PDA

View Full Version : Two Years Later:The Indiana-Golden State Trade



dannygranger
01-16-2009, 01:47 PM
http://pacers.realgm.com/articles/155/20090115/two_years_later_the_indiana-golden_state_trade/

Anthem
01-16-2009, 02:15 PM
I said at the time, and still believe, that we should have just gone for the original trade of Dun for Jackson. That worked well for both sides. Harrington for Diogu/Murphy, though, was a loss for the Pacers.

I didn't want to keep Harrington, but we could have done much better than Ike/Troy if we'd wanted to trade him.

EDIT: Wow. I like Perna, but he really thinks the trade favors Indy? Get me some of that kool-aid.

Spirit
01-16-2009, 02:20 PM
Yeah it would have been an awesome trade for us if it was only Dunleavy/Jackson. Even without the baggage, i'd take Dunleavy over Jackson 20 times out of 10. He's way more efficient and smart with the basketball, and he isn't a chucker like Jackson.

DocHolliday
01-16-2009, 02:32 PM
The trade did what it was intended to do--efficiently got rid of garbage that needed to go. The Pacers could've waited if Harrington had not been so vocal about wanting to leave town...or whatever his problem was, they all run together for me. :censored:

Unclebuck
01-16-2009, 02:42 PM
It was a necessary and I think a good trade. Obviously it wasn't a franchise maker.

Skaut_Ech
01-16-2009, 02:52 PM
It was a necessary and I think a good trade. Obviously it wasn't a franchise maker.

I agree.

Anthem, the thing that really strikes me is what amount of problems Al could have caused if he had stayed. He's shown that he is a very "me-first" kinda guy. We absolutely did NOT need any more of that here. Hell, look at what's going on with the Knicks. D'antoni is getting a little peeved at Al for being such a black hole on offense. Weren't we having that problem with him here? Wasn't that the reason he left GS, cause he didn't get enough touchs and chucks for his liking? I admit I'm a Murphy fan, but I'll take hard working, egoless Troy to Al, "It's all about memeEEEeee," Harrington. I think we came out ahead on that trade, just in terms of Troy/Ike for Al. (far as I was concerned, Al couldn't go fast enough)

Raoul Duke
01-16-2009, 02:58 PM
When I first heard the trade I was really disappointed but happy we got Ike. Now I think we made out well. I was a big Jack fan but I'd take Dunleavy over him and I'm really starting to like Murphy. I think we won. "Deputy Editor" Perna is kind of annoying though. Its not as bad now but it used to be every article he wrote had a reference to the Pacers or Reggie Miller no matter what it was about.

Slick Pinkham
01-16-2009, 02:59 PM
The garbage truck came and picked up ALMOST everything we had piled up at the curb at the time.

Sure we had to pay a little extra pickup fees, and the crew maybe could have neatly aligned the trash cans afterwards instead of throwing them around the side of the road, but it was starting to reek a little bit.

All in all I can't complain.

dannygranger
01-16-2009, 03:07 PM
At the time I liked the trade and I still do.

We needed to do something and we aren't sure exactly if any other offers were made to the pacers front office. At least I don't remember hearing about any other than rumors.

Heres a quick question. If we don't do that deal and we keep the team the way it was would Granger have become the player he is now this soon or at all?

Doddage
01-16-2009, 03:42 PM
At the time I liked the trade and I still do.

We needed to do something and we aren't sure exactly if any other offers were made to the pacers front office. At least I don't remember hearing about any other than rumors.

Heres a quick question. If we don't do that deal and we keep the team the way it was would Granger have become the player he is now this soon or at all?
If Jackson and Harrington were still on the team, I couldn't see that happening.

Los Angeles
01-16-2009, 07:56 PM
So then maybe it WAS a franchise building move.

Dr. Awesome
01-16-2009, 08:21 PM
The trade was very good for Indiana. I am still a fan of Harrington, but at the time he and JO couldn't co-exist on the floor.

Murphy has been great this year, he gives the team another dimension that most teams don't have. I agree that he is still overpayed, but he has been a monster on the boards and spreads the floor. Without this trade Granger may not be the player he is today, Jackson was too much of a chucker to acknowledge Granger, Dunleavy plays perfectly off him.

I'd do this trade any day of the week. I still feel we should trade both Mike and Troy, but I'd still do the trade.

count55
01-17-2009, 12:25 AM
I don't like the contracts, but I'm fine with the trade as a whole. I am not aware of all the machinations in the deal, and I could see being happier with a smaller deal. That being said, while I recognize that Harrington is a more tradeable asset (because of the more favorable contract), you'd have a real hard time convincing me that Murphy isn't better as a basketball player than Al.

BlueNGold
01-17-2009, 12:44 AM
Jackson > Dun >> Murphy > Harrington

The trade initially lost us some talent, but it now looks alot better.

The reality is, Jackson has continued at about the same level before his injury, Dun raised his performance significantly, Murphy raised his level, and Harrington has gone downhill. Murphy and Dunleavy are now entering their prime and are playing better. Jackson has plateaued. Harrington plateaued awhile ago partly because he entered the league so young. All in all, there is a smaller difference between these players now that I had expected.

Big Smooth
01-17-2009, 12:54 AM
The anniversary of this trade means nothing to me. The trade seems to have benefited both teams but......it was just some housecleaning by the P's. And SJax got a bad rap here......and that was before he did anything wrong off the court, but I digress.

cinotimz
01-17-2009, 01:00 AM
Heres a quick question. If we don't do that deal and we keep the team the way it was would Granger have become the player he is now this soon or at all?

This is ultimately why Harrington is such a malcontent. He wants and feels he deserves the opportunity that Danny has gotten. To be the number one superstar type option.

He thinks hes good enough. Whos to say for sure. But he inevitably becomes unhappy everywhere he goes because he doesnt receive that sort of opportunity or recognition.

Can every team be wrong?

Anthem
01-17-2009, 11:46 AM
Anthem, the thing that really strikes me is what amount of problems Al could have caused if he had stayed. He's shown that he is a very "me-first" kinda guy.
I don't disagree in the slightest. But we didn't need to send Al to GS... there were plenty of teams we could have dealt him to. We didn't need to take back a four-year contract and a young stud who lacks in studliness.

Anthem
01-17-2009, 11:47 AM
I don't like the contracts, but I'm fine with the trade as a whole. I am not aware of all the machinations in the deal, and I could see being happier with a smaller deal.
It was originally a smaller deal, Bird expanded it to take back Murphy because he wanted Ike.

Bball
01-17-2009, 11:50 AM
I thought this was Donnie's deal.... not Bird's...

Peter_sixtyftsixin
01-17-2009, 12:11 PM
I two years later really like this trade, but I remember when it happened. At the time I felt we were royally getting ripped off and I ran into my friend's dorm room and yelled "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?" Now looking back on it I'm glad we have Dun and Murph, and I'm glad we got rid of our "trash."

WInslow22
01-17-2009, 12:14 PM
I prefer to look at this issue from a more general perspective: Currently, I beleive the Pacers are on the up and up (despite our crappy record), as where the Warriors I beleive, are on a downward slide.....................

Anthem
01-17-2009, 12:15 PM
I thought this was Donnie's deal.... not Bird's...
Eh, we've gone back and forth a million times. Both guys have claimed credit.

But whichever it was, the trade was originally Dunleavy and got expanded to include Troy and Ike. And Ike was supposedly the centerpiece of the trade; the reason we were willing to take two terrible contracts.

YoSoyIndy
01-17-2009, 09:13 PM
Eh, we've gone back and forth a million times. Both guys have claimed credit.

But whichever it was, the trade was originally Dunleavy and got expanded to include Troy and Ike. And Ike was supposedly the centerpiece of the trade; the reason we were willing to take two terrible contracts.

Do you remember where you read that or heard about it? I don't recall that bit of info.

idioteque
01-17-2009, 09:31 PM
I hated this trade when it happened but now that I look back on it, we definitely got the better end of the deal.

We actually got great value for Jack, who IIRC had incredibly low trade value at the time because of the incidents he had been involved in. Jack is the pretty good second option-caliber player he has always been in GS, while Harrington continues to bounce around the league with his fat, overdone contract. Saranus is out of the league.

Meanwhile, Dunleavy has taken his game to a whole new level and is a better shooter and a harder worker than Jackson (even though he is less athletic), Murphy is better shooting, less selfish, better rebounding version of the similarly overpaid Harrington, and Diogu didn't pan out but he did help us net Jack, McBob, and Rush with his contact and really it was a low risk high reward situation with him.

Overall we made out well in this deal and dumped a huge PR problem in the process.

Anthem
01-17-2009, 10:36 PM
Do you remember where you read that or heard about it? I don't recall that bit of info.
I read it on here. I don't go anywhere else for Pacers news these days. The group mind is far better at finding articles than I am, so I don't need to go looking. Everything important comes to me.

YoSoyIndy
01-18-2009, 11:05 AM
I read it on here. I don't go anywhere else for Pacers news these days. The group mind is far better at finding articles than I am, so I don't need to go looking. Everything important comes to me.

Since the trade was never leaked (remember Bird and Mullin kept it between them), I think it's hard to say that the Dun/Jack trade was ever close to being a done deal. This was one of the few trades that didn't have at least a few hours or days of build-up prior to the official announcement.

speakout4
01-18-2009, 09:39 PM
I hated this trade when it happened but now that I look back on it, we definitely got the better end of the deal.


i have no doubt that Dun is prererable to jax for a variety of reasons but the rest of the deal is not who got the better deal but who didn't get the worst deal. I like murphy alot more this year but neither murph nor harrington can play the PF even though they have the size. The way we know Murphy's value is that no one else really wants him. Very likely Murph won't be on the team past this contract.

Peck
01-18-2009, 09:53 PM
Eh, we've gone back and forth a million times. Both guys have claimed credit.

But whichever it was, the trade was originally Dunleavy and got expanded to include Troy and Ike. And Ike was supposedly the centerpiece of the trade; the reason we were willing to take two terrible contracts.

What?????

Show me.

Donnie has said it was Chris Mullin and himself. Larry has said Donnie and Chris Mullin. Chris Mullin has said it was Donnie Walsh.

I'm sorry but I have never EVER once heard anyone other than on here make the claim that this was Bird.

Anthem I do NOT mean this for you, I am sorry for using your post to go off on but I figure you know me well enough to know I respect you and in no way think this of you, but I will say this.

I think Bird is a victim of a little bit of stereotyping here. I think everybody see's Murphy and Dunleavy and think "oh this is Larry's kind of player" so this was all Bird's doing. If you want to enfer race into that feel free.

Donnie Walsh loved Ike and thought that he had pulled the second coming of Jermaine when he did this trade.

As to the trade itself, it was fine. I don't see how anyone can look at it and see how we didn't come out ahead, if for no other reason than two of our starters are from that trade and they only have one player left.

I apologize to all for the rant on this, but it just kills me that nobody will take Donnie, Chris or Larry's word for who did this trade.

jhondog28
01-18-2009, 11:32 PM
i remember Diogu being the piece of the trade that GS had a hard time giving up. I remember him being a future piece especially from the fans perspective, but I can tell you that by the time the trade happened the GS fans would have traded for a pack of smokes and a sixer to get rid of both of Duns and Murphy's contracts. I remember it being on the front page of ESPN.com that is where I first saw it.

ajbry
01-18-2009, 11:41 PM
A common way to determine who got the better end of a trade - particularly a major one - is to simply see who got the best player. That's easy in this case.

MrSparko
01-18-2009, 11:43 PM
Occam's Razor?

Bball
01-18-2009, 11:53 PM
A common way to determine who got the better end of a trade - particularly a major one - is to simply see who got the best player. That's easy in this case.

Dunleavy

Natston
01-18-2009, 11:59 PM
:lurk:

spreedom
01-19-2009, 12:18 AM
A common way to determine who got the better end of a trade - particularly a major one - is to simply see who got the best player. That's easy in this case.


I'd take Dun over Stephen Jackson 10 times out of 10, if that's what you were implying...

BlueNGold
01-19-2009, 12:38 AM
A common way to determine who got the better end of a trade - particularly a major one - is to simply see who got the best player. That's easy in this case.

At the time of the trade, Jackson was clearly the best player by some distance. Dunleavy, however, has raised his level of play significantly since the trade. He's younger than Jackson and has closed a big portion of the talent gap. Although Jack is shooting horribly (29% from three and 39% from the floor), I would still give him the edge on talent simply because he is a good defender...but the gap is now quite small if there is one at all.

BTW, there are other important considerations to determine "who got the better end of a trade". The boat anchor contracts are now the reason the Pacers remain on the short end of the stick. We could argue the intangibles of dumping the unpopular Jackson versus attempting to mend fences, but really it's now about the contracts and how they impact a rebuild. That's why I would still have a difficult time re-doing that trade even today.

Anthem
01-19-2009, 09:35 AM
I'm sorry but I have never EVER once heard anyone other than on here make the claim that this was Bird.
Meh. It doesn't matter to me either way, I dislike the trade just as much if it's Donnie.

But we heard all that year (including after the year) that Bird was in complete control of the basketball side, and we heard it from him. I don't remember the Mullin quote, but one of the TPTB quotes (either Bird or Donnie) I remember being in disagreement about interpretation. But it doesn't matter enough to me to go dig it out.

I'm ok with being wrong on this one. I am going to go look for the "expanded" part, though.

Anthem
01-19-2009, 09:35 AM
Since the trade was never leaked (remember Bird and Mullin kept it between them), I think it's hard to say that the Dun/Jack trade was ever close to being a done deal. This was one of the few trades that didn't have at least a few hours or days of build-up prior to the official announcement.
We heard about it after the fact.

Bball
01-19-2009, 09:42 AM
Meh. It doesn't matter to me either way, I dislike the trade just as much if it's Donnie.

But we heard all that year (including after the year) that Bird was in complete control of the basketball side, and we heard it from him. I don't remember the Mullin quote, but one of the TPTB quotes (either Bird or Donnie) I remember being in disagreement about interpretation. But it doesn't matter enough to me to go dig it out.

I'm ok with being wrong on this one. I am going to go look for the "expanded" part, though.


Clearly it had to be Bird because Walsh wouldn't make a trade you didn't like! :box:
:p

Anthem
01-19-2009, 09:47 AM
Clearly it had to be Bird because Walsh wouldn't make a trade you didn't like! :box:
:p
Would have been funnier if I hadn't just said "I dislike the trade just as much if it's by Donnie."

:flirt:

nerveghost
01-19-2009, 10:19 AM
Can you list "Public relations nightmare" as one of the assets the Pacers were trading? Because clearly that was what it was all about - it wouldn't have been done otherwise.

sloopjohnb
01-22-2009, 01:22 PM
I thought this was well and interestingly-written. He fails to mention the salary cap implications, although Golden State extended Stephen Jackson's contract.

The current results of this trade are:
IND gives up: Jackson, Sarunus, Harrington, draft rights to Bayless
IND gets (in time to present): Dunleavy, Murphy, Jack, draft rights to Rush.
GS gives up: Murphy, Dunleavy, Diogu
GS gets (in time to present): Jackson and Crawford.

To me this trade has still been better for Golden State than for Indiana, but that margin is getting narrow. Dunleavy has been great, and Murphy's numbers have been good this season. But the Pacers have yet to post a winning record with the players obtained in the acquisition. And that is why Golden State is still winning, but barely, in this trade because of their success that first year against Dallas in the playoffs. When and if the Pacers make the playoffs, and whether or not Murphy and Dunleavy contribute to that success has not been determined. Who knows, we may end up dealing Murphy (with any stroke of luck) and getting a more valuable piece to the puzzle. Or, we might start clicking, as it seems we have finally found a good chemistry of roster players. Maybe another year or two will allow us more time to grade this trade.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 01:40 PM
Dunleavy

Exactly.

ChicagoJ
01-22-2009, 01:41 PM
The garbage truck came and picked up ALMOST everything we had piled up at the curb at the time.

Sure we had to pay a little extra pickup fees, and the crew maybe could have neatly aligned the trash cans afterwards instead of throwing them around the side of the road, but it was starting to reek a little bit.

All in all I can't complain.

I love this. Nicely done.