PDA

View Full Version : larry's first deal is a bad one.



midevil
07-11-2004, 01:31 AM
I knew larry wouldn't be half the GM donnie was. We just got raped by Atl. First we could have gotten way more for Al. We should've at least got their first rounder next year. SA doesnt solve our outside shooting woes, he's a terrible ball handler, and has zero basketball intelligence. He drove Popavich crazy with his decision making. His contract is way too much and too long. I would have been happier with Ron at the 2 and Al starting at the 3. All this and I bet Carlise will still start Reggie---larry's first move sucks!

BigMac
07-11-2004, 01:42 AM
Time will tell. But we don't know the specifics of the trade. If it's Jackson for Al straight up, you may be right. We may well have been hosed. But we will see.

Young
07-11-2004, 01:50 AM
We got hosed on the Davis for Bender deal. We got hosed on the Davis for ONeal deal. We got hosed on the Miller for Pollard deal. Alot of people thought that we got hosed on the Rose for Artest and Miller deal. It's amazing how we keep getting hosed, but we just keep getting better.;)

Agreed. You know Indiana made a good trade when we are said to be getting hosed.:laugh:

Now that you mentioned the Miller-Pollard deal, I hate when people are against that deal. When they say it was a dumb move they have no knowledge of why it was made. It was made so we didn't let Brad Miller go to Denver or Utah and us be left with nothing. Plus we rid ourselves of Mercer.

And how is this move not good? We added a missing piece and traded an unhappy player in the process?

Snickers
07-11-2004, 01:50 AM
I'll go on record as liking this deal. :thumbsup:

I do always like getting draft picks; surely we could have convinced the Hawks to give us a pick, say a top-5 protected first rounder, with Jackson...? They were going to lose him anyway, and they've certainly made dumber moves in the past.

Young
07-11-2004, 01:53 AM
I'll go on record as liking this deal. :thumbsup:

I do always like getting draft picks; surely we could have convinced the Hawks to give us a pick, say a top-5 protected first rounder, with Jackson...? They were going to lose him anyway, and they've certainly made dumber moves in the past.

Actually I would have rather tried and get Boris Diaw instead of a pick. Diaw is gonna be a good player. Did decent last season and just has to work on his jumper. I think he could have played well in Indiana. Being our sixth man in a season or two because who knows with Bender becasue he will likely be home on he IR early in the season.

But i'll live with Stephen Jackson and live well.:)

ChicagoJ
07-11-2004, 01:56 AM
We got hosed on the Davis for Bender deal. We got hosed on the Davis for ONeal deal. We got hosed on the Miller for Pollard deal. Alot of people thought that we got hosed on the Rose for Artest and Miller deal. It's amazing how we keep getting hosed, but we just keep getting better.;)

Agreed. You know Indiana made a good trade when we are said to be getting hosed.:laugh:

Now that you mentioned the Miller-Pollard deal, I hate when people are against that deal. When they say it was a dumb move they have no knowledge of why it was made. It was made so we didn't let Brad Miller go to Denver or Utah and us be left with nothing. Plus we rid ourselves of Mercer.

And how is this move not good? We added a missing piece and traded an unhappy player in the process?



Getting Pollard's big contract meant that we were better off letting Brad walk to Denver or Utah with no compensation. I've always been fine with that outcome... getting Pollard has always irritated me much more than losing Brad. Mercer had an expiring contract, so he was still very tradeable to SA, Utah, the Clippers or Denver, as well.

At the very least, we could have kept Turkaglu's expiring contract instead of Pollard's.

Oh, and I didn't know our missing piece was a poor-shooting, turnover prone whiner that was so valuable to his championship-winning team that they offered him far less than the full MLE then pulled it off the table. :unimpressed:

Snickers
07-11-2004, 01:58 AM
I'll go on record as liking this deal. :thumbsup:

I do always like getting draft picks; surely we could have convinced the Hawks to give us a pick, say a top-5 protected first rounder, with Jackson...? They were going to lose him anyway, and they've certainly made dumber moves in the past.

Actually I would have rather tried and get Boris Diaw instead of a pick. Diaw is gonna be a good player. Did decent last season and just has to work on his jumper. I think he could have played well in Indiana. Being our sixth man in a season or two because who knows with Bender becasue he will likely be home on he IR early in the season.

But i'll live with Stephen Jackson and live well.:)


Definitely, but would they have been willing to give him up? Or would it have cost us something more.... Freddie? :uhoh:

I'm happy with Stephen Jackson. :cool: When does training camp start?

Young
07-11-2004, 02:04 AM
Oh, and I didn't know our missing piece was a poor-shooting, turnover prone whiner that was so valuable to his championship-winning team that they offered him far less than the full MLE then pulled it off the table. :unimpressed:

Oh yes a 34% 3 point shooter is just a poor shooting percentage???

And I recall Jackson hitting his share of shots in the playoffs.

BTW: Spurs didn't offer him much because they were saving for Ginobli for this summer if I recall correctly.

midevil
07-11-2004, 02:05 AM
We should've waited on Cleveland. With them losing Boozer we couldve gotten Luke Jackson and d wagner. Luke Jackson is everything SA is not. A deadeye shooter a good ball handler and a SMART player. He wouldve complimented Artest well. I see bad chemistry between Artest and Jackson. Plus Luke's contract is much easier to swallow.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:10 AM
We should've waited on Cleveland. With them losing Boozer we couldve gotten Luke Jackson and d wagner. Luke Jackson is everything SA is not. A deadeye shooter a good ball handler and a SMART player. He wouldve complimented Artest well. I see bad chemistry between Artest and Jackson. Plus Luke's contract is much easier to swallow.



So you know Artest is staying and not being traded? , You heard the old saying " You Snooze , You Lose"

I can't believe people think this is a Rip , Quit over valuing AL , by some of you comments al should got a 6 year 120 million contract :rolleyes:

I dont think any of the complainers will be happy with any trades , kinda like damned if you do damned if you don't . We could have waited and ending up with Nothing and then you guys would have complained about that too right ?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

ChicagoJ
07-11-2004, 02:15 AM
Oh, and I didn't know our missing piece was a poor-shooting, turnover prone whiner that was so valuable to his championship-winning team that they offered him far less than the full MLE then pulled it off the table. :unimpressed:

Oh yes a 34% 3 point shooter is just a poor shooting percentage???

And I recall Jackson hitting his share of shots in the playoffs.

BTW: Spurs didn't offer him much because they were saving for Ginobli for this summer if I recall correctly.

I recall that Popovich didn't mind losing him because Ginobolli was already better. And they obviously felt that Mercer and Turkaglu were a significant upgrade because nobody forced them to join that trade. The Spurs won a championship in spite of having Jackson on that team, not because of him.

Hey, if people are going to tell me not to slam guys like SAR just because he's never played for a winner then you shouldn't prop up a guy like Jackson who was being carried by Duncan, Parker, Ginobolli, Rose, Robinson, and Company.

EDIT -

Don't forget, I'm not a big fan of the three-point shot. If a guy can't hit > 40% from out there, I'd rather they step in and shoot an 18-footer. Therefore, I don't equate 3pt FG% to good shooting in general, and to throw out a guy at 34% as a good shooter is comical.

Let's put it this way, if he's taking 5 3pt FGA per game next season, then they should add three turnovers per game to his already high TO stats because that's the same thing.

Young
07-11-2004, 02:19 AM
Oh, and I didn't know our missing piece was a poor-shooting, turnover prone whiner that was so valuable to his championship-winning team that they offered him far less than the full MLE then pulled it off the table. :unimpressed:

Oh yes a 34% 3 point shooter is just a poor shooting percentage???

And I recall Jackson hitting his share of shots in the playoffs.

BTW: Spurs didn't offer him much because they were saving for Ginobli for this summer if I recall correctly.

I recall that Popovich didn't mind losing him because Ginobolli was already better. And they obviously felt that Mercer and Turkaglu were a significant upgrade because nobody forced them to join that trade. The Spurs won a championship in spite of having Jackson on that team, not because of him.

Hey, if people are going to tell me not to slam guys like SAR just because he's never played for a winner then you shouldn't prop up a guy like Jackson who was being carried by Duncan, Parker, Ginobolli, Rose, Robinson, and Company.

Well okay if you say so but i'll still think other wise because if you count the rings, Jackson has one and Turkgolu and Mercer don't. Guess Jackson just got lucky.

And one can argue that Ginoboli is carred by
Duncan and Parker is carried by Duncan and Rose is carried by Duncan. Ginobli started out as a starter but Hedo took over because Manu is better as a 6th man.

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 02:19 AM
We should've waited on Cleveland. With them losing Boozer we couldve gotten Luke Jackson and d wagner. Luke Jackson is everything SA is not. A deadeye shooter a good ball handler and a SMART player. He wouldve complimented Artest well. I see bad chemistry between Artest and Jackson. Plus Luke's contract is much easier to swallow.


So you know Artest is staying and not being traded? , You heard the old saying " You Snooze , You Lose"

I can't believe people think this is a Rip , Quit over valuing AL , by some of you comments al should got a 6 year 120 million contract :rolleyes:

I dont think any of the complainers will be happy with any trades , kinda like damned if you do damned if you don't . We could have waited and ending up with Nothing and then you guys would have complained about that too right ?:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


Yep.

Plus, don't tell midevil this, but Luke can't be traded until December 15th.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:21 AM
Is the Moon in Perfect alignment tonight , I seem to be agreeing with BP alot :laugh::laugh::laugh:

midevil
07-11-2004, 02:25 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:27 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

Wll no point in watching the 2004 -2005 season , midevil has it all predicited :unimpressed:

Pig Nash
07-11-2004, 02:29 AM
darn. now my sig isn't right! too bad. Wait till year after next.

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 02:30 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

You're right. Losing Brad killed our chances of getting out of the first round of the playoffs this year, and now losing Al will cost us any chance of getting anywhere near the playoffs next year. We're lotto bound!

Young
07-11-2004, 02:30 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

Harrington: 30.9 minuates-2.06 TOs.
Jackson: 36.8 minuates-2.79 TOs.

If anything are turnovers will go down when you consider that Jackson will see less minuates with Reggie as his backup.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:35 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

You're right. Losing Brad killed our chances of getting out of the first round of the playoffs this year, and now losing Al will cost us any chance of getting anywhere near the playoffs next year. We're lotto bound!



:cheers:

btw , I already had ulcers from the pervious years team and the year before that and so forth :D

But then again it would be hard to improve with all the talent and in ricks system right ? wait you tell me players dont get better ?

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 02:38 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.
If you tally up all the average turnovers of this team it's easily among the highest in the league. Get used to watching Artest and Sjax throw the ball away, and any shot at us beating Detroit or Miami with Shaq.

You're right. Losing Brad killed our chances of getting out of the first round of the playoffs this year, and now losing Al will cost us any chance of getting anywhere near the playoffs next year. We're lotto bound!



:cheers:

btw , I already had ulcers from the pervious years team and the year before that and so forth :D

But then again it would be hard to improve with all the talent and in ricks system right ? wait you tell me players dont get better ?

Not in Rick's system they don't. Why, Ron went from 15 ppg the previous year to 18 ppg this year and won the DPOY. Slack ***.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:41 AM
Not in Rick's system they don't. Why, Ron went from 15 ppg the previous year to 18 ppg this year and won the DPOY. Slack ***.

Yeah same for Tinsley :laugh::laugh:

SoupIsGood
07-11-2004, 02:51 AM
Luke Jackson is everything SA is not.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

You can't compare Jackson (Who I assume your talking about, I've seen the SA mean him, not sure what it stands for) with a rookie, man. Counting on a rookie to be better than a proven starter is the stupidest thing the pacers could ever do.

BillS
07-12-2004, 09:44 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.

Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game with a front court that couldn't catch a pass rolled down the open court by my 1-year-old grandson.

Edit: to clarify, this is because they would cut the wrong direction against no defensive pressure ...

3Ball
07-12-2004, 10:11 AM
Oh, and I didn't know our missing piece was a poor-shooting, turnover prone whiner that was so valuable to his championship-winning team that they offered him far less than the full MLE then pulled it off the table. :unimpressed:

Oh yes a 34% 3 point shooter is just a poor shooting percentage???

And I recall Jackson hitting his share of shots in the playoffs.

BTW: Spurs didn't offer him much because they were saving for Ginobli for this summer if I recall correctly.

I recall that Popovich didn't mind losing him because Ginobolli was already better. And they obviously felt that Mercer and Turkaglu were a significant upgrade because nobody forced them to join that trade. The Spurs won a championship in spite of having Jackson on that team, not because of him.

Hey, if people are going to tell me not to slam guys like SAR just because he's never played for a winner then you shouldn't prop up a guy like Jackson who was being carried by Duncan, Parker, Ginobolli, Rose, Robinson, and Company.

EDIT -

Don't forget, I'm not a big fan of the three-point shot. If a guy can't hit > 40% from out there, I'd rather they step in and shoot an 18-footer. Therefore, I don't equate 3pt FG% to good shooting in general, and to throw out a guy at 34% as a good shooter is comical.

Let's put it this way, if he's taking 5 3pt FGA per game next season, then they should add three turnovers per game to his already high TO stats because that's the same thing.


Well, if a guy isn't allowed to shoot from the arc if he can't hit better than 40%, then we better clip Reggie's wings, because he only has a 39.8% career 3PT average. But you're right, 33% for a shooting guard isn't going to cut it. I mean, Tins was like 37% last year. Whoo.

Anthem
07-12-2004, 10:19 AM
Next years team will give us ulcers.
Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game on a team that defenses took the night off against.

Sjax averaged 2.8 turnovers a game with a front court that couldn't catch a pass rolled down the open court by my 1-year-old grandson.

Edit: to clarify, this is because they would cut the wrong direction against no defensive pressure ...

Couldn't possibly be because your grandson has no court vision. :mad: I tell you, some people are so blinded about kids' real athletic potentials.... :p

sixthman
07-12-2004, 10:33 AM
getting Pollard has always irritated me much more than losing Brad. Mercer had an expiring contract, so he was still very tradeable to SA, Utah, the Clippers or Denver, as well.


If the Pacers had thought there was anyway a team was going to take Mercer without being seriously bribed, I believe they would have unloaded Mercer in that fashion.

Because of the luxury tax and the threatened loss of millions in shared league revenue, Walsh simply couldn't gamble that another deal would come along that would unload Mercer's contract at a reasonable cost.

naptownmenace
07-12-2004, 11:10 AM
I recall that Popovich didn't mind losing him because Ginobolli was already better. And they obviously felt that Mercer and Turkaglu were a significant upgrade because nobody forced them to join that trade. The Spurs won a championship in spite of having Jackson on that team, not because of him.

Hey, if people are going to tell me not to slam guys like SAR just because he's never played for a winner then you shouldn't prop up a guy like Jackson who was being carried by Duncan, Parker, Ginobolli, Rose, Robinson, and Company.


I totally disagree with these statements. If the Spurs didn't have Stephen Jackson during the 2003 playoffs, I doubt that they would've won the championship. He played very well against the Lakers and he hit several clutch shots against the Nets in the finals. He was one of their most consistent performers - if not the flashiest.

One of the biggest mistakes that the Spurs made last off season was not resigning Jackson and Speedy Claxton. Turkoglu and Mercer sure didn't work out for them.

One last thing about Jackson, at least he's proven he can perform in the playoffs consistently. Good trade, IMO.