PDA

View Full Version : Was it bird or walsh



Cory
02-17-2009, 06:21 PM
that traded for murph-leavy, can someone provide a link to a previous thread? I'm sure its been discussed a million times.

Anthem
02-17-2009, 08:43 PM
The definitive word (i.e., Peck's) is that Walsh was the one who pulled the trigger.

MyFavMartin
02-17-2009, 08:50 PM
I'm sure Bird was well aware of it and was probably the one talking to Mullin about it, liked it, and then took it to Donnie like Opie with a fish.

mildlysane
02-18-2009, 03:42 PM
I'm sure Bird was well aware of it and was probably the one talking to Mullin about it, liked it, and then took it to Donnie like Opie with a fish.

That was funny! :laugh:

Will Galen
02-18-2009, 03:53 PM
From what I read that was all Donnie.

switch
02-18-2009, 04:21 PM
I feel like Walsh is the one who would have to say yes or no regardless of whos deal it was. The Simons were not as involved when Walsh was here, so even if it was all Bird's idea, Donnie was the one who allowed it to happen. IMO

Bball
02-18-2009, 04:27 PM
It depends on if you think it was a good trade or a bad trade apparently.

If you think it was a good thread then it was Walsh.

If you think it was a bad trade then it was Bird.

It doesn't matter that the participants have said it was Walsh.

-Bball

Los Angeles
02-18-2009, 04:57 PM
I'm too lazy to look it up but an article released at the time said that it was Walsh and absolutely nobody else. No consultants, no Bird, nobody.

The trend for those years was that loose lips were sinking ships on the personnel front and that leaks had messed up several transactions. In the end, Donnie couldn't trust anyone to keep their "f-ing mouths shut" (not my words), so this transaction occurred over the phone between only two people and happened very quickly.

Iceman1
02-18-2009, 06:45 PM
It depends on if you think it was a good trade or a bad trade apparently.

If you think it was a good thread then it was Walsh.

If you think it was a bad trade then it was Bird.

It doesn't matter that the participants have said it was Walsh.

-Bball

Yep....you're exactly right....I've noticed the same thing.

Anthem
02-18-2009, 11:42 PM
Not even remotely true. I think it was a bad trade regardless of who made it.

Doddage
02-19-2009, 12:13 AM
Not even remotely true. I think it was a bad trade regardless of who made it.
I agree and I disagree. If we could count on a healthy/reliable team (namely Tinsley and JO), then we would have been a pretty solid team. Hell, we were on a roll after we made the deal until Quis got injured. But under our circumstances, the trade could have been considered bad since we were strapped with Murphy and Dunleavy's contracts. Also the fact that Ike didn't pan out the way we would have liked. Still, I'm not overly worried about it since we've gotten career years out of Dun and Murph and that sooner or later, they'll be assets for us.

Will Galen
02-19-2009, 12:22 AM
Not even remotely true. I think it was a bad trade regardless of who made it.

I think it was a good trade regardless. You can't just say this player is better than that one and compare the trade that way. You have to take everything into account.

switch
02-19-2009, 01:13 AM
At the time it happened, this was a very bad deal. We went from being an almost acceptable basketball team to very hard to watch for the rest of the season. And I still find it hard to believe that Ike was suppost to be the player that made this deal a good one for the Pacers because of his "potential".

Today, however, this deal appears to have worked pretty well for us because of the way Murph and Dun have been playing when healty. I don't think who it was should matter anymore, it was in the past and we have new management now.