PDA

View Full Version : Draft Express - JO to Cavs Speculation (among other things)



count55
06-05-2008, 08:05 AM
(Don't see this in the similar threads, and it's slightly different than the Chad Ford rumor...I'm sure the mods will merge if necessary...if so, sorry)

Jonathan Givony is bringing up the JO-to-Cavs, but it's unclear what the deal is. (http://http://www.draftexpress.com/article/Word-on-the-Street-Workouts,-Trade-Rumors-Heat-Up-2915/)


-The Indiana Pacers are trying to dangle the #11 pick in hopes of being able to package it with one of their ugly contracts (preferably Jermaine O’Neal). There is talk out of O’Neal’s camp that he anticipates being trade to Cleveland at some point this summer, possibly in a deal involving expiring contracts such as Wally Szczerbiak and Eric Snow.

The Pacers don’t want to give O’Neal away for nothing, but the temptation of shedding his 23 million dollar contract from their cap figure (giving them substantial cap space to work with in July of 2009) may be too great to pass up. On Cleveland’s end, it makes sense for their ownership to spend the money it will take to try and appease LeBron James and show them they are making the efforts to put together a championship caliber team. We’ve heard rumblings about this Cleveland/Indiana trade from a number of well-informed sources, so there appears to be at least some truth to it.

It stops short of saying "JO & 11 to Cavs for Crap-on-a-stick", but it's not a big leap to infer that.

I'm wondering if there is a package that could get it done, but I'd want Cleveland's #19 back. The most pallatable might be Wally, Sideshow Bob, S&T Delonte West, & #19 for JO & #11 (+ maybe filler?).

This package has a large expiring (Wally), two serviceable young guys (Varejao & West), and we get back in the draft where guys we like will be more reasonable (CDR, Brandon Rush, etc.). It's a pretty crappy deal, but they all will be, and I'm wondering if TPTB have reached the point where they're just going to take the best offer available and be done with it.

I'm getting the feeling that the guys we really like won't be there at 11, and the people we'd probably take would be a reach, so moving back 8 spots wouldn't be a huge penalty...(well, at least not on top of the penalty we're already paying in terms of talent return because of JO's contract & injury history.)

I don't know...it's a beggar's choice...probably be best just sitting on him.

Raskolnikov
06-05-2008, 09:25 AM
I thought I read somewhere JO couldn't be traded during the draft?

FlavaDave
06-05-2008, 09:28 AM
Assuming that we aren't going to use Ike Diogu (for whatever reason), we could package JO and Diogu for Wally, Snow, and the #19.

count55
06-05-2008, 09:29 AM
I thought I read somewhere JO couldn't be traded during the draft?

This is the question at hand in the "JO Doesn't Opt Out" thread.

EDIT: If that thread means that he's officially under contract for next season, then we can deal him on draft day. (I think.)

FlavaDave
06-05-2008, 09:29 AM
I thought I read somewhere JO couldn't be traded during the draft?


If true (and I have no idea if that's true), we can just tell Cleveland who to pick and execute the trade the day after. Happens all the time.

Naptown_Seth
06-05-2008, 09:30 AM
No thanks. That implies a rebuild for next year even more and if that's the case then just wait and move JO then when he can get what Wally and Snow are getting here - an 11 pick at least - just because of the ending contract.

Take the 11 this year, struggle on and take another 12 pick next year, and also move JO either for a useful vet from a rebuild and/or another pick.

You don't give CLE your 11 to take JO for Wally/Snow. It's not that big a favor on their part.

Major Cold
06-05-2008, 09:32 AM
IF that is the deal and we don't move Tinsley? I will :puke:

count55
06-05-2008, 09:33 AM
No thanks. That implies a rebuild for next year even more and if that's the case then just wait and move JO then when he can get what Wally and Snow are getting here - an 11 pick at least - just because of the ending contract.

Take the 11 this year, struggle on and take another 12 pick next year, and also move JO either for a useful vet from a rebuild and/or another pick.

You don't give CLE your 11 to take JO for Wally/Snow. It's not that big a favor on their part.

Yeah, I agree that if you structured a deal primarily involving the names in the article, it's a non-starter. I was just wondering if there was something to be built there that would make as much (or more) sense as doing what you're describing above. It's doubtful, but if I don't do this, I have to develop a Productivity Analysis tool for a failing CD/DVD plant. Who wants to do that?

pacergod2
06-05-2008, 09:48 AM
The only issue I see with this CLE speculation is that we are trading the best player and giving up a higher draft pick. Don't see that happening. I could see us getting Szczerbiak and Snow, both expiring, and the #19 straight up for JO. Szczerbiak and Snow are both great locker room guys but severely lack in talent.

Will Galen
06-05-2008, 09:50 AM
I thought I read somewhere JO couldn't be traded during the draft?

He can't be traded until his ETO expires. It does that midnight June 30. The draft is June 26. His reps have already informed the Pacers he's not opting out.

I haven't read any contract language that you can trade a player after they inform a team they are not opting out, and I've looked for it. I think the ETO deadline has to expire.

Since they now know he's not going to opt out, they could still announce a trade on June 26 after any draft picks have been picked, but it wouldn't go though until after June 30.

Since Givony is ignoring the above, I think it proves he's speculating.

RGnome
06-05-2008, 09:52 AM
If you do a deal like that, the Pacers might as well cancel their draft party right now. Why have that many angry people in one place.

I don't believe this rumor for a second due to the fact that O'neal's contract is only going to increase after this upcomming season. Wait a year, and I bet you can get a similar deal w/out sacraficing a pick.

pacergod2
06-05-2008, 10:01 AM
I think a more appropriate deal in this situation would be:

JO
Tinsley

for

Szczerbiak
Snow
D. Jones
2008 First Rounder (#19 overall)

That would make more sense for both teams. Give a bunch of expiring contracts for two guys who would actually contribute for their team. I know their injury history but i think the core of guys in cleveland would help take a lot of pressure off of them playing too much. I bet we would be looking at buying Damon Jones out anyway, and then he could go sign for the veteran minimum, make more money on the year, and we get a discount against our cap which would be just under the veteran minimum. this makes a lot of sense for both teams.

Kegboy
06-05-2008, 10:02 AM
First, is this even legal, considering Cleveland is in negotiations to injury-retire Snow?

Second, even if we can't make the trade until after the draft, we better agree on it beforehand. Cleveland and us have completely different needs at #19.

Third, I don't see much point in doing this, when we're in effect only losing a year of Jermaine's contract. Best to leave it until next year, when his expiring is more enticing.

But hey, I'm all for getting another SF, and a white one at that. :duck:

count55
06-05-2008, 10:06 AM
He can't be traded until his ETO expires. It does that midnight June 30. The draft is June 26. His reps have already informed the Pacers he's not opting out.

I haven't read any contract language that you can trade a player after they inform a team they are not opting out, and I've looked for it. I think the ETO deadline has to expire.

Since they now know he's not going to opt out, they could still announce a trade on June 26 after any draft picks have been picked, but it wouldn't go though until after June 30.

Since Givony is ignoring the above, I think it proves he's speculating.

Yeah, this is what I was wondering about. BTW...do the rights to a player have value against the cap in a trade?

For example, if we deal JO for a package including the #19 pick, and we can't consummate it until after June 30, how would that be handled. Would that player have to be signed by Cleveland, then we'd have to wait another 30 days? Could that player's rights be dealt without any cap impact? If not, would the rights be valued at whatever the average #19 would be worth?

I'm sure that Givony's speculating, but I think he's doing it based on some reasonable information. He may be putting the pieces together incorrectly, but I think there's enough smoke to believe that Cleveland and Indy are flirting with each other about JO.

Manguera
06-05-2008, 10:29 AM
No way we should be giving our #11 in this deal. Besides, the deal sucks even if we don't give up the pick. Yes they are expirings, but JO would be worth more than that at the deadline. They would have to give us a future pick also IMO. I'm not against trading JO right now, but not for this.

blanket
06-05-2008, 11:40 AM
For those wanting to keep JO as an expiring contract in the summer of '10, don't we have to shed his contract at least a year earlier than that in oder to absorb the new contract Granger will surely be signing this summer?

Shade
06-05-2008, 11:45 AM
It makes no sense to trade JO for expirings when he'll be a huge expiring himself in a year.

Fool
06-05-2008, 11:45 AM
That is a ridiculous trade.

count55
06-05-2008, 11:55 AM
It makes no sense to trade JO for expirings when he'll be a huge expiring himself in a year.

While I am not in favor in any way, shape, or form of trading JO for just expirings...

A year is a long time, and there is a lot of money to be either spent or saved in that year.

I would be fine if we got a large expiring, a serviceable vet, and a couple of solid-to-promising young guys, but that's another issue entirely.

Let's say for one moment that Givony is right (which I hope he's not). What would a JO & #11 for a Wally/Snow package mean? Well, for one thing, it'd save the Pacers at least $24 million over the next two years. For another, it would clear a lot of room to deal with Danny next season. Those aren't bad things, but they're hardly worth the price we'd be paying.

However, an ugly spectre makes its presence known. It is precisely the type of deal that cleans up debt and cash flow in preparation for the sale of the team. If we did a deal this bad, I'd be real nervous waiting for the other shoe to drop.

NapTonius Monk
06-05-2008, 12:08 PM
Dude, we just cannot give JO away for nothing but cap space. Indiana is not a strong free agent draw, and will be even less of one with no talent on board. At the most, maybe we swap picks with them. But I want Delonte West from them if that's the case (and that's still not a dream situation). I would be ok with West, if we could grab Speights and Lawson in the draft. If anything, I'd say we should grab their pick rather than giving them ours. Otherwise, hang on to JO until next year, when his expiring deal will really net you something. The more I think about it, the more I hate this deal, unless we're netting the Cavs pick to go along with ours. I could barely stomach swapping picks; and as for giving up our 1st rounder, I'm again' it!

Hicks
06-05-2008, 12:13 PM
I think including the #11 is silly, but in general, no, I don't find it ridiculous. Maybe they're finally convinced (as some have been for years) that JO will never truly stay healthy again, and would rather dump him now than later. The guys we get back are expiring anyway, right? At least this way it's some guys to look at, see if they have a place here for less money the following year if they fit.

If not, who cares. The only hangup to me is trading our pick to do it, that's excessive.

As for Wally being white, let it go. Christ's sake.

blanket
06-05-2008, 12:22 PM
Don't we HAVE to trade JO (or some other combination of large contracts like Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley) THIS year for contracts that expire in the summer of '09 when Granger's new contract kicks in? Otherwise, we won't be able to afford to keep Danny.

Anthem
06-05-2008, 12:30 PM
Tinsley pretty much has to be included for it to be a decent trade from our part.

JO and Tinsley for Wally, Z, Jones, and the #19? Works for me.

NuffSaid
06-05-2008, 12:32 PM
I seriously doubt any trade package would include Sideshow Bob (Anderson Varejao). He just signed a new contract with the Cavs after holding out for the early part of the season. Why would they give him up after negotiating so hard to retain him? Makes no sense.

The article's author has JO's price tag wrong; it's $42M and change. If he does get traded on or soon after draft-day, he goes to his new team for atleast 2 yrs since he's decided not to go on the open market.

To the trade: Wally Z (that's what I call him anyways)...yes...Snow...no. Try again...

rexnom
06-05-2008, 12:36 PM
I would riot if this deal happened. If we're giving up assets to get rid of JO when he himself will be a certifiable asset in ONE YEAR (for contract reasons if not anything else) then it's not worth it.

Shade
06-05-2008, 12:37 PM
I think including the #11 is silly, but in general, no, I don't find it ridiculous. Maybe they're finally convinced (as some have been for years) that JO will never truly stay healthy again, and would rather dump him now than later. The guys we get back are expiring anyway, right? At least this way it's some guys to look at, see if they have a place here for less money the following year if they fit.

If not, who cares. The only hangup to me is trading our pick to do it, that's excessive.

As for Wally being white, let it go. Christ's sake.

I find it outrageous. Dealing our franchise player (injured or not, he is) and a lottery pick for expiring contracts is insane. It's not like we'll lure any superstars to Indy, anyway, so what's the point?

beast23
06-05-2008, 12:42 PM
I call BS. I thought we traded our pick last season. So, unless it's no longer part of the newest CBA, I didn't think a team is allowed to trade its pick 2 years in a row.

So, whatever the trade might be, it doesn't involve our #11 pick.

Hicks
06-05-2008, 12:44 PM
I call BS. I thought we traded our pick last season. So, unless it's no longer part of the newest CBA, I didn't think a team is allowed to trade its pick 2 years in a row.

So, whatever the trade might be, it doesn't involve our #11 pick.

That's what I used to think, but I was later corrected (apparently) that you can do that (trade the 2008 pick), you just can't trade two picks at the SAME TIME that are back to back. Meaning we could trade our 2008 pick, but we couldn't simultaneously trade our 2009 pick.

But even if we do trade our 2008 pick now, when next year rolls around we can still trade our 2009 pick separately.

Hicks
06-05-2008, 12:45 PM
The longer I think about this, I have to admit it's pretty stupid. Even without the #11 included. At least if Wally is the best part of the deal. Wally + #19 makes it a little better (if we keep #11), but even still......

count55
06-05-2008, 12:59 PM
The article's author has JO's price tag wrong; it's $42M and change. If he does get traded on or soon after draft-day, he goes to his new team for atleast 2 yrs since he's decided not to go on the open market.


Well, it's actually about $44.4 mm, but the author was (correctly) assuming that either all or a significant portion of JO's salary for this year could not be avoided by Pacers at this point (they'd pay JO or the guys they got in a trade for JO), therefore, the $23.4mm he's owed in 2009-2010 would be the most the Pacers could save.

jeffg-body
06-05-2008, 01:09 PM
I'd rather see a package where we somehow keep our #11 and get their #19 instead. I could pallate that rather than giving up JO+our #11 for Cleveland doo doo.

indyman37
06-05-2008, 01:10 PM
if we trade away our first rounder and don't get another back, i will shoot someone.

but if we could keep our pick and get theirs too, that would be great [even though it won't happen]. we could take a big guy with the 11 and maybe someone like ty lawson with the 19.

Will Galen
06-05-2008, 01:10 PM
I call BS. I thought we traded our pick last season. So, unless it's no longer part of the newest CBA, I didn't think a team is allowed to trade its pick 2 years in a row.

So, whatever the trade might be, it doesn't involve our #11 pick.


Draft night is no longer a future pick so you could trade your #1 every year if you wanted. The rule is you can't trade 'future' picks two years in a row. The past makes no difference.

count55
06-05-2008, 01:12 PM
Dude, we just cannot give JO away for nothing but cap space. Indiana is not a strong free agent draw, and will be even less of one with no talent on board.

I agree this is true, but if they did (gag), it wouldn't be about cap space for free agents. It would be solely about saving money and getting financially healthier. Now, it could be a precursor to a sale, or it could just be cutting a bunch of salary to start all over...it's hard to tell, but I'm beginning to worry about them making decisions from a solely financial viewpoint. (Or, at least I would if this is the type of deal that they're seriously pursuing.)

count55
06-05-2008, 01:13 PM
if we trade away our first rounder and don't get another back, i will shoot someone.

Can I give you a list?

ABADays
06-05-2008, 01:18 PM
With JO's end of contract coming up I wouldn't be opposed to keeping him this year. Maybe he could play like someone who is playing for a contract - not with us but someone else.

That said I have really gotten tired of virtually everything being handed to him. "This is JO's team now", playing him when it was obvious the team played better without him, "trade him for nothing". It's time he finally played for something and something that helps THIS team for a year.

Shade
06-05-2008, 01:18 PM
if we trade away our first rounder and don't get another back, i will shoot someone.

but if we could keep our pick and get theirs too, that would be great [even though it won't happen]. we could take a big guy with the 11 and maybe someone like ty lawson with the 19.

Yeah, to even consider it on our end, they'd have to give us expirings and their #19 for JO.

Anything less, would be uncivilized.

qr66xW0FpAQ

Shade
06-05-2008, 01:19 PM
Can I give you a list?

Oh man, how great would it be to hold a draft party and then trade away our draft pick? :lol:

count55
06-05-2008, 01:23 PM
Oh man, how great would it be to hold a draft party and then trade away our draft pick? :lol:

Seems to me that happened to some team a couple years ago...probably not, but it'd be intriguing.

indyman37
06-05-2008, 01:25 PM
Oh man, how great would it be to hold a draft party and then trade away our draft pick? :lol:
if they were to do that, i think the worst possible place i could be is there.

Shade
06-05-2008, 01:30 PM
Don't fret guys, we'd still have #41! :brick: :mob:

count55
06-05-2008, 01:38 PM
Don't fret guys, we'd still have #41! :brick: :mob:

The year we drafted Reggie, I was at the draft party. While I certainly never expected Reggie to turn out as well as he did, I thought 11 was way too high for Alford, so I wasn't one of the many who were booing vociferously at MSA.

Anyway, Dick Vitale had been a sometimes color commentator for the P's back then, and he was on the dais as one of the hosts of the activity.

After the Reggie pick, he started promising that there was a huge treat for Pacer fans that would be announced at the start of the second round. A trade that would make us all happy.

Then, they announced that we'd acquired Scott Skiles, and the place, full of a lot of IU/Purdue fans who largely reviled Skiles, erupted in even more booing.

I'm pretty sure that's as close as we could get to projecting what would happen if they dealt the pick for something the crowd didn't like.

Plax80
06-05-2008, 01:44 PM
It makes no sense to trade JO for expirings when he'll be a huge expiring himself in a year.


Thank you for bringing sanity back to the discussion.

NuffSaid
06-05-2008, 01:45 PM
Something puzzles me, though. Why are some of you suggesting that the Pacers trade down to get the #19 pick? I thought the idea was to get as high up in the draft you could to have the best chance at getting the best talent out there or at least have the better odds of getting the guy you want. Am I missing something? :confused:

Dr. Goldfoot
06-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Something puzzles me, though. Why are some of you suggesting that the Pacers trade down to get the #19 pick? I thought the idea was to get as high up in the draft you could to have the best chance at getting the best talent out there or at least have the better odds of getting the guy you want. Am I missing something? :confused:

It's about making moves for the sake of making moves.

Infinite MAN_force
06-05-2008, 02:04 PM
Don't we HAVE to trade JO (or some other combination of large contracts like Murphy, Dunleavy, or Tinsley) THIS year for contracts that expire in the summer of '09 when Granger's new contract kicks in? Otherwise, we won't be able to afford to keep Danny.


Daniels + Ike expires in time. That frees up close to 10 million. Granger is not a concern unless we trade one of these two.

This deal is retarded. I would not trade with cleveland for anything less than JO for big Z, Varejo, and the #19... as proposed before... and I didn't even really like that deal.

Is that too much? well who cares. If JO can't even fetch that than we are WAY better off seeing what he can do this season. He could come back playing really well and could be worth a good trade at the deadline... or just let him expire if we want cap room. If he has negative trade value, and we have to GIVE UP our pick... that is insane. There is no reason to do that. Just eat it for one more year and let him expire.

The other deal idea has grown on me though... if we could turn varejo into another pick, maybe send him to utah for the #23. Than we would have #11, #19, #23, and #41. I like it.

count55
06-05-2008, 02:22 PM
Something puzzles me, though. Why are some of you suggesting that the Pacers trade down to get the #19 pick? I thought the idea was to get as high up in the draft you could to have the best chance at getting the best talent out there or at least have the better odds of getting the guy you want. Am I missing something? :confused:


Well, it depends on what you think of picks 6 through 20. I happen to think there's not much, if any, difference in those players. If you can get a good player or something else of decent value and still be in a position to get a guy you think is just as good later, then you do it.

For example, if, after the workouts, you decide that Lawson and CDR are at the top of your list, you might look to move back a few picks if you think you can get them later, thus getting the guy you want, plus something else. Otherwise, you can just take that guy at 11, though there will be the added pressure of people thinking you're reaching.

To me, you look to get the most value you can out of the pick, and that could be through (a) using it to pick the best player your can, (b) using with other assets to go higher in the draft, or (c) using it to move back in the draft and address other concerns as well.

I don't know what the right answer will be, but it's looking to me that the guy we take at 11 isn't going to be all that much more impressive than the guy we might be able to get at, say, 19.

count55
06-05-2008, 02:25 PM
It's about making moves for the sake of making moves.

While that may be true in some cases, it's really a gross oversimplification. At this point, we should be open to trying to move up, move back, move out, or stay put, and not determine which way we go until we figure out which one will put us in the best shape when the summer's over.

Unclebuck
06-05-2008, 02:31 PM
I just don't see it happening. so I wouldn't worry about it. The important part is the pacers are looking to trade JO

blanket
06-05-2008, 02:31 PM
Daniels + Ike expires in time. That frees up close to 10 million. Granger is not a concern unless we trade one of these two.


All of our other big contracts will be increasing by roughly $1M each that year, too, plus you have to factor in the contracts for any other players acquired over the next year (since this would leave only 7 players on the roster with contracts through 09/10). Given that, the $10M gained from the Daniels/Ike contracts coming off the books would be just enough to cover the increase of these contracts, and not enough to cover Granger's new contract. If we don't re-sign Foster, that would help, but surely there would be some other player(s) acquired that will fill that salary amount.

Therefore, we need to drop the contract of either JO, Murphy, Tinsley or Dunleavy before the 09/10 season if we want to retain Granger.

MyFavMartin
06-05-2008, 02:32 PM
JO has more trade value than this. We don't give up the #11 and would acquire the #19.

Plus, JO can't be traded until after june 30th when he picks up his option, which is after the draft.

So all of this is speculabumpkiss.

d_c
06-05-2008, 02:37 PM
I call BS. I thought we traded our pick last season. So, unless it's no longer part of the newest CBA, I didn't think a team is allowed to trade its pick 2 years in a row.

So, whatever the trade might be, it doesn't involve our #11 pick.

To go over this again:

The only rule is that at any one point in time, you can't have consecutive FUTURE draft picks traded away.

So right now, you are not allowed to trade away your 2008 pick and 2009 pick.

However, the moment after you use your 2008 pick, you can trade whoever you drafted with that pick. Then a minute later, you can trade your 2009 pick. The 2008 pick is irrelevant to the rule by then because it would no longer be considered a future pick.

d_c
06-05-2008, 02:40 PM
JO has more trade value than this. We don't give up the #11 and would acquire the #19.

Plus, JO can't be traded until after june 30th when he picks up his option, which is after the draft.

So all of this is speculabumpkiss.

NBA reporting in general is a bunch of speculabumpkiss.

That's why I can't wait for the draft to end, so I don't have to read about numerous trade "rumors" from Chad Ford that have no realistic chance of happening.

Worst part of these rumors is the amount of dumb threads they generate on boards like RealGM. And all because one writer said so.

pianoman
06-05-2008, 02:40 PM
i wonder it there could be a way to get gibson from them.... i've always liked him, and i know cleveland is pretty high on him too. but any package would have to include the #11 pick.

Shade
06-05-2008, 02:51 PM
JO has more trade value than this. We don't give up the #11 and would acquire the #19.

Plus, JO can't be traded until after june 30th when he picks up his option, which is after the draft.

So all of this is speculabumpkiss.

Speculabumpkiss?

That's snatchtacular.

bambam
06-05-2008, 02:58 PM
JO and the 41st

for

Wally, Snow, 19th

?????


For the 2009/10 season, the Pacesr could shed 28m in salary after Snows, Wallys, and release Daniels (would be my hope). I am guessing put us roughly around 25-30m in salaries. This would give them a great chance to hit he Free Agent market with some of the talent looking for contracts.

Anthem
06-05-2008, 03:02 PM
Plus, JO can't be traded until after june 30th when he picks up his option, which is after the draft.

So all of this is speculabumpkiss.
Not a problem. The trade can be announced on draft night and actually go through 4 days later. Not even a hint of difficulty with that.

Anthem
06-05-2008, 03:03 PM
JO and Tinsley for Wally, Z, Jones, and the #19? Works for me.
I still think this is the start of something decent. No comments?

A prospect or a future pick could make that a good deal for the Pacers. Pacers get out of Tinsley's brutal contract, get a couple decent pieces back, don't take on bad contracts, and get a decent player like Rush or CDR.

count55
06-05-2008, 03:11 PM
Not a problem. The trade can be announced on draft night and actually go through 4 days later. Not even a hint of difficulty with that.

Plus, the NBA rules say:


Section 7. Option Exercise Notices.
The NBA shall provide the Players Association with copies of any Option or ETO exercise or non-exercise notice received by the NBA within two (2) business days of the NBA’s receipt of such notice from the Team.

Which seems to indicate that JO and his agents can actively waive the ETO, allowing the transaction to be completed on draft night.

count55
06-05-2008, 03:11 PM
I still think this is the start of something decent. No comments?

A prospect or a future pick could make that a good deal for the Pacers. Pacers get out of Tinsley's brutal contract, get a couple decent pieces back, don't take on bad contracts, and get a decent player like Rush or CDR.

I like it, but if I keep agreeing with you, people will start to talk. :blush:

Tom White
06-05-2008, 03:22 PM
You don't give CLE your 11 to take JO for Wally/Snow. It's not that big a favor on their part.

I've gotta agree with the "no thanks" part. Just remember, this is the team that gave up a first rounder for Harrington, and years ago gave up an extra first rounder for Foster.

I hope they are not as dumb this time, but it is Bird.

Young
06-05-2008, 03:30 PM
That is a ridiculous trade.

Yes no doubt about that.

Jermaine is owed a lot of money but the fact still remains that he is still a good player. You are taking a risk with his health issues but maybe Jermaine is right and he just had one big injury and not a series of small ones.

The 11th pick is a pretty good draft pick. I mean it's not like you are picking at the end of the first round. I don't even know if i'd give up the 11th pick for someone to take Troy Murphy let alone Jermaine.

Jermaine's contract is going expire in like what 2 years. So yes he is owed a lot of money but over a very short period of time.

Cleveland would need to give the Pacers their draft pick this year, not the Pacers giving the Cavs theirs.

Having cap room is a little overratted. Yes it's nice. But you are not going to build a winner through free agency. It's hard for good ones to be on the market let alone willing to sign with the Pacers right now. My point here is that cap room isn't worth giving away your best player and the 11th pick in the draft. And hell even if we get expirings for Jermaine that probably won't put us under to sign a big time free agent even if one was willing to come here.

indygeezer
06-05-2008, 03:31 PM
I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

He has 0 cred IMPO.

Justin Tyme
06-05-2008, 03:43 PM
I don't even know if i'd give up the 11th pick for someone to take Troy Murphy let alone Jermaine.


:eek:You are kidding right?

Pacersfan46
06-05-2008, 04:27 PM
Here's a question .... a lot of teams are trying to trade down ....

What if this deal was expirings and #19 for JO ... then we moved #11, and #19 to move up some spots, and get a player we really wanted?

Just an idea, of course. :)

-- Steve --

Rajah Brown
06-05-2008, 04:57 PM
No thanks. Even if J.O. could never play again, his imminently expiring
$20 mil per, contract will be very attractive either a year from now or
at the Feb deadline the the following season.

Patience LB, patience.

tadscout
06-05-2008, 05:11 PM
Morway: No Truth To O'Neal/Cleveland Rumors (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/)

Indiana general manager David Morway revealed in a phone conversation with RealGM on Thursday afternoon that the team has not discussed a trade with Cleveland involving Jermaine O'Neal.

When asked about the rumor, Morway simply said "No."
Rumors were circulating around the internet that the Pacers were thinking about sending O'Neal and the 11th pick to the Cavaliers for the expiring contracts of guards Eric Snow and Wally Szczerbiak.


"It's tough to answer questions on trades, but in this particular case I will say that the rumor is completely false," Morway added.
Via Andrew Perna/RealGM (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/#)

owl
06-05-2008, 05:20 PM
Bad deal for the Pacers.

Hicks
06-05-2008, 05:35 PM
I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

He has 0 cred IMPO.

Thanks, I didn't bother to check the source (stupid move). This guy is not worth 3+ pages on.

Shade
06-05-2008, 05:48 PM
Morway: No Truth To O'Neal/Cleveland Rumors (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/)

Indiana general manager David Morway revealed in a phone conversation with RealGM on Thursday afternoon that the team has not discussed a trade with Cleveland involving Jermaine O'Neal.

When asked about the rumor, Morway simply said "No."
Rumors were circulating around the internet that the Pacers were thinking about sending O'Neal and the 11th pick to the Cavaliers for the expiring contracts of guards Eric Snow and Wally Szczerbiak.


"It's tough to answer questions on trades, but in this particular case I will say that the rumor is completely false," Morway added.
Via Andrew Perna/RealGM (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/#)

Good. TPTB may yet have some competence about them. ;)

Doddage
06-05-2008, 05:49 PM
Whew, thank goodness. That deal was horrible.

Will Galen
06-05-2008, 06:29 PM
I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

He has 0 cred IMPO.

Thanks Geezer! I remembered Givony had done something and was looking for that bit of information earlier and got sidetracked and forgot about it.

Shade
06-05-2008, 06:52 PM
I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

He has 0 cred IMPO.

Do you happen to have any links?

I believe you, but I'm interested in reading what he did and his admission.

eldubious
06-05-2008, 09:14 PM
That was the most ridiculous trade rumor I've ever seen. How anyboody could defend it makes me question their alliegience to the Pacers. The Pacers would give up their most valuable asset and the 11th pick for Wally, the 19th, and Snow. Bird would have to have the IQ of a rock to make that deal. Any dealings with Cleveland would not include any draft pick from the Pacers and would certainly require Cleveland's 19th, period.

Smoothdave1
06-05-2008, 09:32 PM
I'd definitely pass on the Wally/Snow for JO deal. I'd think the Pacers would entertain a JO/Tinsley for Z/Wally/Jones and #19 pick.

The team that will take O'Neal will be a team like Cleveland, Detroit, Dallas, Utah, Phoenix, etc. who may be on the brink of winning a championship but feels they are one player away. I could also see them doing a deal if they could land a nice draft pick too (top 10).

Pacers new lineup:

Augustin (#11), Diener, Jones
Dunleavy, Daniels, Wally
Granger, Williams, Graham
Murphy, Speights (#19 pick), Diogu
Z, Foster, 2nd rd pick

Pacers lineup and salary cap situation in 2009-2010:

PG: Augustin (2 million), Diener (1.7 million), FA (1 million)
SG; Dunleavy (9.8 million), 2008 draft pick (1.5 million), FA (800k)
SF: Granger, (10 million), Williams (2.4 million), FA (1 million)
PF: Murphy (11 million), Diogu (4 million), FA (1 million)
C: Z (11.5 million), Foster resigned (4 million), #19 pick (1.5 million)

Pacers would have a total cap of about 60 million. Big Z has a player option for 2009-2010 and could be a potential expiring as well and would be an expiring contract after next season. After 2008-2009 season, the Pacers would shed contracts of Wally, Marquis, Jones, Diogu, Foster and Graham. That's a total of about 34.3 million. Granted, I think the Pacers would resign some of those players. Add Big Z if he were to decline his player option and the Pacers would have expirings of 45+ million.

Just some food for thought!

count55
06-05-2008, 09:47 PM
That was the most ridiculous trade rumor I've ever seen. How anyboody could defend it makes me question their alliegience to the Pacers. The Pacers would give up their most valuable asset and the 11th pick for Wally, the 19th, and Snow. Bird would have to have the IQ of a rock to make that deal. Any dealings with Cleveland would not include any draft pick from the Pacers and would certainly require Cleveland's 19th, period.

I didn't see anybody here think that specific deal was a good trade. The closest anybody came to "defending it" was probably me when I said that the one scenario I could see the Pacers making that deal was one where they were desperate to shed salaries in preparation for a sale.

Even then, I was of the opinion that it was a deal for the Pacers on the court and a bad deal for the fans in regards to the long term future of the Pacers in Indy.

In any case, it looks like it was completely wrong per Morway, who says there are no talks with Cleveland.

Roaming Gnome
06-05-2008, 10:24 PM
Morway: No Truth To O'Neal/Cleveland Rumors (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/)

Indiana general manager David Morway revealed in a phone conversation with RealGM on Thursday afternoon that the team has not discussed a trade with Cleveland involving Jermaine O'Neal.

When asked about the rumor, Morway simply said "No."
Rumors were circulating around the internet that the Pacers were thinking about sending O'Neal and the 11th pick to the Cavaliers for the expiring contracts of guards Eric Snow and Wally Szczerbiak.


"It's tough to answer questions on trades, but in this particular case I will say that the rumor is completely false," Morway added.
Via Andrew Perna/RealGM (http://basketball.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52858/20080605/morway_no_truth_to_oneal/cleveland_rumors/#)

With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.

wintermute
06-06-2008, 12:43 AM
I will point out again (as I always do with this author) that Givony was fired from one internet rag after he admitted faking quotes and lying about interviews that never happend.

He has 0 cred IMPO.


Thanks, I didn't bother to check the source (stupid move). This guy is not worth 3+ pages on.


Do you happen to have any links?

I believe you, but I'm interested in reading what he did and his admission.

geezer, i don't know if you have another incident in mind, but the big controversy i remember givony being involved in has nothing to do with fake quotes or lying about interviews.

what happened was that he called agent joel bell a "scumbag" in his article, and joel bell brought a defamation suit against givony and draftcity.com (the previous incarnation of draftexpress)

i can't find givony's blog post about it any more, but read the court case and judge for yourself.

http://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/033106.RNC.Bell.pdf

this was the part of the article bell objected to:



One of the more interesting topics from yesterday was Kelenna Azubuike’s decision to sign an agent and forfeit any NCAA eligibility he has remaining. . . .

According to those I spoke to, the person to blame for this horrible decision (besides Kelenna who should have obviously known better and at least done a little bit of research) was the agent he decided to hire, Joe Bell. The word "scumbag" came up again and again in conversations around him, and apparently this isn’t the first time that word has been associated with his name. He’s widely known as an extremely sketchy agent who has no problem bribing greedy parents with offers of $50,000 or so in order to convince their kids to flush their career down the toilet.

Numerous names of players who were made similar offers this year and in the past were brought up. Dwayne Jones from St. Joe’s has apparently been made an offer from Bell as well, and his father is thinking about taking it, despite the fact that he basically has no chance of being a first rounder and many think he might not even be drafted in the second round.


for the record, azubuike did do undrafted, before eventually being picked up by the warriors.

certainly, it was extremely indiscrete to print this kind of allegation, even on an obscure website. but that's a far cry from quote fabrication and lying that geezer is saying.

he did get fired from draftcity.com, but that's because his partner decided to settle with bell and close the site down. givony went on to found draftexpress.

i don't have any association with draftexpress, other than as an avid reader, but i feel compelled to defend givony. he has brought some great content over the years. his problem is, he prints nearly everything he is told (like the j.o. and #11 to cleveland rumor, which i think is overstated), but isn't that the attraction for us draft fans?

Jose Slaughter
06-06-2008, 01:04 AM
Do you know how quickly Mike Brown would kill Danny Ferry if he traded for Tinsley?

For his own safty Ferry would never to a deal for JT.

croz24
06-06-2008, 02:58 AM
i'd do crap contracts + the 19th and maybe their 2nd or a future 1st for jo, but giving up our #11 just to rid ourselves of jo is insane.

Mourning
06-06-2008, 04:10 AM
Beyond insane. JO's value to other teams will only increase for the remainder of his contract duration. I say we hold on to him until next summer or the trade deadline following on that in the winter and then try to maximize our leverage. IF they do trade him this summer then just expirings and crap won't do IMO.

We need atleast the semblance of a building block back.

With regards to shedding salary to be able to re-sign Danny. I think letting Daniels contract expire should provide some relief, though if it will be enough is very much a questionmark with part of that relief beying "eaten" immediately by the yearly rising salaries from other players contracts.

Regards,

Mourning :cool:

indygeezer
06-06-2008, 07:46 AM
No, sorry I do not have that info. And that is interesting Wintermute, I don't remember seeing that. What I have always based my comment on was what I read as a disclaimer on one site saying he had been fired for these offenses and then being struck that he was writing on DraftExpress.

Perhaps they are one and the same offense and the site I saw the comments on had an agenda vs. Givony.

Since I cannot produce the link perhaps I should just say...I'm skeptical of anything he says.

RomanGabriel
06-06-2008, 08:59 AM
[quote=Mourning;731348]Beyond insane. JO's value to other teams will only increase for the remainder of his contract duration. I say we hold on to him until next summer or the trade deadline following on that in the winter and then try to maximize our leverage. IF they do trade him this summer then just expirings and crap won't do IMO.

We need atleast the semblance of a building block back.



Exactly, my friend. From a business standpoint it would be silly, stupid, and tragic to give away JO when his value is at its nadir. Common sense would scream out that you deal him as his value continues to rise. And I hope that TPTB are NOT contemplating giving away the #11 pick to get rid of a contract. Rebuilding involves acquiring draft picks and using them wisely, not giving them away.

Naptown_Seth
06-06-2008, 11:29 AM
Do you know how quickly Mike Brown would kill Danny Ferry if he traded for Tinsley?

For his own safty Ferry would never to a deal for JT.
After listening to the anti-Ricks claim that Tinsley only got to play because Rick got booted from a game and Mike Brown immediately gave Tins a shot and he never let go, I'd expect to see that theory proven out by Brown killing TO GET TINSLEY.

Now I think that view of Tins in Rick's first year is bunk. Rick had no obligation to keep playing Tinsley in games after that and in fact Kenny Anderson got hurt which required Rick to count on Tins regardless. IMO Tinsley simply had to earn his way back to the court because of whatever issues Rick had with him. I think it's safe to say this continued under JOB too, with maybe even less forgiveness perhaps.



Either way it would seem that if CLE felt they needed a point guard I don't think Mike would be fully against it. And if Tinsley has been sitting 80% because of sinipoutis Brown would know that and would know that if he could get along with Tins where Rick/JOB couldn't the Cavs could get a real bargain in dealing for him.

Oneal07
06-06-2008, 11:32 AM
With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.


LOL. . It's a horrible trade plan

count55
06-06-2008, 11:40 AM
With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.

I want to give a little credit to Andrew as well, who tracked down Morway to get the lightning quick denial.

NuffSaid
06-06-2008, 04:53 PM
With what is going on with the Pacers pre-draft workouts being covered, the blog by Morroway, Jim O'Briens homework assignments, and now this lightning quick denial of this hack has me applauding the Pacers seemingly new openess that we haven't seen with the franchise.
Here, here! It's a completely new direction for this franchise. I, for one, am well pleased. :D

NuffSaid
06-06-2008, 04:59 PM
Well, it depends on what you think of picks 6 through 20. I happen to think there's not much, if any, difference in those players. If you can get a good player or something else of decent value and still be in a position to get a guy you think is just as good later, then you do it.

For example, if, after the workouts, you decide that Lawson and CDR are at the top of your list, you might look to move back a few picks if you think you can get them later.
But that's my point. If you really like the guy and he's available at #11 why trade down to get him at #19? Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The right thing to do is to move UP not DOWN.

Hicks
06-06-2008, 05:26 PM
But that's my point. If you really like the guy and he's available at #11 why trade down to get him at #19? Makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. The right thing to do is to move UP not DOWN.

You do it if you think he'll be there at #19 because in trading down you'll get the #19 AND some kind of incentive back.

NuffSaid
06-06-2008, 05:50 PM
You do it if you think he'll be there at #19 because in trading down you'll get the #19 AND some kind of incentive back.
That had better be one helluva incentive!

Frankly, I really can't imagine a scenario where any team would trade down to get the player they want if he was available at the team's original draft position.. It's like saying, "Oh! We (Portland) have the #1 pick and we know Oden's available right now, but we're gonna trade down w/Atlanta to get their #3 and #11 picks because we have a gentleman's agreement between them and every other team w/picks 1, 2, 4-10 not to take the guys we want. We'll get so-and-so @ #3 and pick Oden at #11."

I mean, really...what kind of sense does that make?

If anything the Hawks would trade both their picks to Portland to get the #1 pick, not the reverse. If your guy is available @ #11 you get him. Plain and simple. If not, you select the next best talent on your selection board OR if you think all of your best options will be gone by the time your turn comes up you try to trade UP to improve your odds. I just can NOT think of any viable scenario that would make a team think it's in their best interest to trade down.

YoSoyIndy
06-06-2008, 05:52 PM
That was the most ridiculous trade rumor I've ever seen. How anyboody could defend it makes me question their alliegience to the Pacers. The Pacers would give up their most valuable asset and the 11th pick for Wally, the 19th, and Snow. Bird would have to have the IQ of a rock to make that deal. Any dealings with Cleveland would not include any draft pick from the Pacers and would certainly require Cleveland's 19th, period.

JO isn't our most valuable asset.

The deal is bad -- no doubt -- but JO has a heavy contract, bad knees, and the mindset that he's Tim Duncan.

NuffSaid
06-06-2008, 06:21 PM
FYI...

I can't remember if this was the thread where someone asked for proof (link) where Morway said the Pacers were considering packaging their #11 pick with a trade, but here's an article (http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52859/19691231/pacers_begin_preparing_their_workouts/) where he speaks of the possibility of pursuing an additional 1st round pick.

Pacers Begin Preparing Their Workouts (http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/52859/20080605/pacers_begin_preparing_their_workouts/)


Jun 05, 2008 5:08 PM EST


The Pacers have begun working out players at Conseco Fieldhouse this week, and a variety of talent has been evaluated by team President Larry Bird and General Manager David Morway.

On Wednesday the team worked out North Carolina's Ty Lawson, D.J. Augustin of Texas, Ohio State's Jamar Butler, Stanley Burrell of Xavier, Sasha Kaun of Kansas, and Nebraska's Aleks Maric.

They hold the 11th pick in this month's draft.

The team will also workout UCLA's Russell Westbrook within the next few weeks as well as DeAndre Jordan of Texas A&M.

Indiana also hasn't ruled out making a deal on the draft night.

"We're considering everything, and one of the things that we have looked at is acquiring another pick later in the first round," Morway said in a phone interview.

"We are having ongoing conversations with teams everyday, and while I don't know the likelihood of it now, we probably won't see anything happen until the night of the draft," he added.

madison
06-06-2008, 08:42 PM
JO's not going ANYWHERE until his knee is proven. We're talking $44M. That's a very big gamble.

croz24
06-06-2008, 11:55 PM
when exactly has jo's "value" been on the rise in the past 3 years?

NuffSaid
06-07-2008, 12:18 AM
But it's a gamble I'm willing to take.

Look, most fans have very short memories. Just about everyone seems to have forgotten how good JO was only a mere four years ago before all the injuries started piling up. Even now when fans speak of JO's injury history nearly everyone overlooks the severity of his injuries: shoulder strain, ham-string, torn meniscis (right knee).

Except for the occasional cold, spraind ankle, bump or bruise, the above were the injuries that rendered him inactive the longest. On those such injuries, I don't think it was a matter of poor conditioning. They were just unfortunate mishaps.

This upcoming season would be the first season in about 4-yrs JO would start a season injury-free. I say retaining him would be a very worthwhile gamble...as long as he and Bird can bury the hatchet anywhere except in each other's skulls. :(

Justin Tyme
06-07-2008, 09:25 AM
But it's a gamble I'm willing to take.

Look, most fans have very short memories. Just about everyone seems to have forgotten how good JO was only a mere four years ago before all the injuries started piling up. Even now when fans speak of JO's injury history nearly everyone overlooks the severity of his injuries: shoulder strain, ham-string, torn meniscis (right knee).

Except for the occasional cold, spraind ankle, bump or bruise, the above were the injuries that rendered him inactive the longest. On those such injuries, I don't think it was a matter of poor conditioning. There were just unfortunate mishaps.

This upcoming season would be the first season in about 4-yrs JO would start a season injury-free. I say retaining him would be a very worthwhile gamble...as long as he and Bird can bury the hatchet anywhere except in each other's skulls. :(

I see it as pretty obvious that JO doesn't want to be part of what he feels is a rebuilding team. He wants to play for a team who is competing for a championship, and lets admit it "that's not the Pacers." Why can't you just admit it, and understand it's time to part ways? An unhappy JO having to play where he doesn't want to be isn't conducive to the Pacers. Players playing where they don't want to be don't be don't give their all, right Vince? JO is the Pacers biggest trade asset in order for a retooling/rebuiding to happen. The retooling needs to happen now not at the trade deadline or in his expring contract year. The Pacers need to go forward with a different team. A team that fans can relate to for years to come, a team with a new face/players, and that team doesn't include JO!

You can look at it in different ways: 1) the rose colored glasses way where JO is coming back injury free and in allstar form, yeah right heard that before, or 2) that JO made be injury free just enough to get some decent value for him, which is the biggest way he can help this team now. Thus helping the team back to being competitive now and not 2 years from now when his contract expires. Sooner than later. The sooner the Pacers get competitive with new players/new image the sooner the seats in Conseco will start filling up again. That's what ownership needs, now not 2 years from now. They can't take the gamble you are so willing to take. They have 44mil involved and millions and millions in lost revenue, you don't.

What's so hard to understand that JO isn't part of the Pacers new future? What I find odd is that JO understands it, why can't you?

You have been advocating for 2 years on different boards that keeping JO is what should be done, and it's time to come to the realization it's not. If it was between keeping JO or Tinsley, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it isn't. Both need to go this off season for the Pacers sake. JMOAA

NuffSaid
06-07-2008, 11:05 AM
You have been advocating for 2 years on different boards that keeping JO is what should be done, and it's time to come to the realization it's not.
What are you? Some kind of message board stalker? :o:-o Have I made that much of an impression on you that you've been hanging on my every word for two years? I don't know whether I should be flattered or very afraid. :eek:

Okay, sarcasm aside, and I appreciate the fact you have been paying attention, I happen to see the glass as half full and not half empty. I don't see the team as "rebuilding" but rather in a state of flux. It's not uncommon. Teams go through it from time to time. It happens. Bird and Morway's job is to determine where things went wrong and come up with a plan to fix it. Unlike most, I saw the Pacers as a very competitive team last season. Their shortfalls were not having anyone who could stop dribble penetration and not having an interior defender. On the offensive end they put up enough points to beat most teams. They just lacked defense.

The other side of it was not having a "go-to-guy" in the clutch. For a long time that role befell on Reggie. Then for a while they divided that role (or tried to) between JO and SJax. Since the GS trade the Pacers have been trying to identify that guy among the players who remained. Granger and Dunleavy emerged to share that load last year. It remains to be seen whether either one or both can fully step into it. Regardless, defense remains an area that needs to be addressed, as well as identifying a prominate "experienced" interior post presence. Who else is available who can fill that role without taking away from the pieces the team already have in place and still allow the team to move forward and be competitive?

Yes, $44M could spring for some good talent, but it's talent that I'm afraid would take at least 3-4 yrs in order to truly gel. Are you willing to wait that long? Mind you, Pacers fans are already anxious for a winner NOW!

Yes, I value JO's abilities because I know what a "healthy" JO can bring to the hardwood. No, he's not the "take over a game in the clutch" type player, but what he can do is provide that post-presence this team needs provided he is able to stay on the floor. I've seen what he can do in the past and I know what a gimpy JO is capable of doing. With only a few exceptions, I'd take a gimpy JO over pretty much any PF in the league today. And I'm willing to give him at least one more year to showcase his talents. Heck, we gave 5.1 (Bender) far more leeway.


If it was between keeping JO or Tinsley, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, but it isn't. Both need to go this off season for the Pacers sake. JMOAA
Actually, that's exactly what it comes down to only no one's really saying it. You can find another (Point) Guard pretty much any day of the week. That was proven when Flip Murray came in and shored up the PG role and look how things improved even if just a little bit. PF/C's aren't so easy to come by.

Rajah Brown
06-07-2008, 11:15 AM
JT-

Have to disagree. If hanging on to J.O. for another 12-18 months
means getting $1000 for him vs getting $500 now, it's worth the
wait. I don't care how J.O. feels about it, what's better for him
or his career or wether he even plays at all during that 12-18
months.

indygeezer
06-07-2008, 11:49 AM
You trade down when you know the guy you want will still be there. Why? # 19 makes less $$ now and later than a #11.

If we are looking to trade JT because as Obie said, you can't count on him (to be available)...then shouldn't the same apply to JO?

YoSoyIndy
06-07-2008, 12:46 PM
You trade down when you know the guy you want will still be there. Why? # 19 makes less $$ now and later than a #11.


Good point -- you also do it because you can receive value for dropping down.

Anthem
06-07-2008, 01:41 PM
I see it as pretty obvious that JO doesn't want to be part of what he feels is a rebuilding team. He wants to play for a team who is competing for a championship, and lets admit it "that's not the Pacers."
I don't even know if I agree with that. If the Pacers weren't rebuilding, I'm still not sure that Jermaine would say it. I think he and Larry don't like being around each other.

Justin Tyme
06-07-2008, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=NuffSaid;731867] {What are you? Some kind of message board stalker?}

Avid reader! Read 3 different boards religiously daily. On the Star board, you were polar opposite of Ojor in regards to JO. Some posters just stand out for their misguided views compared to others, and both of you did!




{They just lacked defense.}

Perimeter defense is more important to me than JO's defense.



{The other side of it was not having a "go-to-guy" in the clutch.
Regardless, defense remains an area that needs to be addressed, as well as identifying a prominate "experienced" interior post presence. Who else is available who can fill that role without taking away from the pieces the team already have in place and still allow the team to move forward and be competitive?}

I guess you must have missed where JOB said Granger was going to be the "go to guy." He never mentioned JO as the "go to guy."

As far as post D taking 3-4 years to develop, you are describing a rookie/pick. Who says it has to be? All the Pacers need is someone who can defend the paint, grab some rebs, and score 8-9 points a game. It doesn't have to be an allstar, just a Foster type player. Preferably, one that can hit a lay up/put back with more consistancy!



{With only a few exceptions, I'd take a gimpy JO over pretty much any PF in the league today.}

Who are you? A JO relative, JO's agent, or misguided JO fan? It has to be one of those, b/c who else would "take a gimpy JO over pretty much any PF in the league today." Sorry, but that statement just goes to show "your blind infatuation/love for JO."

Look up your hero's games he's missed the last 4 years, then tell me how much money he "took" from the Simons w/o contributing a thing. It makes no difference how good a player is, if they aren't contributing to the team that is paying their salary year after year while they are sitting.



{You can find another (Point) Guard pretty much any day of the week. That was proven when Flip Murray came in and shored up the PG role and look how things improved even if just a little bit. PF/C's aren't so easy to come by.}

There are 6-8 teams, including the Pacers, who are looking for "one of those PG's you can find any day of the week." They are still looking for them either thru this draft or thru a trade. IOW, I'm not buying into that statement, like some others of yours.

Just think in terms of ownership, and not with your heart. JMOAA

Dece
06-07-2008, 06:16 PM
A gimpy JO is less use to us than Shaq was in Phoenix. A healthy JO, that's a little different, but it's also a myth at this point in his career.

I think I'd make the exact inverse statement. I'd take nearly any starting PF in the league over a gimpy JO.

NuffSaid
06-07-2008, 07:19 PM
JT,

I like the way you sliced and diced my post there, buddy. Way to quote me completely out of context.

I eluded to perimeter defense as a problem with this team, but I don't ignore the fact that interior defense was just as problematic.

I did say Granger and Dunleavy shared the role as "go-to-guy" in the clutch, but indicated that neither had fully embraced the role. In fact, neither were willing to accept it until the last 15 or so games of the season. Hopefully, one of them will take charge of this crucial role next season and beyond.

And yes, trading JO could very well mean depending on the development of a rookie draft pick as I seriously doubt the Pacers would be able to acquire a solid veteran PF/C in this manner especially with everyone being so focused on reducing the cap and gaining some measure of financial flexibility. What sense would it make for this team to go out and sign another veteran PF to a multi-year contract when the whole idea is to find some financial relief? The smart thing to do is to retain JO, ensure he has everything at his disposal to come in heathy as a horse running the Kentucy Derby, and see what he can do for atleast one more season because honestly I seriously doubt any team will take him at $44M - not unless they have every intention to play him for just one year and trade him (which IMO is exactly what Bird might have in mind to do after next season). I still ask the question, "Who are the Pacers going to get to replace him at fair value WITHOUT tearing down the team?" It's not the way I'd go and right now it certainly doesn't look like it's what Bird/Morway want to do...not if they want to try and remain somewhat competitive (or reduce the time table to become competitors in the East) any time soon.

But hey, what do I know. You've only been following me for 2-years. Either I'm a lunitic or I've been talking some sense all this time. So, you tell me...???...

Naw...scratch that. I think I already know your opinion. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down these walls." (And for the record, I was all for winning the Cold War. I'm just not too keen on tearing down this franchise just because you don't like one player. We saw how well that worked with getting rid of Ron Artest. Oh, he needed to go, no doubt. Just not so hastily. And you say my emotions are all caught up in the decision making process. :rolleyes:)

Gamble1
06-07-2008, 07:22 PM
Long term question for you guys. Which position in your mind translates into more wins next season?

For me addressing the pg position translates into more wins than say a pf or a center.

Long term I believe this will hinder the Pacers from building into a contender team because less opportunity will be there for next year to draft a quality player.

I am a little torn by this because I really hope that Pacers can get back to being a 500 and better team. However who cares if we just get blown out of the playoffs for the next decade.

The biggest factor in all this is JO. Does Larry trade him for needs or does he trade him for salary cap reasons?

I hope to God he trades him for needs rather than relying on the free agent market.

Justin Tyme
06-07-2008, 08:14 PM
JT-

Have to disagree. If hanging on to J.O. for another 12-18 months
means getting $1000 for him vs getting $500 now, it's worth the
wait. I don't care how J.O. feels about it, what's better for him
or his career or wether he even plays at all during that 12-18
months.


Put yourself in ownership's shoes. You owe JO 44mil for the next 2 years, so why pay it to someone that you can't count on to play let alone "earn it." If you keep him for 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years, you have paid him between 21 to 44 mil. For what? This is the whole crux of why you trade him. His contributions vs what you receive in return for him. If your GM does any prudent type of trading, you will come out on the positive end.

In business and this is a business, just ask JO, you have to look at what things are costing you compared to what value you get in return for it. As we know if JO is traded this off season, the Pacers have to take back 21 mil in salary. Why not take that back in an expiring, youngins, role playing veteran, or a draft pick. A combination of any or all to make your team better, and save you MILLIONS. Take back what will help your pocketbook, as ownership, and build a team the fans like sooner than later in order to sell tickets. That translate into income to you as ownership instead of paying JO's salary, and crossing your fingers JO will be healthy and will play a major part in the team the next 12-24 months.

By getting an expiring, that translate into income you won't be paying out next year in salary as ownership. As you know, that's referred to as salary savings. The quickest way for businesses to save money is reduce payroll and fringe benefits. The savings is immediate. That savings gives the Pacers some flexibility. They could now even use their MLE next year on a player! One that could be counted on playing every game and making a consistant contribution to the team. That's a novel idea.

As ownership, you need to build a team with players who can contribute in helping make the Pacers winners. Winning with a likeable team will sell tickets, and generate more income for you. JO & Tinman need to go to erase the brawl image and connection in order for this to happen.

Holding on to JO is going to cost you in the long run. Now is the time to trade JO in order to get the most. Some will say hold on to him until next year or the end of the trade deadline, but if you do "who is paying JO's salary", you or them? It's easy for others to spend your money, especially on someone they want you to roll the dice on as a player with a history of injury and never being a player you can count on to earn his salary. Holding on to JO is just going to cost ownership money, and not improve the team as quickly. This costs ownership revenue. That same revenue ownership has lost out on receiving the last number of years. JMOAA

Justin Tyme
06-07-2008, 09:22 PM
come in heathy as a horse running the Kentucy Derby, and see what he can do for atleast one more season

But hey, what do I know. You've only been following me for 2-years. Either I'm a lunitic or I've been talking some sense all this time. So, you tell me...???...

We saw how well that worked with getting rid of Ron Artest.


How did Big Brown do today? Sorta reminded me of your hero, injured or didn't come thru when counted on. Sorry, I just couldn't resist your horse race referrence.

You remind me of some Artest supporters with their crush on him. Someone who just couldn't/can't let go. Is that being a lunitic? I don't know. You are persistant even though I feel you are misguided in your belief. JO, IMO, will never be able to be counted on in the future, except to be all for JO. He never waivers in that regard.

TPTB knew Artest had to go. They just got itchy from the pressure of fans. Other teams sensed the Pacers were in a fire sale, and wouldn't give value. Bird got the player he so long coveted for what that was worth. B/c of it, the Pacers ended up in the end with losing their 07 pick, got 2 albatross contracts, and that zircon of the trade Ike. I will say this, if Artest hadn't been such an emotional headcase, the Pacers would have been better off keeping Artest than JO. Artest was the better all around player and at 1/3 the money. JMOAA

NuffSaid
06-07-2008, 10:59 PM
JT,

There you go again slicin' and dicin' and twisting my words around. I love it. :p

If you disagree with me, fine. Unlike you, I'm not going to make this a personal issue. I'm content with letting things play out between now and the end of next season. How 'bout you?

Anthem
06-07-2008, 11:33 PM
As we know if JO is traded this off season, the Pacers have to take back 21 mil in salary. Why not take that back in an expiring, youngins, role playing veteran, or a draft pick. A combination of any or all to make your team better, and save you MILLIONS.
I don't think anybody's arguing that the Pacers shouldn't move JO under any circumstances. If the right deal came along, we'd certainly do it. But JO+11 for Wally+Snow isn't the right deal.

Do you guys actually disagree with each other, or are you just fighting for fun?

NuffSaid
06-07-2008, 11:48 PM
I don't think anybody's arguing that the Pacers shouldn't move JO under any circumstances. If the right deal came along, we'd certainly do it. But JO+11 for Wally+Snow isn't the right deal.

Do you guys actually disagree with each other, or are you just fighting for fun?
I'm not fighting with anybody. JT's just trying to be a hard***. I think he gets a kick out of rubbing people the wrong way (or at least trying to get under my and ojor's skin), but I'm not giving him the satisfaction...not stooping to his level no matter how much he twists my words around to meet his ends. I think I've stated my case and I'll leave it at that. If he wishes to continue this discourse in this manner...well, like my father use to say, "You can't argue by yourself without looking like a complete fool."

'Nuff Said.

Hicks
06-07-2008, 11:50 PM
:sigh:

NuffSaid
06-08-2008, 12:04 AM
Long term question for you guys. Which position in your mind translates into more wins next season?

For me addressing the pg position translates into more wins than say a pf or a center.

Well, considering that the offense starts at the Point...

But I'd never discount the importance of defense both along the perimeter nor the interior. All are equally important. You can try to put up a multitude of points and hope to outscore your opponent or you can do alot of scoring and get defensive stops at key moments throughout the game. As they say, "Good offense keeps you in the game, but good defenses often times wins ball games."

dagrubbs
06-08-2008, 01:02 AM
My opinion is that we will trade JO (and not involve our pick) and we will get back something like the #19 Varajoe and wally. As long as we move JO for a 1st round pick this year then we are in good shape. I wish we would move diogu and daniels for mike miller and lowry as well that way we could just focus on bigs in the draft.

Plax80
06-08-2008, 01:57 AM
My opinion is that we will trade JO (and not involve our pick) and we will get back something like the #19 Varajoe and wally. As long as we move JO for a 1st round pick this year then we are in good shape. I wish we would move diogu and daniels for mike miller and lowry as well that way we could just focus on bigs in the draft.

Again-

What is the point in doing this ??

Varejo has no future here so you won't resign him after next season anyway.........same for Wally.........

So you trade Jo for Roy Hibbert ???

Why not just hand him to San Antonio for Brent Barry or Big Shot Bob ??

For months now, the league has been up in arms over Memphis trading Gasol for nothing.........compared to this deal ...........that one looks like the Lakers gave away the farm.

Either get back a legit PG or post player who fits long term (like Al Jefferson did with Minny)..........or hold onto him for two more years.

The ONLY way I do a JO deal for an expiring contract and a meaningless pick is if I can move Murphy and Tins in the same trade (which won't happen).

And even then, as I've said before.......all you are likely to do with loads of cap space is overpay a different stiff that we'll be trying to dump 18 mths later. No big time FA is coming to Indy to battle the Bucks for 11th in the EC.

Justin Tyme
06-08-2008, 07:08 AM
Varejo has no future here so you won't resign him after next season anyway

Either get back a legit PG or post player who fits long term (like Al Jefferson did with Minny)..........or hold onto him for two more years.


And even then, as I've said before.......all you are likely to do with loads of cap space is overpay a different stiff that we'll be trying to dump 18 mths later. No big time FA is coming to Indy to battle the Bucks for 11th in the EC.


Would you mind explaining why Varejo would have no future here, if the Pacers did this trade, which I'm against doing? What's wrong with having another player of the Foster mold? Other than having had some health issues and not being adept at hitting bunnies, Foster is a very popular player, and brings it every night. That's more than can be said for some others. I personally like a yeoman type player that brings intangibles to the table. I see Varejo being the same type player, but younger. That's why I asked why you think Varejo would have no future here.

I agree with the 1st part of your statement, but totally disagree with the 2nd part of it. Why does ownership want to pay 44mil for a player known for his injuries year after year? Why pay 44 mil for non-productivity just so in 2 years his contract will be off the books? Do you really think he's going to earn that 44mil? He's not earned his salary for the last number of years, why all of a sudden now?

I guess having had businesses I just don't see where posters think paying JO 44mil in the hopes he will regain his allstar status is prudent business. I'd like to see the Vegas odds on that happening! Nor do I understand paying for non-productivity when that same salary can be put into a player/players who can/will produce for the Pacers.

Then there is this factor of JO wanting to play for a championship team, and not a rebuilding team. Lets not forget there is no love lost between JO and Bird either. When your heart and interest isn't in your job or a relationship, one tends not to give it their all, and I expect a player being paid 44mil giving it their all. Ownership should expect it, no demand it, they are the ones paying the salary not the fans who aren't buying the tickets.

Money talks, JO stayed didn't he?! Saying no quality FA's will come to Indiana for the money is wrong. JMOAA

Plax80
06-08-2008, 08:09 AM
Would you mind explaining why Varejo would have no future here, if the Pacers did this trade, which I'm against doing? What's wrong with having another player of the Foster mold? Other than having had some health issues and not being adept at hitting bunnies, Foster is a very popular player, and brings it every night. That's more than can be said for some others. I personally like a yeoman type player that brings intangibles to the table. I see Varejo being the same type player, but younger. That's why I asked why you think Varejo would have no future here.

I agree with the 1st part of your statement, but totally disagree with the 2nd part of it. Why does ownership want to pay 44mil for a player known for his injuries year after year? Why pay 44 mil for non-productivity just so in 2 years his contract will be off the books? Do you really think he's going to earn that 44mil? He's not earned his salary for the last number of years, why all of a sudden now?

I guess having had businesses I just don't see where posters think paying JO 44mil in the hopes he will regain his allstar status is prudent business. I'd like to see the Vegas odds on that happening! Nor do I understand paying for non-productivity when that same salary can be put into a player/players who can/will produce for the Pacers.

Then there is this factor of JO wanting to play for a championship team, and not a rebuilding team. Lets not forget there is no love lost between JO and Bird either. When your heart and interest isn't in your job or a relationship, one tends not to give it their all, and I expect a player being paid 44mil giving it their all. Ownership should expect it, no demand it, they are the ones paying the salary not the fans who aren't buying the tickets.

Money talks, JO stayed didn't he?! Saying no quality FA's will come to Indiana for the money is wrong. JMOAA

1. Varejo has a David harrison type reputation with Cleveland and I don't see us investing $30-40mm on a long term deal to a defensive version of David Harrison.

2. Its a hard angle to argue.........players earning their NBA salary.........year after year. Is JO worth $22mm ??? No. But for that matter neither is DWade.......Dirk......JKidd.........or about 50 other players. Only KG and Kobe and maybe Duncan and LeBron actually "earned" that kind of salary this season..............the rest are stealing money. You can't worry about that stuff when you own an NBA team. You trade a guy for what he's worth ........not for what he produced last season.

3. Who cares what JO wants. He could have opted out and played for whomever.............he chose not to..........trade him to the Knicks or Griz.

4. Its the summer of 2009 and because of deft manuevering by Larry Legend; we have $26mm available under the cap to go after a big time player. We won 34 games in 08-09 and finished 11th in the EC. We own the 9th pick in the draft. Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand and Shawn Marion are all availble..........please tell me why you think any would sign with us when there will be many other teams offering max deals as well.

Bottomline is none of the three will truly even consider us as possibilities unless there is no one else out there to give them similiar money.

Justin Tyme
06-08-2008, 09:21 AM
1. Varejo has a David harrison type reputation with Cleveland and I don't see us investing $30-40mm on a long term deal to a defensive version of David Harrison.

2. Its a hard angle to argue.........players earning their NBA salary.........year after year. Is JO worth $22mm ??? No. But for that matter neither is DWade.......Dirk......JKidd.........or about 50 other players. Only KG and Kobe and maybe Duncan and LeBron actually "earned" that kind of salary this season..............the rest are stealing money. You can't worry about that stuff when you own an NBA team. You trade a guy for what he's worth ........not for what he produced last season.

3. Who cares what JO wants. He could have opted out and played for whomever.............he chose not to..........trade him to the Knicks or Griz.

4. Its the summer of 2009 and because of deft manuevering by Larry Legend; we have $26mm available under the cap to go after a big time player. We won 34 games in 08-09 and finished 11th in the EC. We own the 9th pick in the draft. Carlos Boozer, Elton Brand and Shawn Marion are all availble..........please tell me why you think any would sign with us when there will be many other teams offering max deals as well.

Bottomline is none of the three will truly even consider us as possibilities unless there is no one else out there to give them similiar money.

I hadn't heard Andy was a problem. I'd be interested in reading about it. Do you have any sources that I could read?

My point about JO earning his salary was due to his constant injuries.


There is no doubt in my mind FA's will come to Indiana if the money is right. There are different tier FA, and I agree that the 3 you mentioned probably wouldn't. BUT the next tier down would/will.

P/S You almost lost me on the "deft manuvering of Bird" comment. I truly feel Bird has the opportunity to put his mark on this franchise by the trade deadline. I'm not as optimistic of his ability as some, but I sure hope he can in a positive fashion for the sake of the franchise's future. I'd far rather eat crow than have to say I told you "tweety" couldn't.

Hicks
06-08-2008, 11:06 AM
I haven't heard of AV having anything near Harrison-like issues.

I'd strongly consider JO for #19, AV, and Wally. JO is undependable and even when he plays he's not 100% these days. The final deal-maker for me is that neither of the incoming players have a contract longer than JO's. I'd probably do that trade.

Anthem
06-08-2008, 01:38 PM
I haven't heard of AV having anything near Harrison-like issues.

I'd strongly consider JO for #19, AV, and Wally.
I'd consider Tinsley a necessary part of any JO trade.

Plax80
06-08-2008, 01:40 PM
The reports I heard about centered on how unhappy he was about his restricted contract staus and the fact that Cleveland wouldn't either sign him long term or allow another team the opportunity to sign him away from them for a reasonable long term deal. Once he finally ended the stalemate, he pouted much of the year and played no where near the playoff level from 07. Thus they mostly relegated him to mop up duty and traded for Ben Wallace (absorbing a ton of money in the process) to fill the role that had largely been Varejo's the previous season.

So if LeBron couldn't get him to buy into the team first concept.......how can we expect Granger to get him there. And even if he does for one season, what will you do with him next offseason........give him a Troy Murphy contract ??

I'm not so enamored with JO that I expect a KG type return for him......but I'm not going for less than what Memphis got for Gasol either.

Phx and Dallas both proved that desperate people sometimes do desperate things only a few months ago. I know JO has more value than either Shaq or JKidd. If he comes back close to healthy than a team looking for a final piece may give you a young cornerstone player in return for him.

Taking adeal that has no such player coming back to us is worthless. So you save his salary in 2010.....does that mean we could see a third return of Al harrington ?? Or maybe Jack 1's second stint. Or who knows.......lets dream big.........Eddy Curry might agree to come talk to us.

I'm not trying to be acomplete arse, but I just don't see the point in giving away one of your best and marketable players. The Simon's shouldn't be in dire financial straits.

To me a team like Golden State who is on the cusp of being a contender could package either Wright or Bierdens with Foyle's contract and maybe Al's .......that is far more enticing to me than a Varejo and Chase Buddinger trade.

Hicks
06-08-2008, 02:50 PM
I'd consider Tinsley a necessary part of any JO trade.

That's asking too much of the other team.

Anthem
06-08-2008, 03:06 PM
That's asking too much of the other team.
We don't NEED to move Jermaine. I'd be happy to do it, but giving him away for Sideshow and Wally doesn't make us any better. If we're moving JO without including Tinsley, it had better be an amazing deal.

Hicks
06-08-2008, 03:13 PM
I think it would make us better. Any more, JO is around for what, 2/3rd's of the time at best? And during that time, he's truly healthy for a dozen or so games?

A healthy Verajao and a healthy Wally and another 1st rounder will make us better. It'll be like having another Jeff up front, and I think Wally is an upgrade over Kareem.

Would it be better than getting the 2004 JO? No. But he's gone. What it IS better than, is the team that didn't have JO much last year.

Justin Tyme
06-08-2008, 07:42 PM
The reports I heard about centered on how unhappy he was about his restricted contract staus and the fact that Cleveland wouldn't either sign him long term or allow another team the opportunity to sign him away from them for a reasonable long term deal. Once he finally ended the stalemate, he pouted much of the year and played no where near the playoff level from 07. Thus they mostly relegated him to mop up duty and traded for Ben Wallace (absorbing a ton of money in the process) to fill the role that had largely been Varejo's the previous season.

So if LeBron couldn't get him to buy into the team first concept.......how can we expect Granger to get him there. And even if he does for one season, what will you do with him next offseason........give him a Troy Murphy contract ??

I'm not so enamored with JO that I expect a KG type return for him......but I'm not going for less than what Memphis got for Gasol either.

Phx and Dallas both proved that desperate people sometimes do desperate things only a few months ago. I know JO has more value than either Shaq or JKidd. If he comes back close to healthy than a team looking for a final piece may give you a young cornerstone player in return for him.

Taking adeal that has no such player coming back to us is worthless. So you save his salary in 2010.....does that mean we could see a third return of Al harrington ?? Or maybe Jack 1's second stint. Or who knows.......lets dream big.........Eddy Curry might agree to come talk to us.

I'm not trying to be acomplete arse, but I just don't see the point in giving away one of your best and marketable players. The Simon's shouldn't be in dire financial straits.

To me a team like Golden State who is on the cusp of being a contender could package either Wright or Bierdens with Foyle's contract and maybe Al's .......that is far more enticing to me than a Varejo and Chase Buddinger trade.


I'm not going to stick up for Andy, but the Cavs put him in an awkward position. I could see where there could be hurt feelings and no warm feelings. A new team, a different setting could be a total different situation. Apparently, things were fine the previous years he was in Cleveland. I don't see the comparison to Harrison.

I just don't see why posters feel ownership have deep pockets and should be willing to absorb 44 mil worth of salary for a player who doesn't play a good % of the time or to the ability he once did.

I finally got my answer to my question of how many games JO has missed. On another board, it was stated 126 games over 5 years. My gosh folks at his salary that's 20-25 mil dollars for doing nothing but sitting on a bench in a suit looking pretty! That's downright ridiculously sickening! Again, why should the Simons pay JO ANOTHER 44 mil? There comes a time you cut your losses in business and move on. This is the time. Get the best deal available and get rid of him. Who cares about his 09-10 trade value or his 09-10 expiring contract next year. If he's kept, it costs the Simons 21mil! Just for a better deal or an expiring contract?

Sorry, but GS bought out Adonal's contract and he signed/played played for the Magic last season.

Naptown_Seth
06-08-2008, 09:31 PM
If you keep him for 12 months, 18 months, or 2 years, you have paid him between 21 to 44 mil. For what? This is the whole crux of why you trade him. His contributions vs what you receive in return for him. If your GM does any prudent type of trading, you will come out on the positive end.
Luckily for us the Pacers are the only ones who understand this concept. Maybe you shouldn't post it out in public where other teams can see it even.


Like the Pacers are getting back players that will contribute more than JO will. Please. Right now is some group of fans hoping suckers like the Pacers will take their dopes so they can get JO.

You pay JO now to INCREASE HIS VALUE. It's an investment. You want to get some good chunks to rebuild with, send out his expiring to a contender that's falling off the pace in JO's final year. You get a quality vet and maybe a pick so they can get cap space.

As the FINAL move in a Pacers rebuild, JO being traded for that last vet piece makes a lot more sense than getting a 20th pick and some longer contracts that cost you somewhere close to that SAME $44m with modest to low output.

Justin Tyme
06-09-2008, 08:46 AM
Luckily for us the Pacers are the only ones who understand this concept. Maybe you shouldn't post it out in public where other teams can see it even.


Like the Pacers are getting back players that will contribute more than JO will. Please. Right now is some group of fans hoping suckers like the Pacers will take their dopes so they can get JO.

You pay JO now to INCREASE HIS VALUE. It's an investment. You want to get some good chunks to rebuild with, send out his expiring to a contender that's falling off the pace in JO's final year. You get a quality vet and maybe a pick so they can get cap space.

As the FINAL move in a Pacers rebuild, JO being traded for that last vet piece makes a lot more sense than getting a 20th pick and some longer contracts that cost you somewhere close to that SAME $44m with modest to low output.

Yep, let's put another $5 grand in that old suv gas eating guzzler, which is worth $5 grand, so we can can trade it next year for $4 grand when it's older and depreciated even more! Forget the price of gas, and it only gets 14 MPG.

That's the thinking of numerous posters on this board. Spend 21mil more on JO in hopes he will get better trade value next year that won't include the 21mil in salary spent on him. Oh, I forgot JO will be retuning to Allstar form this coming season and his health will be fine, so he won't he adding to that 126 games missed in 5 years. Or adding to the 20-25 mil that the Simons have already paid him for games not played.

If this is true, then DW won't have any problem finding takers for Starbury's expiring 21mil contract b4 the season starts. Maybe DW can trade him for JO. Is DW that foolish to take on and pay an extra 23mil for JO all in the hopes JO will be the JO of old? Some think the Simons are and should!

If I truly believed JO would return to Allstar form, play 75 games this year for the Pacers, and not detract from the play of the others players, I'd jump on the bandwagon of keeping him; but I think that is foolish wishful thinking.

At the present time I'm so frustrated with JO, his greed, and lack of playing, that I'd trade him for any type deal that even has a hint of being decent with an expiring, young player with some possible talent, a role playing veteran, and hopefully a pick. It doesn't have to be a great deal, I gave up on that along time ago, but a deal that can be lived with. For those that have been advocating buying out Tinsley, the savings of 23mil for JO's last year the Pacers could even used to buy out Tinjury! Then both would be gone. The last chapter of the book on the last 4 years would be closed, and a new beginning starts. JMOAA

D-BONE
06-09-2008, 09:31 AM
Yep, let's put another $5 grand in that old suv gas eating guzzler, which is worth $5 grand, so we can can trade it next year for $4 grand when it's older and depreciated even more! Forget the price of gas, and it only gets 14 MPG.

That's the thinking of numerous posters on this board. Spend 21mil more on JO in hopes he will get better trade value next year that won't include the 21mil in salary spent on him. Oh, I forgot JO will be retuning to Allstar form this coming season and his health will be fine, so he won't he adding to that 126 games missed in 5 years. Or adding to the 20-25 mil that the Simons have already paid him for games not played.

If this is true, then DW won't have any problem finding takers for Starbury's expiring 21mil contract b4 the season starts. Maybe DW can trade him for JO. Is DW that foolish to take on and pay an extra 23mil for JO all in the hopes JO will be the JO of old? Some think the Simons are and should!

If I truly believed JO would return to Allstar form, play 75 games this year for the Pacers, and not detract from the play of the others players, I'd jump on the bandwagon of keeping him; but I think that is foolish wishful thinking.

At the present time I'm so frustrated with JO, his greed, and lack of playing, that I'd trade him for any type deal that even has a hint of being decent with an expiring, young player with some possible talent, a role playing veteran, and hopefully a pick. It doesn't have to be a great deal, I gave up on that along time ago, but a deal that can be lived with. For those that have been advocating buying out Tinsley, the savings of 23mil for JO's last year the Pacers could even used to buy out Tinjury! Then both would be gone. The last chapter of the book on the last 4 years would be closed, and a new beginning starts. JMOAA

I tend to agree with you. Particularly the part about ending this era of Pacers basketball. If nothing else than from the standpoint of the psychological health of the team, franchise, and fans.

JO wants to be moved. He's made it patently clear. This team won't be a serious contender for some time whether we have him or not. So it seems inevitable he'll be dealt sooner or later.

If he goes to a good team, it seems inevitable (if by miracle he recuperates physically) that he can be a valuable player elsewhere. That means he'll look good elsewhere b/c his team is successful and its talented enought to where he gets to be the role player he should be-approximately 3rd to 4th offensive option and shot blocking specialist. It's a pill we have to swallow.

In the meantime, with his injury history and discontent about being here, I can't forsee him building up his trade value significantly more than what it is now. Some permutations of the rumors that have been mentioned with Chicago or Cleveland, for example, are not bad offers for JO's market value.

Unclebuck
06-09-2008, 09:47 AM
There was a report - well just a short paragraph from the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said the cavs have no interest in JO.

D-BONE
06-09-2008, 09:56 AM
There was a report - well just a short paragraph from the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said the cavs have no interest in JO.

Hmmm. Of course, who knows what that means? On the surface, you can't expect anyone to be going ape**** over a guy who's been as banged up as JO.

Anthem
06-09-2008, 12:20 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the priority this offseason should be moving Tinsley, not JO.

Justin Tyme
06-09-2008, 02:17 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the priority this offseason should be moving Tinsley, not JO.


You are only half correct, the priority is moving BOTH!

If Bird can do that, he would be a GM of the year candidate.

indygeezer
06-09-2008, 02:25 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the priority this offseason should be moving Tinsley, not JO.

I agree 100% esp. if we can pick up a PG in the draft. Then, following the DW model, you sit back and look at what you have and what options you have. The most important option may be holding onto JO until the deadline at a minimum which gives you time to evaluate his health. If healthy you have a player to hold onto or trade, if not healthy you can begin looking for the best deal available before the next draft.

count55
06-09-2008, 03:14 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the priority this offseason should be moving Tinsley, not JO.

To me, if the Pacers moved Tinsley, the summer would be a success, regardless of what else happened, just as it would be a failure, regardless of what else happens, if Droopy suits up for the Pacers on opening night.

NuffSaid
06-09-2008, 03:43 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again... the priority this offseason should be moving Tinsley, not JO.
I agree with you. The rational behind wanting to move JO seems to be based more on his contract than his injury history although many try to link both. With Tinsley it's clear that injuries, attitude and inconsistent performace have all factored into the fans wanting to see him gone. JO may have sustained some serious injuries, but they've been nothing like the apparent knicks and dings that have kept Jamaal off the court.

I found this website, Forecaster.ca (http://www.forecaster.ca/cbc/basketball/player.cgi?437) (yeah, it's Canadian!) where you can plug in any player's name and get a decent injury history that spans approximately 3 years. When you compare JO's to Tinsley's it's as if Jamaal was out every week for one reason or another for what were seemingly minor injuries sustained during typical game play - an ankle sprain, bruised thigh, a knock to the funny bone (elbow) - not to mention his infamous sinus infections (which really aren't anything to "sneeze" at (...pun very much intended...:p ) if you've ever had one.

Gamble1 asked which position was more important for more wins next year and we both took pretty much the same viewpoint - PG. When I look at Tinsley's injury history I can't help thinking that he's the least reliable between the two (himself and JO). Therefore, to me it's more important to shore-up the PG position coming into this year's draft than it is the PF position.

Just my 2-cents worth.

(Sidenote: I'll once again go on record and say that while I do believe many of Tinsley's injuries IMO are the result of happenstance, it does seem as though they happen much too frequently. So much so that durability is a legitmate concern with him. Nonetheless, it's not his durability that's at the heart of the matter with him. It's his overall attitude and his off-court issues. All three combined go into the negative column agaist retaining him.)