PDA

View Full Version : Kirk Hinrich or draft a point guard



Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 09:39 AM
It makes sense that Hinrich is available, especially after the lottery last night. So my quesiton to those who watch college basketball, who is and who will be better Hinrich or a possible point guard who might be available at the #11th pick in the draft.

If we can get someone who is better than Hinrich at the 11th pick, I'll be very happy.

Kirk does have 4 years left - 37 million

Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 09:42 AM
Here is a decent article discussing some of this

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3405811&type=story


SECAUCUS, N.J. -- The Chicago Bulls were the big winners in the 2008 draft lottery Tuesday night, taking home the top pick despite a measly 1.7 percent chance of winning the lottery.

Only one team, the 1993 Orlando Magic, has overcome greater odds to win the lottery. Now comes the Bulls' biggest task: deciding whom to take with the No. 1 pick.

In our latest mock draft, I have the Bulls selecting Kansas State forward Michael Beasley by a hair.

Yes, Derrick Rose is a hometown candidate and a clear upgrade over their current point guard, Kirk Hinrich. And he's my favorite player in the draft. But that isn't the only consideration.

Most general managers have Beasley ranked ahead of Rose in the talent department. Rose may have more upside and plays a critically important position, but if you ask GMs and scouts to rate guys purely on talent, Beasley comes out ahead. In fact, until Rose's excellent run in the NCAA tournament, most NBA scouts and GMs scoffed at the idea of taking anyone other than Beasley with the first pick in the draft.

Michael Beasley could give Chicago some hope down low.
The Bulls have been looking for a low-post scorer for years. They tried everything from trading for veterans like Drew Gooden to drafting young athletes like Tyrus Thomas. To date, nothing has worked. Since trading away Elton Brand in 2001, the Bulls have struggled to score in the paint.

The consensus the past few years has been that the Bulls will never get over the top until they get that guy who can average 20 points and 10 rebounds for them. Considering the way Beasley dominated the Big 12 this year, is there any question he's the right fit?

Well … yes. There are questions about Beasley's attitude and work ethic. Stories still swirl about his offcourt antics in high school. The Derrick Coleman comparisons don't help, either.

But at the end of the day, I think Beasley has a slight edge. The NBA executives I interviewed in Secaucus after the draft lottery mostly agreed. Of the six NBA execs I spoke with, four thought the Bulls would select Beasley. Two picked Rose.

I would've asked Bulls GM John Paxson myself, except he wasn't here. Nor were any of the Bulls' front-office guys in charge of the draft. That's probably the most telling sign that the Bulls didn't think they had a chance in hell of winning the lottery.

We'll be watching this drama closely over the next few weeks. The Bulls can't go wrong with either player.

• Regardless of whom the Bulls take, expect there to be some big changes to their roster as a result of the big lottery win. If they select Beasley, expect Gooden and Thomas to be on the shopping block. If they select Rose, Hinrich could be on the move.

Of the two options, Beasley probably wins the argument here as well. A combo of Gooden (who will be in the last year of his contract) and Thomas should have much more trade value than Hinrich (who has four years, $37 million left on his contract).

• The Heat will be in limbo until the Bulls make their decision. A source familiar with Miami's thinking told me on Tuesday that the Heat would likely keep the pick if they get Rose. If the Bulls select Rose, right now the Heat would be more inclined to trade the pick.

However, Shawn Marion could change the equation. There have been growing rumors that Marion is considering opting out of his contract. If he did that (and decided to sign with another team), the Heat would suddenly need a player like Beasley to fill the void.

If Marion opts out, where would he go? The Sixers are the only team with significant cap room this summer.

• Mike D'Antoni kept smiling, but Tuesday wasn't his night. D'Antoni agonized for a week over whether to take the Bulls' or Knicks' head coaching job. He chose the Knicks, and then two weeks later … the Bulls win the lottery.

Ouch. Suddenly, a Bulls team that already looked like it had a bright future now looks incredible. The Knicks? It's going to be a long two years.

I think D'Antoni was itching to get his hands on Rose. He needs a dynamic point guard to run his system and drafting at No. 6, he probably isn't going to get it. Jerryd Bayless will likely be off the board before then. D.J. Augustin and Russell Westbrook are the next best point guards available, but six is probably too high for both.

Where does that leave New York? There will be growing speculation that the Knicks may turn their attention to Italian forward Danilo Gallinari. D'Antoni played with Gallinari's father in Italy for eight years. He's watched Danilo play over the years in Europe, and he knows how tough the Italian league is. D'Antoni loves versatile forwards like Gallinari. His basketball IQ and facilitation skills would be a great fit in a D'Antoni offense.

I spoke with D'Antoni minutes after the draft lottery. You can see his comments on the Knicks' bad night, Gallinari and what type of offense he wants to run in New York here.

• Look for a number of this year's lottery picks to be for sale the next few months. Numerous sources have said that the Heat, Timberwolves, Sonics, Knicks, Clippers, Bucks, Bobcats, Nets and Blazers are all open to trading their picks if the right deal came along.

Teams like the Wolves, Sonics, Bucks, Bobcats and Blazers are already loaded with young players. What they need are veterans who can add leadership and depth. Teams like the Heat, Knicks, Clippers and Nets seem to be focused on winning now.

While everyone agrees that the draft is deep and talented, only Rose and Beasley are considered superstar material. The rest of the players in the draft are considered good prospects, but not the type of players who can quickly turn the fortunes of a team.

• If I'm Cavs owner Dan Gilbert, I'm really sweating losing LeBron James in two years. Nets co-owner Jay-Z was at the draft lottery and Dwyane Wade, Kevin Durant and Rudy Gay were absolutely mesmerized by the guy. We know LeBron is a big fan as well and if the Nets can get under the cap and use Jay-Z as a pitch man -- he could very well become one of the most powerful owners in the league.

Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.

esabyrn333
05-21-2008, 09:44 AM
I like DJ Augustin alot but I don't think I would take him over Hinrich. Personally I would love to get both. I think Quis & Foster's expiring contracts are going to look pretty when you think about how much Hinrich is paid over the next few years.

Maybe a Diener, Williams, Foster trade for Hinrich, ??

Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 09:46 AM
I like DJ Augustin alot but I don't think I would take him over Hinrich. Personally I would love to get both. I think Quis & Foster's expiring contracts are going to look pretty when you think about how much Hinrich is paid over the next few years.

Maybe a Diener, Williams, Foster trade for Hinrich, ??

Bulls likely won't have any interest in Foster (unless they trade some of their bigs) they already have at least two young offensively challenged energy power forwards

blanket
05-21-2008, 09:58 AM
maybe they'd do JO for Hinrich (plus filler) then they take Rose?

Kegboy
05-21-2008, 10:01 AM
For the 5 millionth time, Hinrich's a bum. I'm not going to waste my time following a team with him as point guard.

As for Augustin, he's not starting material, not right away at least. And the Pacers have made it clear they don't expect to get a starting-caliber point at 11. Doesn't mean we can't get a capable veteran to platoon with DJ, Westbrook, Chalmers, whomever. But IMO that definitely should not be Hinrich.

esabyrn333
05-21-2008, 10:02 AM
Bulls likely won't have any interest in Foster (unless they trade some of their bigs) they already have at least two young offensively challenged energy power forwards

I think this team is going to be very good next year. I see thier one weakness is that they need a solid Vetran on the team that has play off experince.

Maybe Hinrich & a sign & trade for Gordon for JO and our Pick. This gives them JO and Larry Hughes coming off the books the same time as D-Wade becomes a free agent.

Plus like I said this team with JO on it would be a contender the next 2 years. This team would be very Deep and if you add Avery Johnson as coach resign Duhon and Deng.

Duhon, Thabo, Nocioni, Thomas as your bench.

Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 10:09 AM
For the 5 millionth time, Hinrich's a bum. I'm not going to waste my time following a team with him as point guard.

As for Augustin, he's not starting material, not right away at least. And the Pacers have made it clear they don't expect to get a starting-caliber point at 11. Doesn't mean we can't get a capable veteran to platoon with DJ, Westbrook, Chalmers, whomever. But IMO that definitely should not be Hinrich.

I was thinking of you when I started this thread.

Infinite MAN_force
05-21-2008, 10:10 AM
Hinrich had a bad year, but prior to that he was getting 16 points, 6 assists a game, shooting 40% from three, and playing great defense.

I think JO for Hinrich/Hughes makes a lot of sense for both sides. We would go from a terrible defensive team to a great one, and we would not lose any of our main offensive weapons either.

Hicks
05-21-2008, 10:14 AM
I still think Kirk could look very good playing for Jim O'Brien.

DisplacedKnick
05-21-2008, 10:15 AM
Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

We're talking a max contract player who's been chronically injured, has averaged 50 games/season over the last 4 years and whose game, and numbers, are declining.

Other than as a contract that ends in 2010, he's worthless in a trade - or worse. Right now you'd have to throw a player in to convince someone to take him, or accept somebody else's problem (see Zach Randolph).

Hicks
05-21-2008, 10:16 AM
I think JO for Hinrich/Hughes makes a lot of sense for both sides. We would go from a terrible defensive team to a great one,

Woah, woah, woah. This will not be a great defensive team after that trade. It might appear a little better because of the major increase in perimeter defense, but you're also trading our best post defender away.

Now, if you're comparing the post-trade team to the JO-less team, then yes that's big improvement. I really don't want Hughes, though. It'd be nice if we got their 2009 first rounder for taking him.

SoupIsGood
05-21-2008, 10:23 AM
Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

We're talking a max contract player who's been chronically injured, has averaged 50 games/season over the last 4 years and whose game, and numbers, are declining.

Other than as a contract that ends in 2010, he's worthless in a trade - or worse. Right now you'd have to throw a player in to convince someone to take him, or accept somebody else's problem (see Zach Randolph).

I took the thinking to be that we could trade a bum for bums--isn't that what Kirk, Hughes, and JO are considered to be? Trade garbage and hope they play better in a new situation, I guess.

idioteque
05-21-2008, 10:26 AM
I would do JO for Hughes/Hinrich in a heartbeat. Hinrich has seemingly had one bad year, I thought he was once really well regarded in Chicago. Hughes is a great perimeter defender.

Speed
05-21-2008, 10:38 AM
Is Augustine, Travis Best but a pure point guard?

I think this, if you are looking at 3-5 years from now, you take your chances with Augustine who is a leader and lightening quick, but is short. I think he has the rest of it.

If you want to win next year and get the 6-8th playoff spot and thats iffy, then you'd move for Henrick.

I like Henrick and he will put up great numbers in this offense, but you have to ask yourself, is the surrounding cast much better than the Bulls last year? Does it make you a contender?

Is Henrick another guy who puts up good numbers on a sub par team if he's with the Pacers.

If the situation was Phillie when they traded AI for Andre Miller, I'd do it. And it still may end up that way, a bunch of young athletic guys who need a pure experienced point to lead them, but right now it doesn't make sense to me.

My answer is this, I would say no, I would not trade the #11 pick for Henrick and his 4 years to maintain a semblence of mediocrity.

Talk to me tomorrow I may feel differently.

Speed
05-21-2008, 10:40 AM
Woah, woah, woah. This will not be a great defensive team after that trade. It might appear a little better because of the major increase in perimeter defense, but you're also trading our best post defender away.

Now, if you're comparing the post-trade team to the JO-less team, then yes that's big improvement. I really don't want Hughes, though. It'd be nice if we got their 2009 first rounder for taking him.

I agree, a little better defensively.

I think that is what I want the next 3 years with every move they make, how does this make us better DEFENSIVELY.

MillerTime
05-21-2008, 10:48 AM
I am a big fan of Hinrich and I have always stated that we need to improve our defense. We scored a lot last season but we let our opponents score more. Something like:
Tinsley, Daniels, Dunleavy and 2nd Rounder for Nocioni and Hinrich.

Then hopefully pick some someone like Frye for Shawne Williams and Harrison

We could have a starting 5 of:
Hinrich
Granger
Nocioni
Frye
O'Neal

Hinrich, Granger and Nocioni would be one of the best defensive back courts in the league. Another important aspect of these trade is that getting rid of Daniels, Tins, Williams and Harrison would fix our "thug" image. Plus we still keep our first round pick this year where we can hopefully pick up Love. And if JO doesnt heal fom his injury he'll be a good expirer for us

DisplacedKnick
05-21-2008, 10:54 AM
I took the thinking to be that we could trade a bum for bums--isn't that what Kirk, Hughes, and JO are considered to be? Trade garbage and hope they play better in a new situation, I guess.

JO & Hughes maybe. Hinrich didn't have a great year last season but I don't think they've given up on him.

Of course Chicago needs a coach first.

rexnom
05-21-2008, 11:12 AM
If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.

MillerTime
05-21-2008, 11:15 AM
If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.

ya it makes sense for the Bulls, but what are we going to do with Hughes? Just another Daniels kind of swingman. Where are you going to fit him into the rotation? Granger, Dunleavy, Williams, Daniels, Graham, and if we re-sign, then add Rush. We're in the need of a post player. And I dont like the mentality/attitude that Hughes will bring in. We already have a bad image

Rajah Brown
05-21-2008, 11:27 AM
There's a reason Hinrich was being talked about as possible trade bait
even before the chance to draft Rose came last night. He's not a
natural PG. He struggles to beat guys off the bounce, etc. Sure,
he's better than Diener. But at $10mil per for the next 4 yrs,
MurphLeavy on the books at the same coin and DG poised to
join them very soon, I'd pass on Hinrich unless the rest of the
deal is just irresistable.

With the Pacers' salary structure, I wouldn't pay a PG $10mil per
unless he's a pure PG who has the skill-set to get everything
done we need at the position. I don't see Hinrich as that guy.

Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 11:37 AM
There's a reason Hinrich was being talked about as possible trade bait
even before the chance to draft Rose came last night. He's not a
natural PG. He struggles to beat guys off the bounce, etc. Sure,
he's better than Diener. But at $10mil per for the next 4 yrs,
MurphLeavy on the books at the same coin and DG poised to
join them very soon, I'd pass on Hinrich unless the rest of the
deal is just irresistable.

With the Pacers' salary structure, I wouldn't pay a PG $10mil per
unless he's a pure PG who has the skill-set to get everything
done we need at the position. I don't see Hinrich as that guy.

Those are very valid criticisms of Kirk. But he does run the pick and roll very, very well (he's not Chris Paul or close to him, but Kirk is tough to guard in pick and rolls) He also is an excellent defender, can also guard a lot of the shooting guards as well. Plus in the system the Pacers ran last season I think Kirk would excel

MyFavMartin
05-21-2008, 11:40 AM
How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

Would you do it and would the Bulls?

Hughes would be nice for the expiring (13 mil), Gooden is expiring too at 7 mil but is a good post threat.

Hughes seems like a overpaid Daniels who likes to shoot too many 3s - poor shot selection, athletic, lots of to's and dumb plays, but when he's on (which isn't often enough), he's like Arenas.

pacers:
hinrich
dun
granger
gooden
foster/murphy

bench:tinsley, shawne, ike, murphy/foster, diener, graham


bulls:
rose
hughes
noc
JO
noah

bench: gordon, deng, duhon, gray, sef, thomas

pwee31
05-21-2008, 11:43 AM
Hinrich

avoidingtheclowns
05-21-2008, 11:48 AM
If they go with Rose, I think that a Hughes/Hinrich for JO trade makes sense for the Bulls.

thats a LOT of contract for use to take back though. we'd be more inclined to do a gooden/hinrich deal and that wouldn't be bad for the bulls either (as they'd keep thomas, noah and gray to rotate with o'neal). i think we'd only take hughes if we dumped tinsley in the process.


Those are very valid criticism of Kirk. But he does run the pick and roll very, very well (he's not Chris Paul or close to him, but Kirk is tough to guard in pick and rolls) He also is an excellent defender, can also guard a lot of the shooting guards as well. Plus in the system the Pacers ran last season I think Kirk would excel

this is one thing i think is the key: the pacers don't really need a pure PG. they need someone who can handle the ball well enough to initiate the offense AND they need someone to be the first line of the harter defense -- 3PT shooting would be an added bonus. kirk has those three things. i don't think kirk is a great PG but i think he could fit here with o'brien.


How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

Would you do it and would the Bulls?

Hughes would be nice for the expiring (13 mil), Gooden is expiring too at 7 mil but is a good post threat.

hughes isn't expiring. he has two more years left at aprx $13mil each season.


Hughes seems like a overpaid Daniels who likes to shoot too many 3s - poor shot selection, athletic, lots of to's and dumb plays, but when he's on (which isn't often enough), he's like Arenas.

in theory our uptempo system would be better for hughes than cleveland. it'd be like his stay in DC. hughes also can be a decent perimeter defender.

that being said, the thought of putting hughes in an offense that encourages a high volume of 3s frightens the crap out of me.

Rajah Brown
05-21-2008, 12:02 PM
UB-

Understood. Agree with all that. He's definitely an upgrade. But
who's he gonna run the pick and roll with ? Do we have a big
who can run it with both the 'roll' (and finish in the lane) and
'pop' options available.

You can obviously run it out high w/o both options (see the Pacers'
ham-handed running of it w/ Foster in recent years). But it works best
with a big who can do both.

blanket
05-21-2008, 12:22 PM
UB-

Understood. Agree with all that. He's definitely an upgrade. But
who's he gonna run the pick and roll with ? Do we have a big
who can run it with both the 'roll' (and finish in the lane) and
'pop' options available.

You can obviously run it out high w/o both options (see the Pacers'
ham-handed running of it w/ Foster in recent years). But it works best
with a big who can do both.

you draft Love at 11. Heinrich and Love could make a solid p'n'r combo.

Young
05-21-2008, 12:41 PM
I would probably rather just draft DJ than go for Kirk.

How much better are we going to be with Kirk here? Is he really worth it? I don't think so.

I defiantly wouldn't trade Jermaine for Kirk. I'll tell you what though I would LOVE to do a sign and trade with Chicago and get Ben Gordon. Gordon can be a clutch player for us.

If we are talking a trade with the Bulls I want Ben Gordon.

beast23
05-21-2008, 12:45 PM
If I'm Chicago, I don't think I would have any problem at all playing Hinrich WITH Rose in the backcourt.

Hinrich being in the backcourt would take a ton of pressure off of Rose as Rose develops into a solid NBA PG.

Combined they would lack a little height, but not any more so than Hinrich/Gordon. They would be a tremendous defensive duo for their backcourt, both are very capable 3-point shooters, both can penetrate with the ball and both are accomplished passers.

If Chicago takes Beasley instead, I see Miami improving significantly for exactly the same reasons. Pair Rose with Wade and that's one hell of a backcourt that will do nothing but cause problems for every team they face.

maragin
05-21-2008, 12:52 PM
Obviously, it depends on what we have to give up to get Hinrich.

I've been pretty impressed with him, and it might give us some flexibility to draft big at the 11 spot. Without knowing much about most of the draft PGs, I'm happy taking Hinrich.

Jonathan
05-21-2008, 01:01 PM
I have no idea what is dumber, drafting a PG or trading for a Hinrich. The Pacers have several holes to fill and should draft the best player available. Trading Jermaine and his contract for two players with longer deals is not what this organization needs right now either. The Pacers need some money to resign Danny Granger (How much is that going to take?)

eldubious
05-21-2008, 01:07 PM
Who would be worth trading Hinrich for? Hinrich would have to be traded for a big. I'm sorry, JO doesn't warrant trading for Hinrich, unless the Bulls just want to clear salary. Stoudamire, Bosh, and Howard aren't going anywhere. So if Chicago takes Rose, they're stuck with backcourt players with no post players. They'll be going backwards in my oppninion.

Manguera
05-21-2008, 01:08 PM
Trading Jermaine and his contract for two players with longer deals is not what this organization needs right now either.

Hughes' deal runs out the same time as JO's does and Hinrich has a front loaded deal that drops from 10 to 9.5 to 9 to 8 mil over the next 4 years. I think that's a pretty good deal.

I think a better deal would be taking Gooden instead of Hughes though.

Jonathan
05-21-2008, 01:14 PM
Hughes' deal runs out the same time as JO's does and Hinrich has a front loaded deal that drops from 10 to 9.5 to 9 to 8 mil over the next 4 years. I think that's a pretty good deal.

I think a better deal would be taking Gooden instead of Hughes though.

Drew Gooden? I want the Pacers to make the playoffs next year. I believe Jermaine helps our team more than Gooden/Hinrich/Hughes do in that department.

Unclebuck
05-21-2008, 01:19 PM
UB-

Understood. Agree with all that. He's definitely an upgrade. But
who's he gonna run the pick and roll with ? Do we have a big
who can run it with both the 'roll' (and finish in the lane) and
'pop' options available.

You can obviously run it out high w/o both options (see the Pacers'
ham-handed running of it w/ Foster in recent years). But it works best
with a big who can do both.

Dunleavy and Foster run it pretty well, although the good defensive teams can stop it if and when they focus on it. Murphy can be a decent pick and pop player.

Good to see a post from you Beast23 - and I agree, the Bulls could play Kirk at shooting guard without any problems - he can guard almost all of them anyway

D-BONE
05-21-2008, 01:29 PM
Not that big on Hinrich. However, if you can get him plus either Nocioni or Gooden for JO, I would do it. At that point, I'd still consider drafting Augustine at 11 though. This is b/c I don't think Hinrich is a true point, but could play some minutes there and some valuable minutes at 2 and maybe even eventually become the main SG.

All that said, I still have my doubts about JO's trade viability. Can he really be worth even this much? Frankly, I think pretty much any of the deals mentioned in this thread for him would be steals for us.

pacergod2
05-21-2008, 01:36 PM
screw hinrich. i would rather sign duhon as a free agent for less than half the money. i know we dont have much money to burn in free agency, but he will be more affordable than most other situations where we get the same level of skill from our PG position. I would love to trade Daniels for Chris Wilcox. A few small moves is what we are looking at this offseason because it is going to be extremely difficult to pull off something major with the roster we have.

I am of the school of thought to keep JO until his contract expires. Trade our expirings in Foster and Quis for young talent or draft picks (not including foreign players with foreign contracts). Hopefully we can get rid of Tinsley to a team in need of a point guard and give them a second rounder for their bum (think Jerome James and save a year off of Tinsley's contract).

Most importantly, JOB needs to trust the young talent we have on our roster to play more minutes next season. I know that might mean a few bumps in the road, but we need to look at teams like detroit and the spurs who infuse their young talent into the rotation so they can improve. how can we let talent ROT on the bench, when our current, talent-deprived rotation can't win 40 games.

my team next year:

duhon, deiner
granger, graham, 2nd round (combo guard)
williams, dunleavy
wilcox, ike, 1st round (athletic, rebounding pf/c)
oneal, murphy, harrison

pacergod2
05-21-2008, 01:40 PM
i would love to make a trade such as hinrich for murphy and a second rounder. but not JO. we need his expiring contract in two years and post defense.

Jared Jammer
05-21-2008, 01:55 PM
Hinrich is an overpaid good backup, mediocre starter. I'd pass on him. I'd much rather take my chances on Augustine or Westbrook.

grace
05-21-2008, 02:07 PM
I really don't think the Bulls are going to trade Nocioni. Trust me, the Pacers DO NOT want Chris Duhon. If you do sign him you might as well include directions to Club Rio and Cloud 9 in his contract because he's going to end up there anyway. He'll probably also use the same alarm clock that Shawne Williams does.

naptownmenace
05-21-2008, 02:20 PM
How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

Would you do it and would the Bulls?


That's a great deal for the Pacers but I doubt the bulls would do it unless the Pacers also threw in their #11 pick or a future first rounder. Gooden's expiring contract adds extra value on the Bulls side of the table. That being said, when healthy, JO is the best player in this deal so it's probably the best deal possible for both teams.

ABADays
05-21-2008, 02:36 PM
I still think Kirk could look very good playing for Jim O'Brien.

Well, wasn't there this same speculation from JOB himself about Tins? UGH!

Manguera
05-21-2008, 02:50 PM
Drew Gooden? I want the Pacers to make the playoffs next year. I believe Jermaine helps our team more than Gooden/Hinrich/Hughes do in that department.

Um... how has that worked out for us the last 2 years? Aside from the defense, Gooden had similar numbers to JO last year and is waaaay more durable. Plus he expires after a year anyway. And we would be getting a PG that would fill one of our most glaring weaknesses (Perimeter D) while allowing us to draft our future PF (Love, Randolph, Speights).

Infinite MAN_force
05-21-2008, 03:21 PM
Woah, woah, woah. This will not be a great defensive team after that trade. It might appear a little better because of the major increase in perimeter defense, but you're also trading our best post defender away.

Now, if you're comparing the post-trade team to the JO-less team, then yes that's big improvement. I really don't want Hughes, though. It'd be nice if we got their 2009 first rounder for taking him.

Hughes is a strong perimeter defender and a slasher, two things we really need.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that in my plan, we draft a bigman to replace JO at 11. I think Mareese Speights is perfect, 6-10 245 PF/C, and unlike a lot of other raw big prospects is highly skilled, with both post up skills and a nice face up game and highly developed shooting mechanics, also a shot blocker. Make him our post presence and defensive anchor.

The downside is that our contract situation still sucks, in fact it is worse. However the improvment to the team would make it worth it.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 03:22 PM
My initial answer is yes on a JONeal for Hinrich+Hughes trade. I think that this move would allow us to be competitive for the next couple of seasons while allowing us to build a good foundation for along with a core of Granger/Dunleavy/Diener/Murphy/Shawne and whatever players we draft.....which is what I think Bird still wants to do.

I don't agree with the notion that Hinrich won't improve our team that much. Even for this last season, I really think that if we had a Starting quality PG ( Flip does not count ) that could run the offense ( even if it was Tinsley ) for a full season along with a Healthy JONeal....we would have made the Playoffs. Hinrich won't be a player that pushes us over the top in a single season....unfortunately, there is no player that can do that. But IMHO...he's a better Starting PG option then what we have now in Tinsley and Diener.

When you look at the Salary cap impact for a JONeal for Hinrich+Hughes, in the 2008-2009/2009-2010 season.....JONeal is owed the same amount as Hinrich+Hughes ( combined ) is owed.....$23 mil per season over the next 2 seasons. The true impact is that Hinrich will add 9mil per year in the 2010-2011/2011-2012 seasons...which to me, would be an acceptable cost IF we were to get the type of Combo-Guard that I think that Bird and JO'B like to have at the Starting PG spot. However, judging from Grace's comments and reading on the Bulls RealGM forum, it appears that Hinrich isn't that good of a leader for the team. But with JONeal gone....I'm looking to Granger to be the Team leader on the floor and in the Locker-room and think that Hinrich would suit our needs for a Starting quality Guard that can help pressure the opposing PG who could also compliment Diener while running the point.

As for adding Hughes to our GF rotation, I don't consider players like Marquis/Flip/Kareem as factors in the future. I could care less about resigning Flip or Kareem and I think ( or at least hope ) that Marquis will be shopped in the offseason with Ike and/or Tinsley to help add to the Frontcourt depth. I would live with Hughes for the 2008-2009 season and then look to shop him in the 2009-2010 season.

Unfortunately, pursuing Hinrich also depends on what TPTB decide to do with Tinsley. If I were to believe that Tinsley would somehow be moved in this offseason and we would somehow have the resources to resign Granger by the 2008-2009 season, then I would do it.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 03:33 PM
Drew Gooden? I want the Pacers to make the playoffs next year. I believe Jermaine helps our team more than Gooden/Hinrich/Hughes do in that department.
If we are to simply look at the Playoffs.......I really think that what we need are healthy players at key positions on the team. I would believe that the value that Gooden/Hinrich/Hughes would provide us would outweigh any value that JONeal would give us.

I do not dispute the contribution that JONeal provides on the defensive and offensive side.....but given his health and inability ( for one reason or another ) to stay on the court....a healthy Hinrich, Gooden and Hughes ( however many games he can play before getting injured ) would likely benefit the team more in the long run then having a JONeal that may or may not be in the lineup for a full season.

Jared Jammer
05-21-2008, 03:35 PM
If Chicago wants J.O., we need to get back at least one of their intriguing young prospects - Gordon, Thomas, or Noah. A couple of overpaid mediocrities (Hinrich, Hughes, Gooden) isn't worth it for the Pacers.

Anthem
05-21-2008, 03:35 PM
Trade for Kirk or draft a PG?

Is "Neither" an option?

Jonathan
05-21-2008, 03:35 PM
Um... how has that worked out for us the last 2 years? Aside from the defense, Gooden had similar numbers to JO last year and is waaaay more durable. Plus he expires after a year anyway. And we would be getting a PG that would fill one of our most glaring weaknesses (Perimeter D) while allowing us to draft our future PF (Love, Randolph, Speights).

You want that player we draft to learn on the fly. I think it benefits our organization to wait to move Jermaine b/c his trade value will increase the more his contract gets closer to expiring. He will also tutor the kid we draft (I HOPE). I have never been a huge fan of Gooden b/c of his facial hair. Hinrich is a shoot first guard.

Jonathan
05-21-2008, 03:38 PM
If we are to simply look at the Playoffs.......I really think that what we need are healthy players at key positions on the team. I would believe that the value that Gooden/Hinrich/Hughes would provide us would outweigh any value that JONeal would give us.

I do not dispute the contribution that JONeal provides on the defensive and offensive side.....but given his health and inability ( for one reason or another ) to stay on the court....a healthy Hinrich, Gooden and Hughes ( however many games he can play before getting injured ) would likely benefit the team more in the long run then having a JONeal that may or may not be in the lineup for a full season.

I like Larry Hughes but he does not have a winning attitude. He is always being traded or injured. He makes his stats when they do not matter he is not clutch.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 03:48 PM
That's a great deal for the Pacers but I doubt the bulls would do it unless the Pacers also threw in their #11 pick or a future first rounder. Gooden's expiring contract adds extra value on the Bulls side of the table. That being said, when healthy, JO is the best player in this deal so it's probably the best deal possible for both teams.
I'm on the fence when it comes to trading JONeal.....if we can get a fair deal for him before the next trade deadline, then I would move him....but don't mind keeping him as an Expiring Contract.

If Hinrich were a Guard that was as inept as Tinsley on the defensive end...then I would agree that I would prefer to keep JONeal simply for his defense. But since Hinrich is a solid perimeter Guard Defender and is capable of filling a need that we have, then I wouldn't mind trading one need while losing another.

It maybe simply shifting our defensive problems from the interior to the perimeter.....but I would much rather have a Defensive perimeter Guard that I think can run the point that is more durable ( which is the key ) then have an Defensive Big Man with some Low-Post skills that I can't truly count on to be healthy.

I know that we will lose out on some Frontcourt Depth here....most notably on the defensive end....but that ( to me ) just means that we draft a Big Man at the 11th spot that can rebound, block a few shots and adequatly defend the post. Since I am not a fan of Augustin, I would much rather trade JONeal for Hinrich and then draft a Big Man like Love ( who I doubt would be there ), Spreights or even Arthur.

To me...it's a matter of rounding out the team with healthy players so that our season is not dependant on players that have a history of missing games due to injuries.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 03:52 PM
If Chicago wants J.O., we need to get back at least one of their intriguing young prospects - Gordon, Thomas, or Noah. A couple of overpaid mediocrities (Hinrich, Hughes, Gooden) isn't worth it for the Pacers.
JONeal is not in the catagory of "overpaid mediocriies"?

I'm a pessimist.....I don't think that JONeal's trade value is high enough to warrant getting back Gordon, Thomas or Noah on top of Hinrich.

If the Bulls were willing to take JONeal+Marquis for Hinrich+Hughes+Gooden....I would take that and run.

IMHO....we truly cannot compete and start to build a foundation until we have healthy and durable players at key positions on this team.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 03:57 PM
I like Larry Hughes but he does not have a winning attitude. He is always being traded or injured. He makes his stats when they do not matter he is not clutch.
If Hughes was our 1st or the "definitive" 2nd option on this team....then I agree with you.

I don't consider Hughes as a long-term solution at the SG spot...I consider him a stop-gap solution until we move him in the 2009-2010 season or when we let him expire in the 2010-2011 season. Nor do I consider him a definite 2nd scoring option on this team.....he would be behind Granger ( our 1st scoring option ) and would then be considered 2nd/3rd/4th scoring option next to players like Hinrich, Dunleavy or Murphy.

indyman37
05-21-2008, 04:14 PM
If I had to choose between just Hinrich or whatever the draft gives us, I'd go with the draft. You can get a young, fairly raw player who you can mold to fit what you want. It's harder to do that with a vet.

But depending on who is included in the trade, it is a serious option.

count55
05-21-2008, 04:19 PM
I think it's likely that Hinrich would be better than anyone we're likely to get at 11 from this draft, but, the two questions are:

1) What do we have to give up for him?

and

2) Is he still a better value when you factor in the $37.5mm he's owed over the next four years?

(One interesting note, though: his contract declines over the next four years. $10.3 next year, then $9.8, $9.3, and finally $8.3. That's a nice feature to have on a contract.)

Manguera
05-21-2008, 04:20 PM
You want that player we draft to learn on the fly. I think it benefits our organization to wait to move Jermaine b/c his trade value will increase the more his contract gets closer to expiring. He will also tutor the kid we draft (I HOPE). I have never been a huge fan of Gooden b/c of his facial hair. Hinrich is a shoot first guard.

The guy we draft won't be learning on the fly if he's behind Gooden and Foster for a year. Guys like Speights and Love could contribute off the bench next year. And you're pinning JO's increasing trade value on him being healthy.

JayRedd
05-21-2008, 04:27 PM
Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

He doesn't.


I would do JO for Hughes/Hinrich in a heartbeat.

Kill me now.


Hughes is a strong perimeter defender and a slasher, two things we really need.

Hughes is nothing more than Marquis at double the price.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 04:35 PM
I really don't think the Bulls are going to trade Nocioni. Trust me, the Pacers DO NOT want Chris Duhon. If you do sign him you might as well include directions to Club Rio and Cloud 9 in his contract because he's going to end up there anyway. He'll probably also use the same alarm clock that Shawne Williams does.
LOL...I've read this before about Duhon. On paper, I would be okay with him...but with his "off the court" activities and tendencies....I would likely pass as well.

I recall that you ( and other Bulls fans ) have said that Hinrich isn't a really good team leader. I think that Granger will need to step into this role, so I have no problem with Hinrich not being a good leader on the team as long as he's a better option the Tinsley at the starting PG spot. I also think that Bird/JO'B would prefer a Combo-Guard that can score, run the point ( adequately ) and defend/pressure the opposing PG.

Since you are the resident Bulls expert here or at least ......I have yet to see you chime in on whether you think that Hinrich would be a good fit on this team or not. What do you think of Hinrich playing for the Pacers?

Hicks
05-21-2008, 04:44 PM
Well, wasn't there this same speculation from JOB himself about Tins? UGH!

Totally different. Kirk, to my knowledge, doesn't have either Tinsley's perceived attitude or the same package of flaws in his game.

Jared Jammer
05-21-2008, 04:52 PM
JONeal is not in the catagory of "overpaid mediocriies"?

I'm a pessimist.....I don't think that JONeal's trade value is high enough to warrant getting back Gordon, Thomas or Noah on top of Hinrich.

If the Bulls were willing to take JONeal+Marquis for Hinrich+Hughes+Gooden....I would take that and run.

IMHO....we truly cannot compete and start to build a foundation until we have healthy and durable players at key positions on this team.

If J.O. is healthy, he's a 20/10 defensive ace. An All-Star and likely a top-5 power forward. Larry Bird knows this, and that's why he refuses to be ripped off by taking other teams scrap parts.

Gooden? Career back-up. Hughes? Borderline top-20 SG...when healthy. Hinrich is moderately interesting, but he's not the caliber of player people here are making him out to be. He's a decent starter, nothing more. I'd consider he and a healthy Tinsley a toss-up.

Jared Jammer
05-21-2008, 05:06 PM
Someday somebody's gonna have to explain to me why JO has any value at all as a trading piece.

Because a healthy Jermaine O'Neal brings so much to the table that teams are willing to take a chance on him.

How many 20/10 big men are there in the league? 5-6? Now, how many of those guys also play defense at the level which J.O. does? Duncan and KG - that's about it.

A healthy J.O. has proven he can be the best player on a contending team. Guys like that don't grow on trees.

Yes his numbers are down, but that's because he hasn't been at 100% in a few seasons. His production in December of this past season clearly shows he still has a lot of game left in him.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 05:32 PM
If J.O. is healthy, he's a 20/10 defensive ace. An All-Star and likely a top-5 power forward. Larry Bird knows this, and that's why he refuses to be ripped off by taking other teams scrap parts.
Again...you lost me at "If J.O is healthy".

I agree with you that IF he is healthy then he can potentially be a 20/10 ( IMHO a 18/8 ) defensive guy....but after going through 3 seasons of hoping that JONeal will be healthy enough to get through the season and hanging my hopes on him dragging us to the Playoffs....and then coming up short...time after time....assuming that Tinsley can somehow be moved....I would prefer to move him for players that make sense for what we are doing in a deal that would be considered fair ( taking into account that JONeal is a $44 mil dollar player that has averaged 54 games a season since the Brawl ).

This doesn't mean that I would move JONeal for peanuts or that I do not think that he is capable of contributing....it just means that if we can acquire players that does fills some need on our team while not getting back absolute garbage ( sorry, I don't think that Gooden is garbage and I think that Hughes does fill a need ) .....then I would consider trading JONeal.

IMHO.....I feel that we simply have to move on and eliminate the "will JONeal be injured or not" variable from the equation of whether the Pacers are successful or not. To me, you can't build a strong foundation for a team if you have to constantly factor in whether your key player is going to be injured or not.


Gooden? Career back-up. Hughes? Borderline top-20 SG...when healthy.
Gooden and Hughes are not long-term solutions to either positions. Although Foster is the better defender.....Gooden is a solid scoring Offensive Rebounder that would temporarily fill a similar role that Foster fills for us. I know that he is no answer to the needed interior defense that JONeal provides....but again....he's a short term solution. Hopefully, with the 11th pick...we can draft a long-term solution to eventually fill the role that JONeal filled on this team when Gooden comes off the books. As for Hughes, I agree that I would do a straight up Hinrich+Gooden deal for JONeal.....but IMHO Hughes is the cost to getting Hinrich and IMHO is an expensive stop-gap solution for the near future.

Since I am not expecting to build a championship team in a season or two....but think that building one is a long-term process ( given our Salary cap situation )....I can accept Hughes as a short-term price if not a solution for our SG situation ( where Dunleavy shifts more to the 6th Man role that he is better suited for ).


Hinrich is moderately interesting, but he's not the caliber of player people here are making him out to be. He's a decent starter, nothing more. I'd consider he and a healthy Tinsley a toss-up.
Wow.....I would take Hinrich's defense and adequate PG skills over a healthy Tinsley any day of the week.

grace
05-21-2008, 05:35 PM
Since you are the resident Bulls expert here or at least ......I have yet to see you chime in on whether you think that Hinrich would be a good fit on this team or not. What do you think of Hinrich playing for the Pacers?

Personally, I've never seen what is supposed to be so great about him. As long as you don't think he's a true PG or a team leader and you don't expect him to be aggressive enough to draw fouls then he's the player for you.

owl
05-21-2008, 05:44 PM
Heinrich no thanks.

Rajah Brown
05-21-2008, 06:07 PM
Jared-

Since J.O. hasn't been 100% in a few years, how do you know that
a 100% J.O. (assuming that's even possible) now is the same/as good
as a 100% J.O. back then ?

I'm for hanging on to him until his deal expires unless a really great
deal presents itself. But J.O.'s health isn't his only issue. Even at
100% or close to it, he's appreciably overpaid and, his annual
(worthless) commentary on what he's gonna do notwitstanding,
it remains to be seen how well he fits in O'B's system.

CableKC
05-21-2008, 06:53 PM
Jared-
Since J.O. hasn't been 100% in a few years, how do you know that a 100% J.O. (assuming that's even possible) now is the same/as good as a 100% J.O. back then ?

I'm for hanging on to him until his deal expires unless a really great deal presents itself. But J.O.'s health isn't his only issue.
In all fairness, we don't know either way.......he could return to his past glory...he may not. Unfortunately, JONeal has done very little to prove to me that he can be that 20/10 guy that we all remember him to be. For now, I too would live with what his Expiring Contract in the 2009/2010 season.....I'm just hedging my bets that I think his prime is past him. If I had the chance to move him for a package that makes sense for what we are trying to do.....I would do it.

For the very reasons why I considered moving Artest ( way back when ), I would move JONeal for the very same reason....we must eliminate variables from this team. Just like I don't want to factor in when Artest would go "Artest" on us, if given the opportunity to eliminate the "will he be healthy enough or not" question from our team....I would do it. I just want to eliminate the "uncertainty" that accompanies JONeal whether he will be healthy or not.



Even at 100% or close to it, he's appreciably overpaid and, his annual (worthless) commentary on what he's gonna do notwitstanding, it remains to be seen how well he fits in O'B's system.
I think that he does fit the team if we don't entirely run the offense through him and he focuses on the defensive end. Unfortunately, we haven't really seen whether he could do this for the majority of the season.

skyfire
05-21-2008, 07:53 PM
Even if JO never returns to his previous glory, his trade value is only going to go up over the next year as his contract gets closer to expiring.

I wouldn't do JO for Hinrich + Gooden/Hughes.

Hughes is NOT a good perimeter defender. All he does is overplay the passing lanes to get steals.

If you could get Hinrich without giving up Granger or JO you'd have to think about it.

immortality
05-21-2008, 08:08 PM
I would do this trade if we were able to Kevin Love in the draft at #11.

Indiana:
Kirk Hinrich
Larry Hughes / Drew Gooden
Kevin Love

Chicago:
Jermaine O'neal


It would be even more awesome if the trade went down like this:

Indiana:
Kirk Hinrich
Larry Hughes / Drew Gooden
Joakim Noah / Tyrus Thomas

Chicago:
Jermaine O'neal
Ike Digou / Shawn Williams


AND we still get Kevin Love =) so we end up with a starting 5 of:

Kevin Love, Thomas/Noah, Danny Granger, Dun, Hinrich

the Bench:

Jeff Foster, Larry Hughes/Drew Gooden, Quis, David Harrison, Kareem Rush, Graham, Williams, Diener, Owens

Which is definitely better than last year.

Gamble1
05-21-2008, 08:40 PM
For me its hard to see why the Bulls would want to do this trade.

They are in a position to draft Rose which does make Hinrich expendable but would any GM naturally think that Rose would come in an run a team to challenge the Central.

Now if the Bulls would do the trade I would pull the trigger in a heart beat. JO isn't worth much anymore and every year his trade value seems to get worse. Atleast with the trade the Pacers split the salary among players and have movable pieces.

If the Pacers draft Love (big IF) then post scoring is atleast existent for JOB to run an offense with options.

Drafting matador speights is bad option to me for replacing JO.

Gamble1
05-21-2008, 08:45 PM
Jared-

Since J.O. hasn't been 100% in a few years, how do you know that
a 100% J.O. (assuming that's even possible) now is the same/as good
as a 100% J.O. back then ?

I'm for hanging on to him until his deal expires unless a really great
deal presents itself. But J.O.'s health isn't his only issue. Even at
100% or close to it, he's appreciably overpaid and, his annual
(worthless) commentary on what he's gonna do notwitstanding,
it remains to be seen how well he fits in O'B's system.

So with all the free salary cap space in 2-3 years who do expect to sign? I am just curious because this mindset is prevalent on the board.

Los Angeles
05-21-2008, 08:56 PM
So with all the free salary cap space in 2-3 years who do expect to sign? I am just curious because this mindset is prevalent on the board.

The best available free agent - who might not even be known right now (a lot can happen in two years).

OR - you use the money to off-set losses in ticket sales so that the team can stay financially secure and firmly rooted in Indianapolis.

mrknowname
05-21-2008, 09:12 PM
jo for hinrich/thomas as the starting point for a trade

and draft russell westbrook

BoomBaby31
05-21-2008, 09:59 PM
If we had the chance to get Kirk Hinrich and didn't we would be stupid. I say get Kirk Hinrich and draft Roy Hibert. We would have a nice young team with Hibert, Granger, Hinrich.. very nice indeed.

Eindar
05-22-2008, 06:42 AM
Hughes is a strong perimeter defender and a slasher, two things we really need.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that in my plan, we draft a bigman to replace JO at 11. I think Mareese Speights is perfect, 6-10 245 PF/C, and unlike a lot of other raw big prospects is highly skilled, with both post up skills and a nice face up game and highly developed shooting mechanics, also a shot blocker. Make him our post presence and defensive anchor.

The downside is that our contract situation still sucks, in fact it is worse. However the improvment to the team would make it worth it.

Good to see this was your plan, and not something I posted a couple days ago (JO for Hinrich/Hughes) and you agreed with :)

Rajah Brown
05-22-2008, 06:59 AM
Gamble1-

I didn't see any inference of a future free agent singing in my post.
I have no clue what TBTP will do with the available cap space. For
all I know, they might resign J.O. to another, much less expendive deal.
It seems pretty certain that at least half of it will go to Granger.

It won't bother me if J.O. is dealt tomorrow. It just seems that whatever
trade value he has will be enhanced if he proves himself fairly healthy and
as the expiration date on his deal draws closer.

DisplacedKnick
05-22-2008, 07:04 AM
Because a healthy Jermaine O'Neal brings so much to the table that teams are willing to take a chance on him.


Such a creature no longer exists.

naptownmenace
05-22-2008, 02:19 PM
If we had the chance to get Kirk Hinrich and didn't we would be stupid. I say get Kirk Hinrich and draft Roy Hibert. We would have a nice young team with Hibert, Granger, Hinrich.. very nice indeed.

Roy Hibbert is going to be a big disappointment on the NBA level. He's a poor-man's version of Rik Smits or Eddie Curry. The big difference is that Smits and Curry were much better scorers.

If a trade is to be had with the Bulls they should try and talk them into a Hinrich/Gooden for JO straight up trade. That's a good deal for the Pacers anyway.

avoidingtheclowns
05-22-2008, 03:19 PM
Roy Hibbert is going to be a big disappointment on the NBA level. He's a poor-man's version of Rik Smits or Eddie Curry. The big difference is that Smits and Curry were much better scorers.

i don't know about big disappointment -- only if he goes anywhere before the cavs pick. he'll be good as a late first rounder with a team that plays mostly in the halfcourt and are looking for defense. cavs, utah and boston then maybe detroit too.

but for the pacers? no thanks. maybe with carlisle it would have made more sense. if we want a defensive PF/C we need him to be athletic (i'd look at someone like devon hardin or maybe even robin lopez).

Jonathan
05-22-2008, 03:48 PM
The guy we draft won't be learning on the fly if he's behind Gooden and Foster for a year. Guys like Speights and Love could contribute off the bench next year. And you're pinning JO's increasing trade value on him being healthy.

I read an article on Speights on draft express and they were talking about him having a nice shooting touch but relying it on too much ie not posting up underneath. Jermaine has been knocked for the same thing. Jermaine has to stay healthy for his trade value to increase.

Infinite MAN_force
05-22-2008, 07:11 PM
Good to see this was your plan, and not something I posted a couple days ago (JO for Hinrich/Hughes) and you agreed with :)

Hell, Kravits is already talking about it on the radio. You might want to call him up and let him know who really gets the credit here. :D

Infinite MAN_force
05-22-2008, 07:32 PM
I think the deal would be fairly low risk for Chicago. If JO does not pan out his contract is up in two seasons, than they have all the cap room they could ever need. We would be taking their two biggest contracts off their hands. I was even thinking, instead of asking for a young player, maybe we could even unload Tinsley on them...

JO and Tinsley for Gooden, Hinrich, and Hughes works. Gooden is payed the same as tinsley but for two less years. Reason I think bulls would consider this? I don't think they will resign duhon cause they need money to sign one of Gordon or Deng... They can have a veteran PG to play alongside Rose while he figures out the NBA. However, they won't have to totally rely on him... so the injury concerns are not as great, also, his contract will be up by the time Rose is getting his bigger payday. So it doesn't hurt too much.

Those complaining about Hinrich, really? Who else are we going to get thats better? If absolute tanking to try to get top draft picks for the next 4 years is really what you want, than I guess I could see why you wouldn't like this. This is probably the best chance we could get to snag a starting quality PG, especially one that plays great DEFENSE.

As far as Hughes is concerned, he would be playing the Marquis role, but he is surely a much better player. Wasn't this guy a 20 PPG scorer at one time? His three is spotty for sure but not non-existent like Daniels. I would hope JOB could get him to focus on slashing to the basket, our great need, as opposed to jacking threes ... yeah, that might be a concern with this offense.

One last thing... hold on to Daniels and Diogu for one more year, they both expire after this season. That gives you enough to pay granger. Which is really my main concern when talking about the salary cap.

LoneGranger33
05-23-2008, 01:19 AM
What about a Calderon for the 11th pick and change kind of deal?

CableKC
05-23-2008, 01:30 AM
What about a Calderon for the 11th pick and change kind of deal?
It depends on how much Calderon would want in a S&T. I'm guessing somewhere starting between 6 to 8 mil?

The best we could offer would be S&T of Calderon starting at $6.8mil in 2008-2009 / $30 mil total contract over 4 seasons + the 11th pick.

Since I don't really care about losing Marquis.....unless Love was available....I guess Calderon would be a solid exchange for the 11th pick. But I doubt that Raptors would go for that.

Merz
05-23-2008, 01:31 AM
As someone who lives in the "Chicagoland" area let me just say that I'm really not a fan of "Captain Kirk"

I've seen him play plenty of times and he doesn't impress all that much. His shot is very streaky, he barely makes his teammates better if at all, and his D is only solid on certain types of guards.

CableKC
05-23-2008, 01:31 AM
Hell, Kravits is already talking about it on the radio. You might want to call him up and let him know who really gets the credit here. :D
What did he say?

Did he think it was a good idea or not?

Manguera
05-23-2008, 10:58 AM
I read an article on Speights on draft express and they were talking about him having a nice shooting touch but relying it on too much ie not posting up underneath. Jermaine has been knocked for the same thing. Jermaine has to stay healthy for his trade value to increase.

If you read a little further, that was during the 2nd day during an informal workout and he was just having fun playing at that time more than anything. I have a friend that is a huge Gator fan and he said that Speights does tend to coast during some games, but was absolutely dominant in others. I think he will shoot a higher % than JO and if even if he puts up the same numbers that JO gave us this year (minus the injuries) then it will be a good pick. I would definitely be happy with a cheaper version of 07/08 JO that has the potential to be 01-04 JO.

Infinite MAN_force
05-23-2008, 01:01 PM
What did he say?

Did he think it was a good idea or not?

Kravitz is all for it.

He straight up asked Larry Bird about it in an interview, Bird was like "I can't really comment on other team's players right now". He didn't shoot it down though.

grace
05-23-2008, 05:31 PM
As someone who lives in the "Chicagoland" area let me just say that I'm really not a fan of "Captain Kirk"

I've seen him play plenty of times and he doesn't impress all that much. His shot is very streaky, he barely makes his teammates better if at all, and his D is only solid on certain types of guards.

Maybe now that you've said it people will start to believe it. When I say he's not that good they think I'm crazy.

CableKC
05-23-2008, 06:27 PM
Maybe now that you've said it people will start to believe it. When I say he's not that good they think I'm crazy.
Yeah.....but we all know that you're crazy for other reasons.....;) J/K

Seroiusly.......can Captain Kirk be any worse then having Tinsley as our Starting PG?

Kegboy
05-23-2008, 09:20 PM
Seroiusly.......can Captain Kirk be any worse then having Tinsley as our Starting PG?

Probably not, but "he can't be any worse" doesn't seem like a good long-term investment to me, especially if Tinsley is still on the roster.

D-BONE
05-23-2008, 09:54 PM
Maybe now that you've said it people will start to believe it. When I say he's not that good they think I'm crazy.

People are just exasperated with JT. I completely empathize. Like I've said before, I'm not particularly impressed by Hinrich, but if TPTB feel compelled to do it...

...find a way to at least get rid of JT, too, please!!!

Shade
05-23-2008, 10:00 PM
Such a creature no longer exists.

Neither does Bigfoot, but that doesn't stop people from hunting for him.

BlueNGold
05-23-2008, 11:22 PM
Neither does Bigfoot, but that doesn't stop people from hunting for him.

Yes, the only table JO brings a lot to is the operating table. I expect to see Bigfoot before 20/10 from JO...unless it's 20 games on, 10 games off...

BlueNGold
05-23-2008, 11:26 PM
Hinrich is a better PG than anyone in this draft except Rose and Bayless. If we can get him and another piece or pick for JO, you do it.

If I knew JO would play more than 60-65 games next year, it would be an entirely different story. Can't have your starting center lame at playoff time or not playing enough for the team to have any continuity. I'm tired of seeing our players in street clothes...

Smoothdave1
05-24-2008, 12:08 AM
I'd do a Hinrich for JO deal, but not too sure about taking on Hughes' contract. I kinda feel like he would be a Marquis type of player riding the bench and making 10 mil plus a year. Not sure if the Bulls would have any desire to obtain Tinsley either. I could see a 3 team deal going down instead.

CableKC
05-24-2008, 12:12 AM
Neither does Bigfoot, but that doesn't stop people from hunting for him.
Bigfoot does exist......I saw him last season on the Clippers playing next to Elton Brand. But for some reason...this season....that Bigfoot was replaced by a Caveman :confused:

pwee31
05-25-2008, 08:05 PM
Kirk Hinrich is a good PG.
He has size, he's an underrated defender and he can shoot the rock as well as pass.

I really feel the Bulls squad has held him back.
For one offensively b/c Ben Gordon shoots the ball way to much, which is great when he's hot, but bad when he's not.

You also have Deng who has to get his touches.

On top of that the Bulls don't push the rock like they should.

Then you look at the defensive end and you'll see Hinrich guarding the opposing teams shooting guard as well, b/c Gordon lacks the size and skill to defend in that department.

You put Hinrich is our line up, where he can run, have the freedom to shoot, and where he can guard the opposing teams defense b/c Dunleavy is long, and I think he excels.

Through in the fact that he has guarded two guards, and you can even have in on the floor with Diener at times.

I think Hinrich would be a great addition to our team.

Hinrich, Dunleavy and Granger is a really good core. and if we only have to give up JO, we could still have some pieces to make the frontcourt stronger as well.

Young
05-26-2008, 12:31 AM
I'm still saying Ben Gordon.

Obviously this wouldn't be a draft day deal but once free agency starts maybe something could get done? Man that would be sweet.

What I love about Ben Gordon is he can performe well for us in the 4th quarter. He might not be the point guard Kirk Hinrich is but man Gordon is a player to watch out for in the 4th. I think that with Jim here that Ben can run this offense just fine.

Give Ben the type of contract Kirk Hinrich got and then add Hughes to the sign and trade and I am down with that deal.

Maybe Jermaine, Marquis Daniels (expiering if his team opition isn't exercised) for Ben Gordon, Larry Hughes, and maybe another player of a future pick.

Besides that I think that the Bulls are more likely to want to deal Ben than Kirk. Ben's contract will be on the rise along with Luol Deng who is due for a new deal this summer. While Kirk is a natural point guard who can play the two and his salary actually goes down each year. Kirk can play point this year and then Rose (assuming that is who they pick) can start when he is ready.

Consider that Ben Gordon was a player Larry really wanted, I think, when he was drafted and I think we tried to move up to get him but couldn't work out a deal. I think if this is true, and Ben knows this, then he may want to come here as hopefully he has limited opitions.

If a move was made and we did end up getting Kirk I would not be ticked off. Kirk, Mike, and Danny is a nice core to build off of. Either way I just wonder what we do with Jamaal. No way the Bulls would want him in either deal.

grace
05-26-2008, 08:35 AM
Yes, pay Ben what he thinks he deserves and he'll get his head out of his butt and actually play.

Infinite MAN_force
05-26-2008, 09:34 AM
You could theoretically trade JO for Hinrich and Gordon if they signed and traded him for 12 million, but to do that, All that cap space would be used for JO, they would still be stuck with hughes contract, and deng cant be resigned.

Hinrich and Hughes makes way more sense for chicago.

Jose Slaughter
05-27-2008, 03:19 AM
I wish you would

Natston
05-27-2008, 03:23 AM
I don't know... maybe his homo-erotic narcissistic posting style is worth keeping around...

Will Galen
05-27-2008, 09:49 AM
I just read all the posts in this thread and the only JO trade I would like is the one for Hinrich and Gooden straight up. That would save us $4m next year, and then $7m the year after when Gooden's contract was up.

Since we are already close to what next years luxury tax will probably be it's the only one that makes good sense.

Hinrich and Hughes just doesn't make sense for the Pacers. The big problem is Hughes contract. We would be paying $21m for our shootings guards, Hughes and Dun, and their contracts only get larger. And neither is a really good shooting guard. Yes they both do the job, but Hughes is just okay, and Dun is playing out of position.

I suppose if we added someone like Daniels it would make some financial sense that way, but then Chicago would be down $6m and want to add a contract and it wouldn't be a good player with what they would already be giving up.

With JO and Hinrich as the principals I might like something else, not Gordon though. He would give us the same problems as Hughes, and he's not as good of a defender. Anything else I really can't see Chicago doing though.

Like was already said by Naptown Menace, the only trade both teams would likely do is JO for Hinrich and Gooden straight up.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 05:57 PM
Contracts don't match for Hinrich and Gooden. Gotta add Tyrus Thomas... but would Chicago???

Thats definatly a better trade for us, but it all depends on where JO's value is.

grace
05-27-2008, 06:26 PM
Contracts don't match for Hinrich and Gooden. Gotta add Tyrus Thomas... but would Chicago???

Skiles would, but he's not there anymore.

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 06:31 PM
Contracts don't match for Hinrich and Gooden. Gotta add Tyrus Thomas... but would Chicago???

Thats definatly a better trade for us, but it all depends on where JO's value is.

the bulls invested quite a bit into thomas. right now thomas doesn't have as much trade value as he once did so my guess is they'd hang onto him until at least the deadline. my guess is if you're looking for filler it'd probably be simmons.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 07:44 PM
tried simmons too, falls just a bit short.

I guess they could send cash or something? Im sure there are ways around that stuff when you get pretty close to matching salaries.

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 08:36 PM
tried simmons too, falls just a bit short.

I guess they could send cash or something? Im sure there are ways around that stuff when you get pretty close to matching salaries.

are you using the realGM trade checker? because they're still using 07-08 salaries when kirk would be byc.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 08:39 PM
are you using the realGM trade checker? because they're still using 07-08 salaries when kirk would be byc.

Yeah the whole BYC thing threw me, so I used the espn trade machine, but I actually used Kobe Bryant who has a very similar contract, because it would not let me use JO because of the opt-out clause.

What is BYC exactly?

Anthem
05-27-2008, 09:35 PM
What is BYC exactly?
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm

avoidingtheclowns
05-27-2008, 10:12 PM
Yeah the whole BYC thing threw me, so I used the espn trade machine, but I actually used Kobe Bryant who has a very similar contract, because it would not let me use JO because of the opt-out clause.

What is BYC exactly?
#73 is specifically about base year contracts
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#73



as far as trades during this weird point in the before the july 1 FA signing period begins, the best way to do trades is just looking at salary info on a site like ShamSports (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp).

the basic premise is hinrich, gooden for JO. it actually works like that financially as is. the salaries have to match up to 75% -- which puts what we are required to take back for JO at $16,029,000

hinrich + gooden = $17,401,183

so that, in theory at least, works since JO makes $21,372,000 next season.
the bulls, for obvious reasons would prefer to do a hughes/gooden deal

hughes + gooden = $19,978,676

the one benefit of doing this deal would be splitting up JO's salary and save $11mil. but that would be it as far as "good things" and "trading for larry hughes" are concerned.

Will Galen
05-27-2008, 10:18 PM
Contracts don't match for Hinrich and Gooden. Gotta add Tyrus Thomas... but would Chicago???

Thats definatly a better trade for us, but it all depends on where JO's value is.

The contracts of Hinrich and Gooden match JO's on Hoopshype. I don't like to use them but Hoopshype is the only one that I know of that has next years salaries.

The link to Storytellers on here no longer works. (Hicks)

Will Galen
05-27-2008, 10:34 PM
#73 is specifically about base year contracts
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#73



as far as trades during this weird point in the before the july 1 FA signing period begins, the best way to do trades is just looking at salary info on a site like ShamSports (http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp).

the basic premise is hinrich, gooden for JO. it actually works like that financially as is. the salaries have to match up to 75% -- which puts what we are required to take back for JO at $16,029,000

hinrich + gooden = $17,401,183

so that, in theory at least, works since JO makes $21,372,000 next season.
the bulls, for obvious reasons would prefer to do a hughes/gooden deal

hinrich + gooden = $19,978,676

the one benefit of doing this deal would be splitting up JO's salary and save $11mil. but that would be it as far as "good things" and "trading for larry hughes" are concerned.

Thanks for the link to Shamsports, I booked it. It looks more accurate than Hoopshype.

As for the Bulls wanting to do a Gooden/Hughes deal, well there would be no point without Hinhrich.

No point without Hinrich. Get it?

Eindar
05-27-2008, 11:42 PM
I just read all the posts in this thread and the only JO trade I would like is the one for Hinrich and Gooden straight up. That would save us $4m next year, and then $7m the year after when Gooden's contract was up.

Since we are already close to what next years luxury tax will probably be it's the only one that makes good sense.

Hinrich and Hughes just doesn't make sense for the Pacers. The big problem is Hughes contract. We would be paying $21m for our shootings guards, Hughes and Dun, and their contracts only get larger. And neither is a really good shooting guard. Yes they both do the job, but Hughes is just okay, and Dun is playing out of position.

I suppose if we added someone like Daniels it would make some financial sense that way, but then Chicago would be down $6m and want to add a contract and it wouldn't be a good player with what they would already be giving up.

With JO and Hinrich as the principals I might like something else, not Gordon though. He would give us the same problems as Hughes, and he's not as good of a defender. Anything else I really can't see Chicago doing though.

Like was already said by Naptown Menace, the only trade both teams would likely do is JO for Hinrich and Gooden straight up.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. The big complaint last year was that our perimeter defense stunk. Bringing in Hughes and Hinrich helps with that, and it also puts guys on the floor that fit into Obie's system. You say Hughes' contract is too long for too much, but it's the same length as JO's, and he'd actually be playing as opposed to wearing a suit. I'd much rather pay Hughes 11 million per year to be a decent SG for the next two years as opposed to paying JO 22 million per year to sit courtside and watch games for the next two years.

As for Dunleavy, I'm not sold on him as a shooting guard on a competitive team. I think he could be the point forward on a competitive team, but he can't guard any shooting guard with a quick first step. I think that trading JO for backcourt help allows us to trade Dunleavy when his trade value has peaked. Seems like, to me, you could trade him to Portland for Joel Przybilla (Oden makes him unnecessary) and Martell Webster, who got DNPs once Outlaw got hot. That's probably a little on the low side of what you could get for Dunleavy, but I'm being realistic.

That would give you a starting 5 of:

Hinrich
Hughes
Granger
Murphy
Przybilla

And they'd also have the draft pick, so maybe you take a big like Jordan if he's available, or trade down for Hibbert, or even take a flier on McGee and hope he turns out to be Jonathan Bender with functional knees.

Will Galen
05-28-2008, 12:41 AM
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. The big complaint last year was that our perimeter defense stunk. Bringing in Hughes and Hinrich helps with that, and it also puts guys on the floor that fit into Obie's system. You say Hughes' contract is too long for too much, but it's the same length as JO's, and he'd actually be playing as opposed to wearing a suit. I'd much rather pay Hughes 11 million per year to be a decent SG for the next two years as opposed to paying JO 22 million per year to sit courtside and watch games for the next two years.

As for Dunleavy, I'm not sold on him as a shooting guard on a competitive team. I think he could be the point forward on a competitive team, but he can't guard any shooting guard with a quick first step. I think that trading JO for backcourt help allows us to trade Dunleavy when his trade value has peaked. Seems like, to me, you could trade him to Portland for Joel Przybilla (Oden makes him unnecessary) and Martell Webster, who got DNPs once Outlaw got hot. That's probably a little on the low side of what you could get for Dunleavy, but I'm being realistic.

That would give you a starting 5 of:

Hinrich
Hughes
Granger
Murphy
Przybilla

And they'd also have the draft pick, so maybe you take a big like Jordan if he's available, or trade down for Hibbert, or even take a flier on McGee and hope he turns out to be Jonathan Bender with functional knees.


If you mean I'm looking at how a trade with Chicago would impact the bottom line you are right. I think you are mostly looking at it from the standpoint of how the players fit. That's okay, but I like to look at trades to see if they are practical from a Pacers financial standpoint too, because if it doesn't work financially it won't get done.

Shamsports and Hoopshype already have us indebted for more than $68m next year and that's just for 11 players. The luxury tax line this year was $67.8 million and Herb Simon has already said he doesn't want to pay any tax next year. Obviously this means we are already right on top of any new tax line and have to cut payroll somehow.

JO makes $21,372,000 next year. Hinrich makes $10,250,000 and Hughes makes $12,827,676, for a combined $23,077,676. That would add $1,705,676 to our payroll this year, and almost half a million the next year. (P.S. I didn't say Hughes contract was to long)

On the other hand Gooden makes $7,151,183. Combining him with Hinrich and it's a total of $17,401,183. That would make our payroll go down $3,970,817. Tweaking it too much either way would probably be a deal breaker.

Hinrich and Gooden make sense, Hinrich and Hughes don't.

As for Dun to Portland, I've been looking at that ever since I read that Portland tried to trade for Granger. Dun would be a vet that would be an excellent fit there. However not to many trades work for both teams. I was looking at trading him for Przybilla, Jack, and the 13th pick, but I don't think Portland would bite for the simple reason what if Oden is slow to comeback or gets hurt again?

Still, I would love that trade. We would get a big and a point and then with their draft pick and ours we would be able to take another big and point in the draft. Actually I would like Rush, and a big like Jordan, R. Lopez, or Randolph.

To continue my fantasy if we did the Chicago trade we could look like this next year, and we would likely be under the tax line, depending on what it is. We won't know what the new tax line will be until the first week of July. I'm pretty sure we would be if we bought Tins out.

F 6'11 Murphy/6'10 Gooden/6'8 Ike
F 6'9 Granger/6'9 Williams
C 7'1 Przybilla/6'11 Foster/(Jordan or Lopez or Randolph or McGee)
G 6'3 Hinrich/6'3 Jack/6'1 Diener............................................ .........Tins
G 6'6 Daniels/6'6 Graham/6'7 B.Rush

Infinite MAN_force
05-28-2008, 12:54 AM
Well, on second thought, knowing that Hinrich/Gooden works straight up, that may be the best option.

I was thinking Hughes could play a role for us, but since my new obsession of the day is trading up for EJ, we will need Gooden to fill out our frontcourt. The fact that he expires after next year is also a nice plus.

Unclebuck
05-28-2008, 11:17 AM
Not sure if this article has been posted anywhere yet, but thought it fits here.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=3414955&type=story




ORLANDO, Fla. -- The official NBA pre-draft camp got under way Tuesday evening to a packed gym of NBA executives and coaches.

The opening night of the camp features five-on-five drills on three separate courts. It can be quite a bit of a frenzy and tough to get a great read on everyone.

More importantly, the Orlando pre-draft camp officially kicks off the NBA rumor season. GMs and coaches meet, talk shop, propose trades and then speculate on what everyone else is doing.

Here's what we were hearing on Tuesday night:

Jerryd Bayless and the Sonics have been a topic of much interest.

Everyone's favorite topic this time of year is promises. In the past, NBA GMs have "promised" to draft a particular player early in the draft process if they will refuse to work out for other teams.

Some of it's based off boasting or positioning by agents. Some is just GM paranoia at this time of the year. Sometimes it's based off reading too much into our latest mock draft. I had a number of GMs asking for more details on why I placed certain players where I did in the mock draft. While I try to make the mock draft a reported piece, at this time in the year, when most, if not all, of the teams haven't come close to making up their minds, a lot of it is an educated guess.

Over the past few days I've gotten calls concerning a number of players who might have a promise. Most of them have turned out to be dead ends.

Jerryd Bayless was supposedly promised to the Sonics, a couple of sources told me. Not true, according to people close to both Bayless and the Sonics. The Sonics are very high on Bayless as I reported in my last mock draft. But they haven't promised him anything and Bayless is set to work out for several teams in the lottery.

Ditto for rumors that Brandon Rush is a lock to go to the Suns at No. 15. I spoke with Steve Kerr and Rush's agent, Mark Bartelstein. Kerr acknowledged that the Suns like Rush and he'd be a great fit, but also said the Suns are bringing in around 20 players for their pick. Bartelstein said Rush is working out for teams drafting before and after the Suns.

Another bad one floating around the Internet has the Pistons promising to take Indiana's D.J. White with the 29th pick. Pistons president Joe Dumars isn't in Orlando, but I contacted him via e-mail and he said the rumor is totally untrue. The Pistons are bringing in a number of players, haven't committed to anyone and are even looking at possibly moving their first for a couple of second-round picks.

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


For the second straight time I have Italy's Danilo Gallinari going to the Knicks with the sixth pick in my latest mock draft. It makes a lot of sense. Gallinari's father played with new coach Mike D'Antoni. D'Antoni likes European players and knows how to use them. Gallinari's style of play is perfect for the offense D'Antoni likes to run.

But there's a hitch. A Suns source swore to me Tuesday night that when they showed D'Antoni tape of Gallinari during the year, he wasn't a fan.

"Mike said he's just not sure the kid has what it takes to make it in the NBA," the source said. "He said he'd be very nervous picking him in the mid-first round. I doubt he's become converted since he joined the Knicks."

Another source made an even more compelling argument: "Whether Mike loves him or hates him, Donnie Walsh is making this pick. He's the guy who has to take the heat and he's not going to pass that decision on to anyone else. What matters most is whether Donnie likes him."


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


Earlier on Tuesday we broke down the top 10 guys to watch in the camp. After talking with numerous scouts and GMs, they named another sleeper to keep an eye on: Tennessee-Martin's Lester Hudson.

Hudson is a super-athletic guard who once got a quadruple-double in a game this year. He's a dynamic scorer but needs to prove to scouts that he can be a point guard on the floor. He's very undersized to play any other position. Here, Hudson was really impressive, showing great poise, athleticism and shooting ability on the floor. He had a number of GMs saying he's the guy they want to get a closer look at. If he plays as well as he did Tuesday night, he could be the sleeper of the draft.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone is buzzing about point guards. Yes, Derrick Rose, Bayless and O.J. Mayo are a big part of the conversation. But two veteran point guards were also the topic of discussion: Kirk Hinrich and T.J. Ford.

With most executives convinced that the Bulls will draft Rose, they are already waiting for Hinrich to pack his bags. Hinrich is coming off his worst year as a pro, averaging just 11.5 points on 41 percent shooting.

Unfortunately for the Bulls, he's also just starting a big contract. Hinrich still has four years and $37.5 million left on his deal. The good news is that Hinrich's contract number actually goes down each year. Next year he's due $10.2 million. By 2011, he's only due $8.25 million.

Despite his poor numbers and big contract, a number of executives I spoke with on Tuesday said they believed Hinrich will generate trade interest.

"There is a need for good point guards and I think a lot of people think Hinrich just needs a change of scenery," one GM said. "I think the Bulls won't have a hard time moving him."

Ford is the other guy generating some buzz. The Raptors have a logjam at the point and Jose Calderon is heading into restricted free agency. A team source said the Raptors would definitely match any offer for Calderon.

However, there was some tension on the Raptors between Calderon and Ford. If the Raptors are dead-set on bringing back Calderon … could Ford be the guy on the move?

Colangelo declined to elaborate, saying he likes having both point guards … but a source close to the situation said the Raptors are open to moving Ford and he's generated interest from several teams.

Ford, when healthy, has been excellent for the Raptors, but there are concerns about his spinal condition. A source told Insider on Tuesday evening that Ford's health hasn't been a major issue. He's essentially as healthy today as he was when he was drafted. While his condition does pose a real risk to his long-term health, his contract is fully insured -- protecting a team that trades for him from taking a huge financial hit if he were to go down.

Ford has a more reasonable contract than Hinrich. He has three years and $25.8 million left on his deal. He's also younger (25) and statistically, he had his best player efficiency rating of his career last year: an impressive 20.37. A number of teams will be looking for point guards this summer, including the Heat, Pacers, Kings, Blazers, Cavs, Nuggets, Magic and Rockets.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NBA competition committee met in Orlando on Tuesday, but it sounds like nothing significant was accomplished.

A couple of sources at the meeting confirmed that there was talk about changing the playoff format and the draft lottery. While some advocated seeding playoff teams 1 through 16 without regard to conference, that outcome is very unlikely. More likely, teams will no longer be rewarded for winning their division. Each conference will be seeded based simply on record.

The Board of Governors has to approve any changes, so it may be a while before we receive definitive word.

There were also several complaints about the current lottery system. Teams with poor records weren't thrilled that the Bulls (who had the ninth-worst record in the league) ended up walking away with the No. 1 pick.



Last year, the Blazers had the sixth-worst record and won the lottery.

"There's a big difference between a 15-win team and a 35-win team," one GM said. "A huge difference."

A few supported limiting the lottery to the two or three worst teams and then giving them equal chances of winning. Great idea. But don't hold your breath. One source said commissioner David Stern is strongly against changing the lottery format.

"If David is against it," the source said, "it's not going to happen."



Chad Ford covers the NBA for ESPN Insider.

Speed
05-28-2008, 11:39 AM
I wonder what the long term prognosis or outlook is regarding Ford's condition?

Also, I really want Gallinari to go before 11, just so a guy drops down.

Will Galen
05-28-2008, 11:44 AM
There were also several complaints about the current lottery system. Teams with poor records weren't thrilled that the Bulls (who had the ninth-worst record in the league) ended up walking away with the No. 1 pick.

Last year, the Blazers had the sixth-worst record and won the lottery.

"There's a big difference between a 15-win team and a 35-win team," one GM said. "A huge difference."

The complaints were probably from the teams that tanked and didn't get the big prize for their effort. I've noticed that people that end up where they should, don't complain as much as people who try to work the system to get ahead.

Hicks
05-28-2008, 11:56 AM
I wonder, why is Stern "strongly" against changing the lottery? I mean disagreeing is one thing, but to throw in "strongly" suggests there's something important here that Stern is holding on to.....

Speed
05-28-2008, 12:07 PM
Maybe what Will was saying, it keeps teams somewhat honest down the stretch since you aren't guaranteed a top pick just by tanking. That's the reason I see. Boston tanked a year ago, I think, and didn't get the top pick. Miami this year tanked and got the second.

Fool
05-28-2008, 12:44 PM
I wonder, why is Stern "strongly" against changing the lottery? I mean disagreeing is one thing, but to throw in "strongly" suggests there's something important here that Stern is holding on to.....

Yeah, a good system.

pwee31
05-28-2008, 11:58 PM
I'm sure everyone will deny what they're doing.

Why show your hand when you're in the middle of a card game?

d_c
05-29-2008, 12:07 AM
I wonder, why is Stern "strongly" against changing the lottery? I mean disagreeing is one thing, but to throw in "strongly" suggests there's something important here that Stern is holding on to.....

The current system in place is probably as good/fair as you can possibly make it. That's probably why he's strongly against changing it. Why make a change for changes sake if it's not going to improve the system?

Plax80
05-29-2008, 12:31 AM
How about Hinrich and Gooden for JO?

Would you do it and would the Bulls?

Hughes would be nice for the expiring (13 mil), Gooden is expiring too at 7 mil but is a good post threat.

Hughes seems like a overpaid Daniels who likes to shoot too many 3s - poor shot selection, athletic, lots of to's and dumb plays, but when he's on (which isn't often enough), he's like Arenas.

pacers:
hinrich
dun
granger
gooden
foster/murphy

bench:tinsley, shawne, ike, murphy/foster, diener, graham


bulls:
rose
hughes
noc
JO
noah

bench: gordon, deng, duhon, gray, sef, thomas

I think everybody will be calling Chicago this offseason and because of their overall depth of talented players they are by far the most interesting team to watch this summer.

I think they will conclude that Rose is more special than Beasley.........and that Hinrich can be used to acquire a legit post presence.

I doubt however that will lead them to JO who's age, injury issues and style all have to be big ????

You can assume that they will build around Ben Gordon, Deng, Rose, Thomas, Thebo and probably Noah.

That leaves Nocioni, Hinrich, Gooden, Hughes, Duhon available among others. I think they will target Marion in a sign and trade using Hinrich and possibly Nocioni..........that would make more sense to me than a JO deal.

They could also look at Amare , Brand or even Dirk if any were made available.

Unfortunately I see only TJ Ford and Jarret Jack available to us in a PG trade unless Mo Williams can be pried away from Milwaukee.

Ford or jack excite me more than anyone in the draft at 11 and I'd probbaly rather draft a Randolph or Spreights over Augustin or Westbrook anyway...........but they aren't a great solution either.

Beggers can't be choosers I guess.

Getting it done for Ford w/o sacrificing Granger or Shawne seems impossible though which kills the deal........

Plax80
05-29-2008, 12:51 AM
I just read all the posts in this thread and the only JO trade I would like is the one for Hinrich and Gooden straight up. That would save us $4m next year, and then $7m the year after when Gooden's contract was up.

Since we are already close to what next years luxury tax will probably be it's the only one that makes good sense.

Hinrich and Hughes just doesn't make sense for the Pacers. The big problem is Hughes contract. We would be paying $21m for our shootings guards, Hughes and Dun, and their contracts only get larger. And neither is a really good shooting guard. Yes they both do the job, but Hughes is just okay, and Dun is playing out of position.

I suppose if we added someone like Daniels it would make some financial sense that way, but then Chicago would be down $6m and want to add a contract and it wouldn't be a good player with what they would already be giving up.

With JO and Hinrich as the principals I might like something else, not Gordon though. He would give us the same problems as Hughes, and he's not as good of a defender. Anything else I really can't see Chicago doing though.

Like was already said by Naptown Menace, the only trade both teams would likely do is JO for Hinrich and Gooden straight up.

I think Chicago would have no interest in that deal.......more likely........

Hinrich and Nocioni for Marion.

Anyone have any interest in either of these NY deals:

JO
Tinsley
Harrison
#11

for

Marbury
Curry
#6

or

JO
Murphy
Tinsley
#11

for

Marbury
Randolph
#6

At 6, you likely can get Mayo or EGJ ..........neither of which really excites me..........or at least Randolph who may.........Lopez and Love likely are gone.

quiller
05-29-2008, 12:53 AM
The current system in place is probably as good/fair as you can possibly make it. That's probably why he's strongly against changing it. Why make a change for changes sake if it's not going to improve the system?

It may be the most "fair" there is but I really don't think it is fair that the Bulls get a No 1 pick.. as opposed to the Pacers who frankly ended the season on a useless high note a No 11 pick... with the way we played most of the year we should have ended up around 6-8. What this system does is punish the teams like the pacers when a team like Chicago gets lucky. Sure Miami tanked and people say why reward them with the no 1 .. but what's the difference in a normal year between 1 and 2. There is a big difference between 1 and 12 though...

count55
05-29-2008, 08:09 AM
Unless you could figure out a way to punish tanking, (or, more accurately, prove tanking, then take action against it) there is going to be no "fair" way to deal with this. Someone will always *****, someone will always tank.

My experience has been, if you can't be fair, then you should be absolutely, blatantly arbitrary. When you try to manage an outcome that can't really be managed to give the illusion of fairness, you inadvertently give the illusion that it can be fair, thereby giving people the opening to try to come up with ways that it's not fair and to try and improve it.

If, on the other hand, you simply say can't be "fair", not gonna try, this is the way it is so suck it up, pretty much everybody gets the feeling they're all just victims of something beyond their control and moves on.

This is why I think all non-playoff teams should just go in a hat and the order be drawn out at random. Yes, it would've created the possibility that Golden State or Portland ends up with either Rose or Beasley, but is that a bad thing?

Seriously, is it bad that the West would then have 6 or 7 teams that could contend for a title? More appropriately, that the league could have 8 or 9 teams that could grab the title? You'd like to have more East/West balance, but on the whole, the more good teams, the more the interest. I think that's been largely proven by the NFL.

There is no good answer, and I suspect that we're not going to see a change, well...ever, but if they're not going to change it, Stern would probably be best served by acknowledging the inherent flaws in the system and telling everybody to "suck it up and get over it."

rexnom
05-29-2008, 08:15 AM
Unless you could figure out a way to punish tanking, (or, more accurately, prove tanking, then take action against it) there is going to be no "fair" way to deal with this. Someone will always *****, someone will always tank.

My experience has been, if you can't be fair, then you should be absolutely, blatantly arbitrary. When you try to manage an outcome that can't really be managed to give the illusion of fairness, you inadvertently give the illusion that it can be fair, thereby giving people the opening to try to come up with ways that it's not fair and to try and improve it.

If, on the other hand, you simply say can't be "fair", not gonna try, this is the way it is so suck it up, pretty much everybody gets the feeling they're all just victims of something beyond their control and moves on.

This is why I think all non-playoff teams should just go in a hat and the order be drawn out at random. Yes, it would've created the possibility that Golden State or Portland ends up with either Rose or Beasley, but is that a bad thing?

Seriously, is it bad that the West would then have 6 or 7 teams that could contend for a title? More appropriately, that the league could have 8 or 9 teams that could grab the title? You'd like to have more East/West balance, but on the whole, the more good teams, the more the interest. I think that's been largely proven by the NFL.

There is no good answer, and I suspect that we're not going to see a change, well...ever, but if they're not going to change it, Stern would probably be best served by acknowledging the inherent flaws in the system and telling everybody to "suck it up and get over it."
There are two problems with this. First, it's much more unfair than the current system. Second, it's going to encourage even more blatant tanking. Why would a team like Atlanta or Indiana even try for the playoffs? The only 100%-tank proof system is a system that gives every team, 1-30, an equal chance at the top prize. I much prefer the current system, which I think is excellent (relatively).

Speed
05-29-2008, 08:22 AM
I agree, Rexnom, I like the current system.

It has crazy impacts, what if Boston landed the 1st or second pick last year like I think the odds say they should have.

There is no way they make all of those moves to get Garnett and Allen. They pick Oden and market him as the next Bill Russell. They maybe even trade Pierce? It changed everything last year.

I think tanking will still happen on the bottom end, but it's no guarantee of getting a savior now.

---

On a semi related note, Kravitz and Eddie (local sports radio) talked to a writer from Detroit and Kravitz asked him if this was the last hurray for this Detroit team and if they will blow it up. The writer said no way, that Prince and Hamilton are young and Dumars was the last man standing from those Championship years and endured some 19 win seasons. He said that Dumars has (then he named 5 young guys on the roster/playing), waiting in the wings to keep the team at a high level. This was interesting with the Pacers in such disarray and Kravitz being such a STAUNCH supporter that you have to be horrible before you can be good again, that Detroit has the present and looks like it has a nice future (maybe).

Not to revisit this topic or go off topic of the thread (too late), but I think the key is if you get bad, you still have to draft really really well to "blow it up". See Atlanta and post MJ Chicago as bad examples.

count55
05-29-2008, 08:50 AM
There are two problems with this. First, it's much more unfair than the current system. Second, it's going to encourage even more blatant tanking. Why would a team like Atlanta or Indiana even try for the playoffs? The only 100%-tank proof system is a system that gives every team, 1-30, an equal chance at the top prize. I much prefer the current system, which I think is excellent (relatively).

This was exactly my goal. If you can't be fair, than the next best thing is arbitrary.

Your second point may be true, but I still think it would be harder for more people to swallow tanking to duck the playoffs than tanking to have 20 wins vs. 25, but...this is all, as someone once said, "smoke-filled, coffeehouse bull****". I don't see the system changing anytime soon.

pacergod2
05-29-2008, 08:58 AM
very nice post speed.

i agree that there needs to be current development no matter what the state of your team is. if you have a contender there are just less minutes for the young guys, but you wont sustain a high caliber of performance unless you are constantly developing new players. something i dont think JOB did a good job of this year. i do not criticize him much, because i honestly think he did an excellent job this year on the whole. my only issue is that guys like shawne and ike needed to get more minutes for this franchise to get better. yes they were inconsistent but you have to expect that with young guys. they need to be the sixth guy in the rotation sometimes where they get some significant burn with four starters. these young guys will rot on the bench if they don't get the experience and thats the one thing i wish JOB had a bit more patience with. Yes his hand was forced with rotations sometimes because of injuries, foul proneness (DAVID H.), and attempting to instill the belief that this team can win games (late in the season especially). i really anticipate a large turn around next year. with or without tinsley. i think it will be tough to be good without JO, unless we get a legit big man that blocks shots. just my thoughts.

Speed
05-29-2008, 10:12 AM
very nice post speed.

i agree that there needs to be current development no matter what the state of your team is. if you have a contender there are just less minutes for the young guys, but you wont sustain a high caliber of performance unless you are constantly developing new players. something i dont think JOB did a good job of this year. i do not criticize him much, because i honestly think he did an excellent job this year on the whole. my only issue is that guys like shawne and ike needed to get more minutes for this franchise to get better. yes they were inconsistent but you have to expect that with young guys. they need to be the sixth guy in the rotation sometimes where they get some significant burn with four starters. these young guys will rot on the bench if they don't get the experience and thats the one thing i wish JOB had a bit more patience with. Yes his hand was forced with rotations sometimes because of injuries, foul proneness (DAVID H.), and attempting to instill the belief that this team can win games (late in the season especially). i really anticipate a large turn around next year. with or without tinsley. i think it will be tough to be good without JO, unless we get a legit big man that blocks shots. just my thoughts.


Thanks you too! I agree, those two and whoever they pick at 11 HAS to get burn this next year, even in leiu of wins early in the season. I felt the same way about Obie, he did a nice job (gimmicky offense/defense aside), he's upfront, no BS guy, that was refreshing from Rick the Spinmaster. He buried Ike on the bench and ya I get why, but you have to let the guy develop. Worse case scenario, he can't play or won't ever "get it" more accurately. So what, worse case scenario you know he won't get it. Obie needs to think, NEXT next year is what were after here, not now. Now you have to play your best guys, but these young guys can only become your best guys by playing. Is Shawne and Ike in your future? Let's find out. This next year is a big year for Ike's career, I think.

owl
05-29-2008, 10:38 AM
There are two problems with this. First, it's much more unfair than the current system. Second, it's going to encourage even more blatant tanking. Why would a team like Atlanta or Indiana even try for the playoffs? The only 100%-tank proof system is a system that gives every team, 1-30, an equal chance at the top prize. I much prefer the current system, which I think is excellent (relatively).

I would tweak the current system so that the odds are better for #14 to get a shot at the number one. Give number 14 a 10% chance and maybe have the worst team have a 25%
chance at the number one. Keep drawing until everyone is placed with no seeding based on record.
I believe now the odds are stacked too much in favor of the worst team, thus encouraging
tanking. Teams want to make the playoffs because of the financial implications and the
prestige. It is those teams that are not going to make it that are encouraged to tank by the current odds at getting the first pick.

Speed
05-29-2008, 10:47 AM
I would tweak the current system so that the odds are better for #14 to get a shot at the number one. Give number 14 a 10% chance and maybe have the worst team have a 25%
chance at the number one. Keep drawing until everyone is placed with no seeding based on record.
I believe now the odds are stacked too much in favor of the worst team, thus encouraging
tanking. Teams want to make the playoffs because of the financial implications and the
prestige. It is those teams that are not going to make it that are encouraged to tank by the current odds at getting the first pick.

You'll run out of percentages that way (10% for 14), but I get what your saying, not a bad idea, especially considering the Pacers current state. I would guess they would say that the worst teams would really not have a legit chance to get better, though.

Kegboy
05-29-2008, 12:12 PM
(or, more accurately, prove tanking, then take action against it)

Well, the NBA now thinks they can prove flopping, so I wouldn't put it past them to try.