PDA

View Full Version : Get a grip about Al being traded.



FireTheCoach
07-11-2004, 01:58 AM
We need a young SG way more than we needed another forward.

I can almost gaurantee that this trade will be viewed favorably by this time next year.

Als stats were deceptive... he was not the factor that he appears on paper.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:05 AM
Shhh , you will wake the Homers :D:D:D

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 02:08 AM
Shhh , you will wake the Homers :D:D:D

:lol2:

Lord Helmet
07-11-2004, 02:08 AM
I liked the deal.AL wanted out anyway.But I still don't like trading any 6th man runner-up.

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:15 AM
Shhh , you will wake the Homers :D:D:D

:lol2:

My work is Complete , I made BP laugh

But Seriously , I must go now with the Search dogs and Find "Tim" Before He Jumps off some High Structure because AL is gonna be Traded:p

RWB
07-11-2004, 02:20 AM
Shhh , you will wake the Homers :D:D:D

:lol2:

My work is Complete , I made BP laugh

But Seriously , I must go now with the Search dogs and Find "Tim" Before He Jumps off some High Structure because AL is gonna be Traded:p






Tim took it very well. Suaveness was the bringer of bad news. There were a lot of these going on :o

TheSauceMaster
07-11-2004, 02:28 AM
Good to hear RWB , I know how much he loved AL :D

SoupIsGood
07-11-2004, 02:56 AM
I'm tired of everone comlaining. they'd complain if we traded Al for Pierce. It's not a bad trade, and he's not getting overpaid. People need to lighten up, Larry did just fine.

Anthem
07-11-2004, 06:21 AM
If I complain, it will be something along these lines:

We could probably have traded Al to Denver for a future pick, then signed S.Jax to the MLE with our new-found cap space. Therefore, if we trade Al for S.Jax straight up, we're probably not getting as much as we could have.

ABADays
07-11-2004, 10:04 AM
I really think we had peaked with Harington. He wasn't happy coming off the bench so I would have been concerned about his mental attitude this season. I'm not sure we would have had him "all there".

Doug in CO
07-11-2004, 10:31 AM
Here is my question - THE question really (keep in mind I think this is a great trade). I bet we could have had S. Jax for the MLE - does this mean we will still use it? Or will we be cheap?

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 10:48 AM
My guess? We'll be, well, cheap is a harsh word, let's call it fiscally conservative. I can't imagine we'd take on more salary.

able
07-11-2004, 10:51 AM
Here is my question - THE question really (keep in mind I think this is a great trade). I bet we could have had S. Jax for the MLE - does this mean we will still use it? Or will we be cheap?

Considering the Pacers being the 5th big spender in the League, I find it hard to call the organization "cheap" :D

No my guess is we won't, though maybe we will use the 1 mil one :)

PacerMan
07-11-2004, 10:54 AM
You're goofy. Al was an emotional leader of this team. His physical presense helped us IMMENSLY more than his "stats" did. Jermaine was always better when Al had his back.
Yes, we needed a guard more than a forward, but we'll miss Al and it won't always be on the court.
The game is more than stats............

birdman
07-11-2004, 12:29 PM
You're goofy. Al was an emotional leader of this team. His physical presense helped us IMMENSLY more than his "stats" did. Jermaine was always better when Al had his back.
Yes, we needed a guard more than a forward, but we'll miss Al and it won't always be on the court.
The game is more than stats............

Yeah we are all going to miss Al, but...get over it.

wintermute
07-11-2004, 01:00 PM
If I complain, it will be something along these lines:

We could probably have traded Al to Denver for a future pick, then signed S.Jax to the MLE with our new-found cap space. Therefore, if we trade Al for S.Jax straight up, we're probably not getting as much as we could have.

exactly. my complaint as well.

the reported numbers (6 yrs 44 mil) isn't far off from what the pacers could have offered with the mle (6 yrs 39 mil). and realistically, jackson didn't have a better situation to go to. i'd bet that if pacers had played hardball, they'd have landed jack eventually for the mle.

it seems like donnie and larry went out of their way to ensure that we land jack. they must be really high on him.

sixthman
07-11-2004, 01:04 PM
My guess? We'll be, well, cheap is a harsh word, let's call it fiscally conservative. I can't imagine we'd take on more salary.

No, my good Pacers friend, let's call it fiscally responsible and necessary.

bulletproof
07-11-2004, 01:12 PM
My guess? We'll be, well, cheap is a harsh word, let's call it fiscally conservative. I can't imagine we'd take on more salary.

No, my good Pacers friend, let's call it fiscally responsible and necessary.

You're right, of course. I stand corrected.

Hicks
07-11-2004, 01:17 PM
For those saying "Why not just sign him?"

I was thinking/asking the same thing initially at the party, and Jose and others pointed out that our team salary was already like 61-63mm. No way do we add another 6-7mm to that.

Kegboy
07-11-2004, 01:23 PM
For those saying "Why not just sign him?"

I was thinking/asking the same thing initially at the party, and Jose and others pointed out that our team salary was already like 61-63mm. No way do we add another 6-7mm to that.

Exactly, this was a cost-saving move. Now, theoretically, we could have trade him for a pick, and who knows, maybe Atlanta is gonna throw a pick in, or something. :shrug:

Oh wait, I forgot, I don't like rookies. Unless it's Greg Oden in two years. :love:
[edit=67=1089566654]

SkipperZ
07-11-2004, 02:41 PM
my point is taht we couldve still saved the money by shipping al to another team with cap space and gotten at least a 1st round pick out of it... or maybe forced them to take a contract like croshere or pollard with al while getting a semi servicable player in return...