PDA

View Full Version : Chicago vs. Cleveland - Trade Scenarios



Infinite MAN_force
05-25-2008, 04:38 PM
Its the offseason now, so you knew this kind of stuff was coming. For the sake of argument lets just assume these two offers are on the table, I know some people will be like "oh JO has no trade value, bla bla". I feel the two scenarios are at least in the "realm" of possibility.

My thought process is, would you rather trade for a big and draft a PG, or trade for a PG and draft a big.

Hienrich + Speights? (+ hughes)

or

BIG Z + Augustin (+varejo and #19)


My problem with the cleveland trade idea is that Z is old, varejo has attitude problems (and does the same thing as foster), and the 19th pick just doesen;t seem worth much to me.

I like Chicago because Hinrich is better than any PG we can get at 11, and he is known for his defense. Hughes contract is the same length as JO's and Hughes also gives us a slasher and capable defender at the 2 spot.

I also really like speights in this draft and am leaning toward going big.

thoughts?

Pacersfan46
05-25-2008, 04:40 PM
I dislike Hughes, personally and as a player (yes, I've known him) but I'd still take that deal over the other one.

-- Steve --

JayRedd
05-25-2008, 05:36 PM
Hinrich and Hughes has to be a joke. And I actually sorta like Hinrich.

We're 23rd in FG percentage even under JO'B's system and people really would consider adding $22 million worth of guards that can barely crack 40% from the floor?

Infinite MAN_force
05-25-2008, 05:40 PM
Im getting my *** kicked here. :D

Hinrich slumped last year but prior to that he was hitting 40% from outside, 16 points and 6 assists. but the D is what appeals to me.

Keep in mind contract wise that Hinrich's deal is front loaded, and Hughe's expires the same time JO's would have anyway.

I think you guys underestimate how much better we could be defensively.

Ill ask the experts. If we are getting hosed on that chicago trade do we have the wiggle room to ask for a future 1st?

Infinite MAN_force
05-25-2008, 05:46 PM
Let me put it this way.

Is Z going to be here past his contract? That guy has gotta be nearing retirement. Than how is that any different than taking on hughes, who could bring some things to the table for us? Is Varejo gonna be around? He wants a bigger contract remember? I see problems there...

Would you trade JO straight up for the 19th pick? Or would you go after an established starting PG in this leauge?

Jared Jammer
05-25-2008, 05:57 PM
I like the Cavs deal.

Z's days are certainly numbered, but he can be a good stop-gap. We could probably pick up Hibbert at #19 who's of very similar size and style to Ilgauskas. He could learn behind Z and eventually replace him as starter in a season or three.

Varejao is like getting a 25 year old Jeff Foster, which makes the 31 year old Jeff Foster expendable. With his rebounding and defense, not to mention friendly contract, he could probably get a mid-to-late 1st rounder, which could be used on someone like Tywon Lawson or Mario Chalmers.

Seems like a good rebuilding move to me. Probably too good to be true.

JayRedd
05-25-2008, 06:10 PM
The idea of moving of JO is to rid us of his cap-crushing paycheck.

Getting something decent back is secondary.

And taking on new garbage (Larry Hughes) should be unacceptable.

Sure Hinrich's contract is backloaded, but he's still no better than the 15th best PG in this league. A guy like DJ (who I don't even like) could be just as good as him for literally 1/5 of the price.

We just can't keep overpaying for mid-level talent. That's how we got into this mess. We already have $17 million tied up in the undeniably mediocrity that is Troy Murphy and Marquis Daniels. We don't need to make that number $39 million.

Pacersfan46
05-25-2008, 06:25 PM
JayRedd, usually I agree with you, but here I don't.

Trading JO and his injury history combined with a less than stellar season last year means we will HAVE to take back someone's garbage if we hope to move him.

And Hughes is garbage, but he's garbage that comes much cheaper than JO. Which could be easier to move if something (amazingly) comes along. We get a healthy PG and allow ourselves the freedom to rid ourselves of Tinsley without having to play Eddie Gill (lol) as our starter. We'll also have some guards who at least play some defense.

The only bad visions I have from this scenario, is Larry Hughes thinking he's Antione Walker in Boston a few years ago. However, I think even that would be mitigated by the lack of playing time available for him.

-- Steve --

BlueNGold
05-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Z would fill the C position nicely for at least the next couple years. IMO he would be a good match with Foster on the floor. Foster Jr. will be a nice addition. The #19 could get us either CDR or Chalmers. It would be a dream to get that deal, and that's why it's not likely.

Hinrich and Hughes is a more likely scenario for JO where Chicago drafts Rose. IMO, Chicago could come out smelling like a Rose if JO can play.

Edit: I don't like the Chicago deal nearly as much.

esabyrn333
05-25-2008, 07:05 PM
I just don't see why everyone likes the Clevland deal. Last year we needed low post D. JO supplies that better than Z or V. Our other sore spot was the fact we had NO PG and really didn't have a shooting guard that could take it to the hole. Hinrich is a solid PG that would do great in our system. Hughes would do fine here also not to mention he is easier to trade at the deadline than JO. Foster Jr. game may be alot similar but his attitude nothing like Jeff's

I would do the Chicago trade for sure. With this trade I would probably still go PG in the draft. Westbrook would have time to grow behind Kirk or if we go DJ I think that the to styles would contrast each other nicely.

I say pass on Cleavland. I really believe if this trade goes down by Feb. we will be roasting Bird for making the move. To many other teams are trying to move there picks for us to make this latteral move.

Infinite MAN_force
05-25-2008, 07:21 PM
JayRedd, usually I agree with you, but here I don't.

Trading JO and his injury history combined with a less than stellar season last year means we will HAVE to take back someone's garbage if we hope to move him.

And Hughes is garbage, but he's garbage that comes much cheaper than JO. Which could be easier to move if something (amazingly) comes along. We get a healthy PG and allow ourselves the freedom to rid ourselves of Tinsley without having to play Eddie Gill (lol) as our starter. We'll also have some guards who at least play some defense.

The only bad visions I have from this scenario, is Larry Hughes thinking he's Antione Walker in Boston a few years ago. However, I think even that would be mitigated by the lack of playing time available for him.

-- Steve --

People complaining about hughes forget he is only signed for two more seasons. So after next year he is a 12 million dollar expiring contract. This allows you to trade for a better player, perhaps if combined with a young up and comer (shawne williams, perhaps?). Sure, you could do the same thing with Z, but the fact is I would rather have hinrich than the 19th pick.

People are down on chicago, and they had a bad year for sure, but one year ago people were picking them to win the east with Hinrich running the point. I think the guy will bounce back if he gets in the right situation.

jeffg-body
05-25-2008, 07:24 PM
I like the Chicago one better slightly because I like Hinrich and think he could do better in a JOB system. Larry Hughes has the ugly contract and his attitude can be questioned but he can get to the hoop pretty effectively.

With the Cleveland trade I don't like adding a second Foster unless we are already expecting that he gets traded. Z is an aging giant, but he could be good for the locker room and as a mentor to a young big. The best part of that deal to me is the 19th pick.

Infinite MAN_force
05-25-2008, 07:36 PM
Sidenote: Does anyone think Utah would give up the 23rd pick for foster. I would totally do that if Lopez was still on the board. They have two small expiring contracts in collins and hart.

Jose Slaughter
05-25-2008, 08:02 PM
If Lopez is still there at 23 why wouldn't the Jazz take him instead of trading him for an aging Foster?

To answer your question.... nope

pwee31
05-25-2008, 08:08 PM
I would actually do either trade. I really like the idea of Hinrich as our PG.

Don't really care for hughes, would prefer Gooden if that was possible

The main reason I went for the Bulls selection is b/c though I think Augustin will be good at #11, I would prefer having Hinrich, and taking a chance on a PF/C at #11

Shade
05-25-2008, 08:44 PM
I'm not sure I would rather take either deal over just riding JO's contract out another season and then having a big expiring to deal.

But if I had to choose one of these, I'd take the Cavs deal. I think Augustin has a good shot at being better than Hinrich, and I have no interest at all in Hughes. I was campaigning for the Cavs to get rid of him; why would I want him playing for a team I actually give a crap about?

grace
05-25-2008, 08:48 PM
I'm not sure I would rather take either deal over just riding JO's contract out another season and then having a big expiring to deal.

But if I had to choose one of these, I'd take the Cavs deal. I think Augustin has a good shot at being better than Hinrich, and I have no interest at all in Hughes. I was campaigning for the Cavs to get rid of him; why would I want him playing for a team I actually give a crap about?

We all know that you really want Noah. Come on, it's way past time to admit it.

:duck:

Rajah Brown
05-25-2008, 09:55 PM
Not sure I quite get the fascination with aquiring
Vara-howeveryouspellit from CLE as the 'next
Jeff Foster'. Doesn't O'B's system ideally require a
PF who can shoot the ball with some range ? If
Williams sticks around, isn't he likely eventually
headed for that spot ?

I love Foster as much as the next Pacer fan. The
guy is unique in the NBA and works his butt off.
But in O'B's system, his weakness, which Var...
shares, is magnified.

Now, if folks are alluding to Vara... playing C, that's
another story. But I'm not sure that makes much sense.

As for the two trades ? Neither.

immortality
05-25-2008, 09:55 PM
maybe we can trade the 19th pick for portland's 13th,

19th + quis's contract/Digou for 13th pick ?

eldubious
05-26-2008, 12:21 AM
How does anyone think an over-the-top center and a younger Jeff Foster is better than Hinrich and Hughes's two year contract. I don't get it, a young top 10 PG is a premium, what are people thinking when they say Cleveland has a better offer.

Infinite MAN_force
05-26-2008, 12:33 AM
If Lopez is still there at 23 why wouldn't the Jazz take him instead of trading him for an aging Foster?

To answer your question.... nope

probably true. I know they had interest in foster and might not want to have to wait too long on a rookie, but their core players are still relatively young. Maybe a team that REALLY has a short window, Dallas perhaps? I would love to snag Robin Lopez if there is anyway possible. I would gladly throw in diogu if we got some expiring money coming back our way.

New Bigs: Speights and Lopez
New PG: Hinrich

That would be my ideal offseason... If we also found someone dumb enough to give us an expiring contract for Tinsley. :pray:

Young
05-26-2008, 12:35 AM
Well it would suck to trade big for small but if we want to get something for Jermaine, before his knees completely go, then we will have to take it.

Now maybe the Cavs would be willing to give us a couple bigs. But Z puts us in the playoffs for a season or two and then he retires or is not good enough to play. And I just have a bad feeling that AV would just walk as soon as he could for more money. The 19th pick ehh not that great although possibly a solid prospect there.

With Chicago we get a good guard in Kirk and Hughes will expire in two more years. Kirk has a lot of good years left in him. So I think I take that deal.

avoidingtheclowns
05-26-2008, 02:17 AM
Hinrich and Hughes has to be a joke. And I actually sorta like Hinrich.

We're 23rd in FG percentage even under JO'B's system and people really would consider adding $22 million worth of guards that can barely crack 40% from the floor?

bingo

if we were to get that Cavs offer for JO i think we'd seriously have to consider. the hughes, hinrich (as much as i think kirk might be the exact PG to run JOBs offense) the inclusion of hughes makes it remarkably unpalatable. if it were gooden and hinrich then it'd be easier to consider.

if we did the cleveland deal -- i'd draft RLopez with #19. why not load up on 3 defensive big men than can't score? besides it'd be kinda like having a living "evolution of crazy big men" chart

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2522964045_0aea3134fe_o.jpg

just think of how many tshirts of that could be sold... that's good azz marketing.

D-BONE
05-26-2008, 07:46 AM
bingo

if we were to get that Cavs offer for JO i think we'd seriously have to consider. the hughes, hinrich (as much as i think kirk might be the exact PG to run JOBs offense) the inclusion of hughes makes it remarkably unpalatable. if it were gooden and hinrich then it'd be easier to consider.

if we did the cleveland deal -- i'd draft RLopez with #19. why not load up on 3 defensive big men than can't score? besides it'd be kinda like having a living "evolution of crazy big men" chart

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2215/2522964045_0aea3134fe_o.jpg

just think of how many tshirts of that could be sold... that's good azz marketing.

You've hit the nail on the head for me with this point. Hughes is garbage IMO regardless of his short contract. Hinrich is an average NBA PG at best IMO. However, he's more consistent and a better option than anything we have.

To swing me over to any Hinrich deal, I'd want a different 2nd player factored in somehow. Specifically I'd want a big. We're woefully thin there to begin with and we would be giving up JO.

EDIT: I'd want a big back with at least sme experience b/c I think we still have to take a PG in the draft even though acquiring Hinrich. Plus, any big we might pull from the draft won't be able to have a lot of short term impact.

deekay85
05-26-2008, 08:48 AM
I like the Z, lill Foster and 19 trade. Hughes and Hinrich disappointed a lot in recent years. Hughes could be a great defender, but his shooting numbers are bad.
Z could fill the center spot as already mentioned. Flopajao is a hustler and he gives you rebounding on both ends. If we get this trade on the draft day plus augustin or westrbook or someone else, it would be awesome.

JayRedd
05-26-2008, 12:10 PM
Trading JO and his injury history combined with a less than stellar season last year means we will HAVE to take back someone's garbage if we hope to move him.

You might be right.

But if we have to take back a Larry Hughes-level turd sandwich...than you just don't trade Jermaine.

Paying $22 million 0 games of JO + $2 million for DJ/Diener is better than paying $13 million for 82 games of 37% shooting from Larry Hughes + $10 million (plus $26 million more through 2012) of 41% shooting from Kirk Hinrich.

rexnom
05-26-2008, 12:43 PM
You might be right.

But if we have to take back a Larry Hughes-level turd sandwich...than you just don't trade Jermaine.

Paying $22 million 0 games of JO + $2 million for DJ/Diener is better than paying $13 million for 82 games of 37% shooting from Larry Hughes + $10 million (plus $26 million more through 2012) of 41% shooting from Kirk Hinrich.
What about 82 games of Hinrich shooting 45-42-84 with 16,6,4? If not higher in Obie system. While playing killer D at the point...something Obie has stressed repeatedly.

I don't like Hughes at all. However, I think that Hinrich could be the perfect point for Obie. And we can buy him low right now. He would have cost a lot more after that Miami series a year ago.

JayRedd
05-26-2008, 12:47 PM
Why would Kirk shoot 4% - 5% better than his career averages again? Cause you hope so?

We make that deal and he continues to be lackluster, then we now have both him and Jamaal on long contracts that no other team wants for the next four years.

But, hey, to get rid of them in two years we can just find another Troy Murphy or Larry Hughes that nobody wants and swap garbage again. Shuffling the deck chairs sounds like a surefire quick ticket back to the ECF.

rexnom
05-26-2008, 01:01 PM
Why would Kirk shoot 4% - 5% better than his career averages again? Cause you hope so?

We make that deal and he continues to be lackluster, then we now have both him and Jamaal on long contracts that no other team wants for the next four years.

But, hey, to get rid of them in two years we can just find another Troy Murphy or Larry Hughes that nobody wants and swap garbage again. Shuffling the deck chairs sounds like a surefire quick ticket back to the ECF.
Whoa, whoa. Who says we keep JT? And is it that unreasonable to throw away this past Bulls season as an aberration? All of his past seasons his averages and %s had been going up. You put him in a system like Obie's where he's going to get shots and plenty of opportunity, why wouldn't he excel?

Also, Hughes has a much better contract than JO. Even as an expiring, I think Hughes is more easily tradeable (you'd have to take back a lot of contracts for JO's contract in a trade) than JO.

Hinrich isn't Chris Paul but at least we'd be making some progress.

JayRedd
05-26-2008, 01:07 PM
So we trade for the garbage that is Larry Hughes plus trade Jamaal for the garbage that is whatever it takes to unload him? And we do all this just so we can get a mid-tier PG who some people think will be a good fit for a gimicky offense that we probably won't be running by 2010?

Great off-season.

And if you look at Kirk's numbers, the glaring aberration would appear to be 2006-07. Everything else is remarkable consistent if you throw out that outlier. Do we really wanna roll the dice to see which one of our guesses is closer to the future reality?

rexnom
05-26-2008, 01:38 PM
So we trade for the garbage that is Larry Hughes plus trade Jamaal for the garbage that is whatever it takes to unload him? And we do all this just so we can get a mid-tier PG who some people think will be a good fit for a gimicky offense that we probably won't be running by 2010?

Great off-season.

And if you look at Kirk's numbers, the glaring aberration would appear to be 2006-07. Everything else is remarkable consistent if you throw out that outlier. Do we really wanna roll the dice to see which one of our guesses is closer to the future reality?
The thing is...I completely agree with you. I just don't see anything better. Do you? I guess it all depends on what you think Jermaine O'Neal is/can be.

tdubb03
05-26-2008, 02:13 PM
I've seen Chad Ford float the Cleveland rumor. I don't really know much about his credibility, but it is a given he's got more access to TPTB than us. Has there actually been some reports of Chicago having interest or is it just speculation?

Anthem
05-26-2008, 02:40 PM
I don't see moving Jermaine as a huge need. If you can put together a good deal, great. Otherwise, wait it out another year.

If I'm calling every team in the league trying to move a player, it's Tinsley.

pwee31
05-26-2008, 04:44 PM
I don't see moving Jermaine as a huge need. If you can put together a good deal, great. Otherwise, wait it out another year.

If I'm calling every team in the league trying to move a player, it's Tinsley.

I agree. Though I would love to see some changes involving key guys, I wouldn't mind holding onto JO. He may play his value up some.

Tinsley is definitely a guy you HAVE to unload in my eyes.

I still have a feeling JO will be dealt as well though

BlueNGold
05-26-2008, 06:01 PM
After kicking this around a bit more, I would definitely pass on the Chicago deal and hang onto our part-time 20M/yr player...and hope he starts playing well. Otherwise, let him be a giant, swollen expiring in a year or so...and he should draw some takers. The worst mistake we could possibly make with 1/3 of our cap is pick up more bloated contracts, especially long ones.

The Cleveland deal is another matter.

Z, V and #19 is a great deal for a part-time player. The ONLY way it's not a great deal is if JO turns his health issues around. So the only question should be, will JO get healthy? If there is any substance to this rumor, it is a major roll of the dice for the Cavs....and a better deal will not be had for JO unless a miracle happens and teams become confident he is healthy...all that has to happen within a year or so...before we trade his contract.

pacerwaala
05-26-2008, 06:04 PM
I like the Cleveland trade scenario. You are getting the 19th pick and a young Jeff Foster kind of player with a reasonable contract. You are getting trading chips (Varajo, Big Z and Foster). I am sure there are teams that can find use for a legi center like Big Z.

You can trade Big Z to Washington which badly needs someone inside for picks or for young players like, Blatche, Mason, Young.

The other option is to explore if Washington would do a JO for a signed Arenas and Blatche.

idioteque
05-26-2008, 06:06 PM
JO will never be healthy again. No one should believe that his knee problems will ever just magically go away. At least, I don't think.

This is a serious question. Can anyone please cite precedent of players who have had similar problems as Jermaine and have come back and excelled?

Personally I think we should jump on the Cavs deal. We are never going to get anything better than that for JO. I think it would end up being a huge blunder for Cleveland and cause LeBron to sign with the Knicks in 2010/2011. You read it here first.

mrknowname
05-26-2008, 06:11 PM
take the cavs deal and hopefully bill walker is still available at 19

Doddage
05-26-2008, 07:00 PM
^ P's should definitely do what they can to nab Bill in the draft. All the mocks are saying that he's going to go in the second round, which is ridiculous given his athleticism, defense, and overall potential. I think he can go as early as late lotto-#20, but if somehow he slips to the late 1st, we really need to look into buying his pick or at least making a trade that would enable us to earn his rights.

BlueNGold
05-26-2008, 07:06 PM
JO will never be healthy again. No one should believe that his knee problems will ever just magically go away. At least, I don't think.

This is a serious question. Can anyone please cite precedent of players who have had similar problems as Jermaine and have come back and excelled?

Personally I think we should jump on the Cavs deal. We are never going to get anything better than that for JO. I think it would end up being a huge blunder for Cleveland and cause LeBron to sign with the Knicks in 2010/2011. You read it here first.

The Cavs deal has not been offered because it would have already been consummated.

As for comparisons with JO, I don't know any big who came back and excelled from a serious knee injury....not at an all star level. A McDyess-like recovery is possible in time I suppose, but good luck getting that mobility back...particularly since JO will soon be over 30. JO's skinny legs have a lot of mileage considering he once was the youngest NBA player to play in a game. His knees are over 40...

JayRedd
05-26-2008, 07:38 PM
I don't see moving Jermaine as a huge need. If you can put together a good deal, great. Otherwise, wait it out another year.

This is the same way I feel.


This is a serious question. Can anyone please cite precedent of players who have had similar problems as Jermaine and have come back and excelled?

As for your actual question....

Amare is pretty much back to pre-surgery form. JKidd came back fine. Baron Davis has been better than ever. DWade was looking fine til they shut him down after Miami started tanking. Jamal Crawford recovered fully from an ACL. Al Harrington didn't lose much after his either. Stack remained highly productive. We'll see on Elton Brand, I guess. Dice has come back against incredibly odds. Dalembert is playing the best ball of his career. Rashad McCants looks fine. Matt Harpring may have lost a little, but also got old and is still productive. And everyone knows Bernard King lost a lot, but he was an All Star again. I'm sure there are some others as well.

Of course, every situation is different in terms of severity, age, size, etc.

Additionally...while I don't think JO will ever be "healthy" again since his entire body seems fragile and he's getting old, I'm not convinced this particular injury is really career crippling in a Chris Webber, KMart, Allan Houston sort of way.

Sure, it could be a "straw that breaks the camel's back" type of thing, I guess, but as far as this specific injury goes, it's only a meniscus. That's not to say that isn't definitely serious, bit it shouldn't be nearly as bad as injuries to the ACL, MCL, patella tendon, kneecap fracture, etc, that other guys have come back from.

It has taken about a year of recovery already, which is troublesome, but I don't think that means it's a career ender. That's not to say he won't pull his groin or hamstring, blow and ankle or bust a shoulder or wrist in November next year and miss 40 games...but from a medical standpoint, I don't believe a meniscus tear that doesn't heal well is necessarily a sign that your career is over.

I actually tore my meniscus pretty bad a few years back. I had surgery to get it repaired, did a ton of rehab only to re-tare it some months later. So I had another surgery that just removed most of it rather that re-repair a twice torn piece of cartilage. The recovery from that was actually easier (nothing to heal really) but it still took a while for it to really "feel right" and the mental hurdle of getting back to playing ball was certainly there. I'm not saying my and JO's experiences are really similar, but about six months after my second surgery I was back to normal and now I really feel almost no ill effects. Granted, I don't play basketball everyday (once a week usually) and I'm not 7', 270 lbs.

We've seen the same long recovery time with Gilbert and they both had the same "Okay I'm good...Wait a minute, no I'm not" type of setback. And I find it hard to believe Hibachi won't be putting up numbers again next year.

Maybe Since86 or Kaufman could shed more light on this or call me out for talking nonsense if that's the case.

mrknowname
05-26-2008, 07:49 PM
^ P's should definitely do what they can to nab Bill in the draft. All the mocks are saying that he's going to go in the second round, which is ridiculous given his athleticism, defense, and overall potential. I think he can go as early as late lotto-#20, but if somehow he slips to the late 1st, we really need to look into buying his pick or at least making a trade that would enable us to earn his rights.

yep and really like what draftexpress has to say about him

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Bill-Walker-552/


"Another thing that caught our eye was the intelligence Walker exhibits off the court. We had a chance to spend some time with him—the results of which you’ll see in an interview tomorrow—and really came away thinking that he’s an extremely bright and articulate guy, which will surely go a long ways in helping him reach his very high ceiling. It doesn’t seem like Walker will be playing in the pre-draft camp next week. He’s not ruling out going back to Kansas State (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Bill-Walker-552/#), but that doesn’t seem all that likely at this point. "

Speed
05-26-2008, 07:50 PM
So we trade for the garbage that is Larry Hughes plus trade Jamaal for the garbage that is whatever it takes to unload him? And we do all this just so we can get a mid-tier PG who some people think will be a good fit for a gimicky offense that we probably won't be running by 2010?

Great off-season.

And if you look at Kirk's numbers, the glaring aberration would appear to be 2006-07. Everything else is remarkable consistent if you throw out that outlier. Do we really wanna roll the dice to see which one of our guesses is closer to the future reality?

Brutal, but I think this is correct. It's a tough move to make.

count55
05-26-2008, 08:45 PM
And if you look at Kirk's numbers, the glaring aberration would appear to be 2006-07. Everything else is remarkable consistent if you throw out that outlier. Do we really wanna roll the dice to see which one of our guesses is closer to the future reality?

This would only seem to be true in regards to his shooting percentages, which spiked to .448 overall and .415 3's in 06-07.

Otherwise, in the three years from 04-05 to 06-07, he averaged, respectively:

PPG: 15.7, 15.9, 16.6
APG: 6.4, 6.3, 6.3
SPG: 1.6, 1.2, 1.3
TOPG: 2.3, 2.3, 2.4

His numbers this year do look remarkably similar to his rookie numbers, for which I have no real explanation, but it appears that he strung together three straight years of 16 & 6 type numbers.

I have no real interest in Hughes, but I would like Hinrich. He's not an All-Star, nor will he be a HOFer by any stretch of the imagination
. However, I would think he'd be our safest bet for providing some stability at the point, something this franchise desperately needs.

I also like the fact that his contract declines over the next few years, going from $10,250 to $9,750 to $9,250, and finally, to $8,250.

Any deal being made with JO is going to be a "hold your nose and do it" type of deal. And, unlike many on this board, I believe JO's value will decline (for us) the closer he gets to being an expiring contract. In order for JO to be worth something to us as an expiring contract, we'd have to be willing to take back large contracts in return, or be serious players in the Free Agent market, something we have no real history indicating that we will do. More to the point, do you see this franchise being in the Boston-type position in a year or two to parlay youth, picks, and a large expiring into a short-term title run? I don't.

I believe that if JO gets to the end of his contract here, the most likely outcome is that we'll basically lose him for nothing.

The Chicago deal (like the Cleveland deal) basically breaks up JO's contract into more manageable pieces. Of the two, I think it's more likely that Hinrich would have more long-term value to the franchise than either Varejao or the #19.

All that being said, I suspect the most likely outcome for this summer is taking the #11, dealing Droopy McTinsleberry to someone for an equally or nastier contract (just to get rid of him), and maybe some more Rush/Diener type moves...with #7 suiting up for the Blue and Gold one more time and all of us (to varying degrees) holding our breaths to see if (or when) he'll be back on the shelf.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 05:09 PM
For those hung up on Hughes... Would you do the trade if it was JO for Hinrich, Gooden, and Tyrus Thomas? Gooden is an expiring contract, and thomas is a young player with potential.

More importantly, would Chicago do it. I was somewhat under the impression they were dissapointed with thomas, but that is pretty good value for JO. That destroys the cleveland trade, unless you are obsessed with CDR or Rush and covet that 19th pick.

I sometimes wonder if JO's value is as low as everyone thinks. The risk of taking him on is not horrible because though his contract is large, it only lasts two more seasons. Everyone knows he is a 6 time all star and a force on both ends of the floor... assuming doctor's say his knees are fine, why would'nt he be worth that?

The combo of Rose, Deng, and JO would be pretty formidable for chicago.

Anthem
05-27-2008, 05:14 PM
For those hung up on Hughes... Would you do the trade if it was JO for Hinrich, Gooden, and Tyrus Thomas? Gooden is an expiring contract, and thomas is a young player with potential.
I'd rather have Gooden/Thomas than Hughes, that's for sure.

I wonder if anybody would trade a pick for Tyrus Thomas... :chin:

JayRedd
05-27-2008, 06:50 PM
More importantly, would Chicago do it.

God no.

eldubious
05-27-2008, 07:15 PM
[QUOTE=Infinite MAN_force;725439] For those hung up on Hughes... Would you do the trade if it was JO for Hinrich, Gooden, and Tyrus Thomas? Gooden is an expiring contract, and thomas is a young player with potential.QUOTE]

That is KG status right there. There is no way JO would bring in that type of value. If I'm the Pacers, I'm estatic if Chicago is offering Hinrich along with anyone else.

Also, I believe that Cleveland would not offer 2 solid bigs and a draft pick for half an allstar. That is a little excessive, I believe that it's either Varejo or the draft pick along with Zeke, not both.

Infinite MAN_force
05-27-2008, 08:46 PM
I don't know if you could call it Garnett level. Tyrus Thomas is no Al Jefferson.

I dont really care that much about thomas anyway, some other filler would work fine... I was just having trouble finding any other salary to make it match.

Doddage
05-28-2008, 02:44 AM
For those hung up on Hughes... Would you do the trade if it was JO for Hinrich, Gooden, and Tyrus Thomas? Gooden is an expiring contract, and thomas is a young player with potential.

That is KG status right there. There is no way JO would bring in that type of value. If I'm the Pacers, I'm estatic if Chicago is offering Hinrich along with anyone else.

Also, I believe that Cleveland would not offer 2 solid bigs and a draft pick for half an allstar. That is a little excessive, I believe that it's either Varejo or the draft pick along with Zeke, not both.:laugh: