer to that is Tinsley has a much cheaper contract and they haven't bought him out.

Finally, why would the Pacers want Chandler, he's a small forward, and we already have at least four players that play that position. The answer is they wouldn't.

Like I said this is just bad speculation! No chance in the Pacers doing this at all.

TMJ31
04-18-2008, 06:05 PM
I can see the fiscal perspective. But He has been making 10+ million a year for the last little while. What if he wanted to go for the ring? He opts out and goes and signs with the Spurs, Lakers, or Celtics for the 5 million dollar exception.

Yes, if he wants to go for a ring this would probably be his best chance to try to bail ship and latch on with a contender...

If he can convince another team that his health will be adequate to have him play 30+ minutes a game and make an impact.

Realistically in 2 years once he becomes an unrestricted FA if he does NOT opt out, he will certainly be on the decline by then more so than now.

So yes, you may have a point... it all depends on what J.O. wants more... money or a real shot at being on a contender...

I still think he stays a Pacer

Arcadian
04-18-2008, 06:09 PM
I'd rather keep JO and not sign him in two years if all were are getting is a player who I would hope we buy out.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 06:09 PM
I can see the fiscal perspective. But He has been making 10+ million a year for the last little while. What if he wanted to go for the ring? He opts out and goes and signs with the Spurs, Lakers, or Celtics for the 5 million dollar exception.

Ask yourself this, would you give up $44m to do something now that you can still do in two years?

He's not opting out.

DrBadd01
04-18-2008, 06:11 PM
Ask yourself this, would you give up $44m to do something now that you can still do in two years?

He's not opting out.

Depends on how badly I wanted it. Money isn't everything for me.

Infinite MAN_force
04-18-2008, 06:12 PM
There needs to be a sweetener to make this worthwhile. I would think it has to be either David Lee or a future 1st. Just straight up JO for Starbury is pointless, JO's contract is only one year longer. I personally am hoping NY lands beasley or rose and has enough hype centered around their pick to allow for fan-fave David Lee to be expendable.

For those whining about character issues, keep in mind the only logical thing I see happening here is Marbury being immediatly bought out and never even suiting up with the team. He is an expiring contract, nothing more.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 06:14 PM
Depends on how badly I wanted it. Money isn't everything for me.

Money isn't everything to a lot of people. But we are talking $44m, for waiting two years, when he will be 31 years old.

MyFavMartin
04-18-2008, 06:25 PM
Potential bidding war between NJ and NY Knicks for JO and his attractive expiring contract (09-10 for LeBron)?

What do you guys think of this happening?

1. NJ will offer VC and Hassell or Swift.

2. NY counters with a deal with Marbury. NY will have to throw in some young talent or draft picks to match the VC offer.

3. NJ counters with something similar and a trade of the other contract filler of Swift/Hassell and Marcus Williams for Tinsley and Ike.

4. NY counteroffers to take on Tinsley and Ike (or Williams?) for Jared Jeffries and their high pick?

Pacers end with a top ten lottery pick (NY or NJ), dump JT and JO, and keep their #11 pick.

Pacers draft Bayless at NY's pick. (Minny at #3 passes on Bayless for either Mayo or Lopez.)

Pacers trade back from #11 and pick their desired big of Speights, McGee, or Arthur. (Might consider CDR or Tyler Smith but will need some size.) Alternatively may consider picking up a third pick by trading someone like Foster for a middle 1st round pick.

It would be interesting to see how far this long list of bs would happen and what the Pacers would do with Vinsanity or Dunleavy at this point.

1. Bayless Diener
2. Vinsanity Daniels
3. Granger Dunleavy
4. Arthur? Murphy
5. Speights? Foster


Depending on how the lottery turns out, I would trade two top 11 picks (#4 or #5 and #11), for Derrick Rose (#2?) in a heartbeat.

1. Rose
2. Dunleavy
3. Granger
4. Murphy
5. Foster

Yes, it's Friday afternoon but no I've not been drinking. :D

MyFavMartin
04-18-2008, 06:33 PM
For those whining about character issues, keep in mind the only logical thing I see happening here is Marbury being immediatly bought out and never even suiting up with the team. He is an expiring contract, nothing more.


Starbury could be flipped into another player, especially at the trade deadline next February, when expiring contracts would be extremely attractive.

Rajah Brown
04-18-2008, 06:37 PM
IPacer-

No way on Vinsanity as part of any J.O. deal. When it comes to
NJ, I'd demand Harris or tell them to move along. As for NY and
Starbury, at this point, w/ only 2 yrs left on J.O.'s contract
anyway, I'd only do that deal if it included either the inclusion
of Tinsley and a swap of 1st round picks this year(assuming we
stay at #11 and they're at #5 or higher).

MyFavMartin
04-18-2008, 06:44 PM
IPacer-

No way on Vinsanity as part of any J.O. deal. When it comes to
NJ, I'd demand Harris or tell them to move along. As for NY and
Starbury, at this point, w/ only 2 yrs left on J.O.'s contract
anyway, I'd only do that deal if it included either the inclusion
of Tinsley and a swap of 1st round picks this year(assuming we
stay at #11 and they're at #5 or higher).



Okay. Harris and Richardson for JO? NJ won't do this unless we throw in some more talent. Harris and Richardson would have to be the offer to get the salaries to match unless one does Harris, Hassell and Swift, in which case Swift would have had to pick up his option and NJ would need to throw in a draft pick, probably the lower one, #21.

This though would still have us keeping Tinsley.

BlueNGold
04-18-2008, 07:27 PM
I have wanted to trade him for 3 or 4 years, but now I would hang onto him.

First, he will make being a Pacer fan a bit more bearable next year. Second, if we trade him for Marbury, that's simply a salary cut. It would be better to prop that knee up for the next year (which they are doing), avoid him getting reinjured, and wheel out his expiring contract. A year from now, we are far more likely to get a good return on talent and could do a block buster trade. By that time, we might also be in a better position to package up one of our 10 SF's. For example, Duns contract will be lighter. Williams may get a chance to show his talent. Etc.

Nah, I don't want Marbury. I can wait another year and at worst JO's knee completely blows out and we wait one more year. It will not be the end of the world at this point....not with a team in full rebuild mode ...so I think we have more to gain by hanging onto him for one more year.

I suppose that means JO will be traded this summer...

BlueNGold
04-18-2008, 07:30 PM
Money isn't everything to a lot of people. But we are talking $44m, for waiting two years, when he will be 31 years old.

Agreed. A very small percentage of people would opt out of that contract. ...particularly smart people (like JO) who know their body may not make a whole lot more money for them. Nah, JO is too smart to opt out. He knows the time is short and will ride it to the end at this point...

Rajah Brown
04-18-2008, 07:32 PM
I assume you mean Harris and Jefferson. Can't imagine they'd consider
that for a second. Harris, Hassel and Swift +filler (if need be, I think
the $$$ only have to match within 15% don't they ?) for J.O.
would be fine by me. I doubt they'd do that either though.

I agree with your premise though, getting NY and NJ into a bidding
war of a sort over J.O.'s contract would be the way to go. Of course,
with only about $42-45mil or so committed for the year Lebron would be
available (and that includes $10m-$12m for Harris), I'm not sure why
they'll need to clear cap room anyway. They can pay LBJ $25m a year
and still probably be under the cap ceiling at that point.

Taterhead
04-18-2008, 08:00 PM
I have wanted to trade him for 3 or 4 years, but now I would hang onto him.

First, he will make being a Pacer fan a bit more bearable next year. Second, if we trade him for Marbury, that's simply a salary cut. It would be better to prop that knee up for the next year (which they are doing), avoid him getting reinjured, and wheel out his expiring contract. A year from now, we are far more likely to get a good return on talent and could do a block buster trade. By that time, we might also be in a better position to package up one of our 10 SF's. For example, Duns contract will be lighter. Williams may get a chance to show his talent. Etc.

Nah, I don't want Marbury. I can wait another year and at worst JO's knee completely blows out and we wait one more year. It will not be the end of the world at this point....not with a team in full rebuild mode ...so I think we have more to gain by hanging onto him for one more year.

I suppose that means JO will be traded this summer...


I agree totally. There is little on the Knicks I would want and Marbury is the least of it. I'd rather keep JO and hope he can get healthy enough to be a force on the defnesive end and a solid post option. If he can't, you can still deal him next summer at a greater value.

QuickRelease
04-18-2008, 10:30 PM
http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52046/20080418/jermaine_a_possibilty_for_knicks/

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="8" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="wiretap_key_header">Jermaine A Possibilty For Knicks?</td> </tr> <tr> <td>April 18, 2008 - 5:14 pm</td> </tr> <tr> <td>http://realgm.com/images/nba/4.2/profiles/photos/2006/ONeal_Jermaine_ind.jpgNew York Post -
Indiana's Jermaine O'Neal (http://www.realgm.com/src_playerfile/454/jermaine_oneal/) might be a short-term possibility for the Knicks this offseason, according to the New York Post.

Donnie Walsh would prefer that the Knicks became a playoff team while he works on clearing out cap space over the next two years, similar to the quick rebuilding job he did in Indiana after their Finals appearance in 2000.

The Pacers and Larry Bird might be willing to take on some expiring contracts, specifically Stephon Marbury (http://www.realgm.com/src_playerfile/252/stephon_marbury/), to cut costs in exchange for O'Neal. </td></tr></tbody></table>




How would you all feel about trading JO for a season of Stephon and having his expiring contract next year either to clear space or try to move and get some better pieces and or draft picks?

OOOOONLYYYY if it includes NY 1st round pick this year.

granger33
04-18-2008, 10:39 PM
"IF" JO does opt out, what type of caliber players could we sign with our 44 million??

Pacersfan46
04-18-2008, 10:43 PM
"IF" JO does opt out, what type of caliber players could we sign with our 44 million??

Probably very little, because I still don't think we'd be far under the salary cap.

-- Steve --

Smoothdave1
04-18-2008, 10:46 PM
I feel the Pacers will do one of several things:

1. Dangle JO and eventually keep him and wait out his contract or deal him next year when his deal comes off the books

2. Do a deal for Marbury and a sweetener. If anyone saw Bill Simmons recent column, he said Starbury was his LVP (least valuable player) with the turmoil in NYC. Plus, the NY Post had the article that said that Walsh wanted to make the playoffs while rebuilding. With that said, I would almost guarantee that Marbury would be bought out and would never even don a Pacers uniform. As far as the sweetener, it would depend on how well the Knicks fare in the draft. I could see a JO/Ike for Marbury/Lee type deal going down. I could also see a potential JO for Marbury and the right to swap 1st rd picks this year type deal going down as well.

3. See if a team in the West will gamble on JO. We know that there will be a team out West who will choke in the playoffs because of a lack of a big guy down low. When that happens, a team will look to sure up the middle and the frontcourt and maybe the Pacers get a call on JO? I could see Dallas, Houston or Utah calling the Pacers about a possible deal. But, do we want guys like Dampier, Okur, Jason Terry, etc. coming back?

4. Pull off a deal no one saw coming. I could see a random trade going down that surprises everyone.

It seems like the Knicks would be the logical suitors given Walsh and Bird's history. Plus, NY and Walsh seem willing to trade anyone.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 11:13 PM
"IF" JO does opt out, what type of caliber players could we sign with our 44 million??


That's not going to happen!

(Sigh) To answer your question loosely, JO has two years left on his contract if he doesn't opt out this summer. $21m, $23m, total $44m.

If he would opt out we would only be losing his first year salary of $21m off oUr cap. The salary cap this year was $55m. We don't know what next years cap is and won't know until about July 7.

Our salary schedule for next year is already at $68m, with ten players under contract including JO. If you take JO's $21m away from that you have $47m, but if we sign any of our free agents their salary's would have to be added to that too before we could sign a free agent. So if we went cheap we would be about $5m under the cap.

We are better off not going under the cap because we lose most of our exemptions. For example the mid level exception is worth $5.3m this year, that is more than we could likely offer any free agents if we went under the cap.

Again JO would be crazy to opt out of $44m. You guys have been watching to many movies, stuff like that rarely happens in real life. Possible yes, but so far fetched it's not really worth talking about.

granger33
04-18-2008, 11:17 PM
Again JO would be crazy to opt out of $44m. You guys have been watching to many movies, stuff like that rarely happens in real life. Possible yes, but so far fetched it's not really worth talking about.

your're maybe right. But reading his quotes on pacers.com it does sound like he hasnt made his decision yet and its still a possibility.

Will Galen
04-18-2008, 11:23 PM
your're maybe right. But reading his quotes on pacers.com it does sound like he hasnt made his decision yet and its still a possibility.

I don't know what you read but he probably hasn't made his mind up if he wants to ask for a trade or want the Pacers to keep him.

Even if JO really didn't like it here and didn't get along with the coach and his teammates he would just ask for a trade, there would be no reason to opt out.

Swingman
04-18-2008, 11:49 PM
I don't know what you read but he probably hasn't made his mind up if he wants to ask for a trade or want the Pacers to keep him.

Even if JO really didn't like it here and didn't get along with the coach and his teammates he would just ask for a trade, there would be no reason to opt out.

If he really wanted out and no other team wanted to take on the salary, then he might only have 1 option.

granger33
04-19-2008, 12:00 AM
You can have all the money in the world but if your job isn’t going right then you’re not happy

^ thats what JO said..kinda stands out to me.

Major Cold
04-19-2008, 12:24 AM
Wasn't B-Diddy benched? Is he a FA? Could we trade for him?

tdubb03
04-19-2008, 12:57 AM
I'm starting to really hope JO opts out, Not that I think it'd enable us to improve all that much, just to prove all the armchair GMs wrong.

Dece
04-19-2008, 01:06 AM
I mean, he'd be opting out of 23 million true, but he'll get at least a 10 million dollar contract in it's place, so he's losing 13 million. However, how important is 13 million to someone who's already made 100 million? I mean, even after taxes, expenditures, he's got probably 50 million in the bank, or more depending on how lucrative his sponsorships have been, so it isn't exactly as if he's hurting without that 13 million. If I'm so rich I can do whatever I want whenever I want monetarily already, I might as well sacrifice 13 million to be happy. That's my viewpoint.

BlueNGold
04-19-2008, 06:57 AM
I mean, he'd be opting out of 23 million true, but he'll get at least a 10 million dollar contract in it's place, so he's losing 13 million. However, how important is 13 million to someone who's already made 100 million? I mean, even after taxes, expenditures, he's got probably 50 million in the bank, or more depending on how lucrative his sponsorships have been, so it isn't exactly as if he's hurting without that 13 million. If I'm so rich I can do whatever I want whenever I want monetarily already, I might as well sacrifice 13 million to be happy. That's my viewpoint.

It's all relative. The poor guy who makes 10 bucks an hour probably thinks someone making 100K could easily give up half of it. Well, ain't gonna happen. Only someone who has an alternative to make a similar amount of money is going to give it up. Consider the fact JO knows he may never again in his life make anything close to that kind of money...and that he might live another 50 years...it becomes clear he cannot give it up. The more money people make, the more they want IMO...at least in most cases.

Dece
04-19-2008, 07:30 AM
Hm, well, I understand it's a lot of money to give up, but at a certain point you have more money than you can reasonably expect to spend, even if you tried. It's like, woe is me, I only will make 10 million this year...before sponsors.

I don't think this is really analogous to someone making 100k, we're talking about an amount of money that can cover every possible luxury already. At some point, you have it all. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong here.

BlueNGold
04-19-2008, 07:51 AM
Hm, well, I understand it's a lot of money to give up, but at a certain point you have more money than you can reasonably expect to spend, even if you tried. It's like, woe is me, I only will make 10 million this year...before sponsors.

I don't think this is really analogous to someone making 100k, we're talking about an amount of money that can cover every possible luxury already. At some point, you have it all. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong here.

On one hand, you are right that it is not analagous. It is very true that surveys indicate that different levels of money affect people differently. For example, you need to be making 50K to reach "the happiness level"...or whatever that is.

What I think is, even if you are rich it is foolish to give up that kind of money when you have a bum knee and likely will not be getting another indorsement dollar unless it's for prosthetic devices. If he was completely healthy and could get something close in the market, it would be very different. He is only 29 years old and 50 years is a long time for even that kind of money to last for someone who likes to spend it...and what about any beneficiaries he may have. Some of us older dogs have that perspective.

duke dynamite
04-19-2008, 09:24 AM
Stephon had a dismal season, wait, that is an understatement. He had a horrendous season. Walking out of games, Thomas telling him not even to show up to practice, injuries and the passing of his father, all were major attributes for his displacement with that franchise.

Yeah, Marbury has had some good years, but with playing only 24 games this season, would he really fit in our system? Do we really want to jeopardize the PG postion even more?

I do have one positive...If we were to obtain Stephon by whatever means (trade, FA after buyout), we will have a little bit of that veteran push at the 1 guard position that I've been talking about.

Not that I condone this scenario...

Let NY waive this guy and we can snag him on a 1 year contract. Let him start while any rookie PG we get can get his feet wet, while Diener is our valuable backup.

Just an idea...

Now with trading JO, I'm not sure we should trade him, especially to New York. They have talent, but the only player I can see us picking up besides Marbury is Nate Robinson. I say this because we need that 1 guard spot filled badly. I'm not saying trade O'Neal straight up for Robinson, but throw some fillers in there. I really don't like what I see with New York's talent pool...

Rajah Brown
04-19-2008, 09:43 AM
Duke-

The point of trading for Starbury would be, a) taking advantage of
the oppotunity to move J.O. if it's presented, b) getting Starbury's
contract which is only 1 yr vs 2 yrs and frees up $20mil after next
season rather than 2 yrs from now and, c) the possibility of aquiring
a young talent like Lee or a 2009 1st rounder or swapping 2008 1st
round spots or any 2 of the 3. It wouldn't necessarily have anything
to do with what Starbury may or may not do on the floor next year
for the Pacers.

Personally, I wouldn't do it unless 2 of those 3 (c) possibilities were part
of it. But if they were, I'd have no problem having Starbury here for
a year.

duke dynamite
04-19-2008, 10:07 AM
I fully understand the symantics of the trade proposal, but I really don't think this is a good (overall) move because NY will not be willing to do this.

I like the possibility of getting 1 round draft picks, but I honestly don't see NY budging on something like this.

idioteque
04-19-2008, 10:11 AM
You're all delusional if you think the Knicks are going to trade Lee, even crazier than me for thinking the Knicks can get D-Wade and LeBron. Lee is like the one marketable player they have, besides maybe Balkman.

Guys like Curry, Crawford, Randolph, and the most of the rest of their pathetic core of players are seen throughout the league as me first garbage overpaid players.

esabyrn333
04-19-2008, 11:01 AM
I don't see this trade going down. Starbury for JO helps know one except us if we want to ditch JO's contract a year earlier. For New York I creates a large problem because they Have Eddy Curry, JO, and Zach. I don't see them going into next year with all 3 of these guys it is a locker room nightmare.

So IMO if this would go down we would have to take Eddy because he has the smallest contract of the two. If we take him on they would have to take one of our bad contracts. I would say it would not be Troy because they are loaded on bigs already so I would say it would have to be Tin man or Quis. I would say they would have to take Jamaal.

So if we did this we would have Starburry and Curry. We buy our Starburry and hope Eddy does better in a smaller city. I could see Curry doing better here. Some guys just are not cut out for the NY spotlight. With Curry at Center I would look at a Robin Lopez in the draft because Curry has a good low post game on O his hit is his rebounding and Post D. If we got robing Lopez it would be like he was still playing with his brother.

The Knicks would do this because the balance there low post. If Tinsley plays that means he was doging it here which I would not be surprised one bit the Knicks would be much better.

mrknowname
04-19-2008, 11:40 AM
honestly id trade JO to NY in a NY minute if we got rid of tinsley too

maybe JO/Tinsley/Ike for Marbury/Lee/Randolph and then ship Randolph to cleveland for Szczerbiak and clevelands 1st

Rajah Brown
04-19-2008, 12:40 PM
dc-

For the record, I never said or implied I though NY would do a deal
such as that. Walsh would be an idiot to do so. Of course, on the
other hand, he is the guy who signed Rose, Croshere, Bender and
Tinsley to their bloated deals so who knows...

OnlyPacersLeft
04-19-2008, 08:16 PM
oh god....marbury? why the hell would you want himn on this team? and you guys hated tinsley! this guy is a nutcase who chucks more then jamaal!

Anthem
04-19-2008, 08:49 PM
oh god....marbury? why the hell would you want himn on this team? and you guys hated tinsley! this guy is a nutcase who chucks more then jamaal!
Read the thread, dude. Nobody wants him for his basketball talent.

NuffSaid
04-19-2008, 09:47 PM
Without reading any other posts beyond page 1 (and I apologize if what I'm about to post turns out to be a repeat), let me tell you why you don't do this trade.

You DON'T do this trade because such a trade would give every indication far and wide that the Pacers aren't "retooling"; they're "rebuilding". To use JO in this way would signify that the Pacers have thrown in the towel. You'd then have every GM out there thinking it's a fire sale. No, folks. You have to play it smart with JO as your primary trade commodity.

If you're going to trade him you do so going with a 1-for-many trade scenario even if part of the "many" includes a 1st round draft pick. But you don't just throw it away for yet another troublesome player who hasn't shown himself to be any better than the PG you're trying to get rid of. That would be way beyond idiotic!


Read the thread, dude. Nobody wants him for his basketball talent.
Oh, I get it alright. It's for cap relief. But don't you see? You don't want to give the impression that you're a franchise that's so desperate to make it back to the post-season you'd do anything to get there even if it means giving up one of your better players for yet another "problem child" regardless of if he plays out his final contract year or the acquiring franchise buys him out. Besides, haven't this franchise had enough of bad boys over the last 4 yrs? Enough already!

esabyrn333
04-19-2008, 09:59 PM
Without reading any other posts beyond page 1 (and I apologize if what I'm about to post turns out to be a repeat), let me tell you why you don't do this trade.

You DON'T do this trade because such a trade would give every indication far and wide that the Pacers aren't "retooling"; they're "rebuilding". To use JO in this way would signify that the Pacers have thrown in the towel. You'd then have every GM out there thinking it's a fire sale. No, folks. You have to play it smart with JO as your primary trade commodity.

If you're going to trade him you do so going with a 1-for-many trade scenario even if part of the "many" includes a 1st round draft pick. But you don't just throw it away for yet another troublesome player who hasn't shown himself to be any better than the PG you're trying to get rid of. That would be way beyond idiotic!

If they did the trade Starburry would never wear a Pacer Jersey. We would by him out. Its just a way to get out of JO's contract a year early:eek::-o

NuffSaid
04-19-2008, 10:05 PM
esabyrn333,

Post edited...I got it...just don't agree with it...not unless you're 110% sure you can use that cap relief to get back one helluva player who can come in and be effective right away. Otherwise, forget about it.

esabyrn333
04-19-2008, 10:13 PM
esabyrn333,

Post edited...I got it...just don't agree with it...not unless you're 110% sure you can use that cap relief to get back one helluva player who can come in and be effective right away. Otherwise, forget about it.

I don't agree with it either personally. I was just saying thats what people want. I would take Starburry over VC though. I personally would rather keep JO.

Naptown_Seth
04-19-2008, 10:31 PM
Will's already strongly made the case of why this is just silly. JO can play ball. JO for 84 games the next 2 years is still WAY more than what the Knicks currently expect out of Marbury, unless Walsh wasn't BS'ing when he said he wants Starbury back with the team next year.

JO gets the Knicks into the Lebron lottery and does so while still putting a quality TEAM player on the floor for at least half a season each year. That's worth something to the Knicks.

If anyone thinks we are trying to get out of the JO deal, they want out of the Marbury deal far more it would seem. And if the Pacers are expected to deal with a headcase or buy him out (virtually keeping JO both years and missing 82 games just to get early cap relief) then it would be clearly understood that they'd want something for their trouble. That would be a first round pick or a player on par with David Lee.

I'm not even talking my wish list, that's just reasonable expectations. Just because so many here are soured on JO doesn't mean he's worth less than Marbury, even to the Pacers.

NEXT SUMMER/SEASON JO's contract goes into big time value, and in the meantime he can only add to his on-court value because it's at an all-time low.

You could sell your house now in a crap market, or you could ride it out till the next boom and make a fortune. IMO the appliances aren't old enough and the paint's not ugly enough to force a sale now just for the sake of doing it.

esabyrn333
04-19-2008, 10:53 PM
Win it comes to JO I think this team should take the advice of a Naptown original and....

STAND PAT

Anthem
04-19-2008, 11:24 PM
Oh, I get it alright. It's for cap relief.
You get it, OnPacLeft doesn't. And I didn't say I liked a JO-Starbury swap. I think it's a bad move. But let's at least discuss that, and not Starbury's court awareness. Because the former is a legit conversation, while the second is just crazy talk.

DisplacedKnick
04-20-2008, 08:58 AM
I wasn't going to respond to this thread because it has about as much validity as a rumor about George Bush becoming the Chair of Philosophy at Harvard after his term is up but anyway . . .

1) This is reported by the NY Post which is about as reliable of a source for the NBA as Martha Stewart

2) If the Knicks trade Marbury, next year our point guards will be - uh, OK

3) If the Knicks get JO we have Randolph, JO and Curry in the front court - why?

This doesn't happen unless 2 things occur: 1) We draft a PG in the 1st rd - either Rose (if a miracle happens) or Mayo. And even if this happens it's better to let Marbury start for a suck team and take the heat next year while the rookie gets 25mpg off the bench - especially if it's Mayo who isn't NBA-ready yet

2) Zach Randolph gets traded - which would be an even bigger miracle than getting Rose

Walsh should know several things. First, that we'll suck next year. Maybe not as much as this year but we'll still suck. Second, that JO is done. Third, that Marbury's deal is up after next season and could be extremely useful in any midseason deal he wants to make. Fourth, that his top priority is dealing Randolph so he can make a run at Lebron in 2010.

Infinite MAN_force
04-20-2008, 02:20 PM
It is true for this to be feasable for the knicks, that randolph would need to be traded.

Is Chicago still desperate for a post presence? For all the negative talk about zach, he puts up damn good numbers. Would Chicago trade Larry Hughes (they have too many wings anyway) for Zach Randolph? Hughes is another player who's contract expires the year Lebron becomes available. Combine that with JO's contract and they would have like 33 million coming off the books.

Knicks getting Rose also helps.

DisplacedKnick
04-21-2008, 08:44 AM
It is true for this to be feasable for the knicks, that randolph would need to be traded.

Is Chicago still desperate for a post presence? For all the negative talk about zach, he puts up damn good numbers. Would Chicago trade Larry Hughes (they have too many wings anyway) for Zach Randolph? Hughes is another player who's contract expires the year Lebron becomes available. Combine that with JO's contract and they would have like 33 million coming off the books.

Knicks getting Rose also helps.

If I'm Walsh, what I hope happens is that I get a coach who can inspire Randolph to actually try to play defense. He's had Mo Cheeks and Nate Mcmillin as coaches so that's failed so far but maybe he can find a way to get it to take. Hiring Mark Jackson and getting Pat Ewing as an assistant to work with the big men might be enough to get it done.

Otherwise, he's a guy who puts up big numbers on bad teams and never helps you win. It's possible there's a GM out there as dumb as Isiah who'd want him but I don't know who he is.

Of course if Zach becomes someone who actually defends then you have to look a lot harder at whether Lebron would actually come to NY because suddenly you have a top NBA frontcourt player. In fact, if Lebron really wants to leave, Zach (a Zach who defends) becomes a pretty fair S&T option to offer Cleveland in return.

But first Zach has to D up. And right now that's a pipe dream.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 04:49 PM
You get it, OnPacLeft doesn't. And I didn't say I liked a JO-Starbury swap. I think it's a bad move. But let's at least discuss that, and not Starbury's court awareness. Because the former is a legit conversation, while the second is just crazy talk.
Lack of court awareness like he's unsure what a basketball court is because he's been away from one for so long?



Remember Stef, there was this round orange thing, there was a net...

Is that the bunch of string tangled on the glass wall?

Yes, yes Stephon, I think you're starting to remember.

I like cake. And boobies. Zeke and I went and got some cake and boobies the other day and now Zeke can't ever trade me cause I'll tell.

Let's try and stay focused here.

Anthem
04-21-2008, 05:03 PM
Like I said, crazy talk.