PDA

View Full Version : Pacers asking too much for Murph



I Love P
02-02-2010, 10:39 AM
http://hoopshype.com/

Pacers are asking Cleveland for Hickson, Z and several draft picks for Murphy. Who does Bird think this guy is?

cinotimz
02-02-2010, 10:50 AM
This is just like the owners wanting a hard cap and salaries at 45 percent.

Its a starting point. We got about 2 weeks of negotiations to see what we actually end up with.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 10:58 AM
Just end up Murphy for Z and the 29th or 30th pick and I'm in.

Pacerized
02-02-2010, 11:15 AM
We've endured this much, I just want Larry to be patient and get the best deal possible.
If we can't get more then a salary dump for Murphy then I hope Larry holds onto him until next season when his expiring contract will surely bring more then that back in return. If the Cavs would throw in a 1st. round pick in 2011, or 2012 then that could be a decent pick if Lebron leaves. Every decision Larry makes with any of the expiring contracts should be focused on the impact in 2011 and beyond.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 11:33 AM
Murphy is a good player....but he's not a good fit for this team. I want to maximize our assets as much as we can....but you and I know that he's just isn't worth that much. Since his defense is only helpful against opposing Big Men that are equally as slow that relies on a finesse Low-Post game ( as opposed to one that relies on strength )......which pretty much amounts to non-existent on a Team like the Cavs where they have a Frontcourt of Shaq/Z/SideShow Bob.......all he becomes is one of the Offensive scoring options on a Team like the Cavs where he would ( at best ) be the 3rd ( but more then likely the 4th ) Scoring option on the Team.

IMHO....asking for even an additional 1st round pick for a "decent to solid" offensive Big Man that is more of a determent on Defense is too much. I just want Cap relief and maybe Leon Powe ( just to shore up our Frontcourt ) so that we can simply move on from this wretched season.

MillerTime
02-02-2010, 11:45 AM
I'd be happy with Z and JJ or Z and a 1st

Pacerized
02-02-2010, 11:46 AM
Z and a 1st. would be fine with me, just not this years 1st.

odeez
02-02-2010, 11:47 AM
Who says we are asking too much, we don't even really know what is being asked. But this small article is supposed to be the word on the trade, it's just leaked out to try to influence the deal. Don't believe everything you read. Draft picks would be nice, doubt the would part with Hickson. Z works, then buy him out.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 11:54 AM
Wells said the same thing in his blog (that we're asking for Z, Hickson, and more than one pick).

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 12:08 PM
If management can't figure out how to trade him this month, when his value has never been higher, then we've got real problems.

When Golden State had him, he was virtually untradeable and they had to be willing to take Jackson, Harrington and Saras just to unload him.

That was entirely a trade of "you take my trash, I'll take your trash". Except that the Warriors were far better (by better, I mean "faster") at turning our old trash into something else. We've still got thier old trash, except for Ike who we left on the curb in a recycling bin. (You know I like Dunleavy, but the trash metaphor works.)

Murphy has actually - thanks to the miracle of hollow stats - value and a contending team that he could play a "Sam Perkins, circa 1999-2000" role on.

Even if we could only get a pair of second-rounders for him, that's much much better than we could have received a year ago for him. Make. Something. Happen.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 12:09 PM
If management can't figure out how to trade him this month, when his value has never been higher, then we've got real problems.


I think his value was higher last summer than it is now because he's performed worse since then.

I think his value will be higher next summer and next season because regardless of performance he will be an expiring contract (heading into the new CBA, no less).

Speed
02-02-2010, 12:16 PM
You don't have to take negative equity for Troy, ie longer contract or worse player or draft pick sweetner. The biggest risk is that if he doesn't stay healthy, he's playing as well as he is going to. If he could stay healthy, keep productive, and be an expiring next season, he'd exceed his current value, I'd guess. That's alot of ifs and I'm not sure even how much more his value will go up.

Like I said in the beginning, at least it's not negative anymore.

diamonddave00
02-02-2010, 12:18 PM
Troy Murphy is worth more than an expiring Ilgauskis and what amounts to a guaranteed 2nd round pick. If the Cavs think Troy is the missing piece to a Championship they should have to give up more than pick 30 for him ( considering Z would just be waived and return to the Cavs).

The Pacers may be asking for 2- #2 picks just because it said picks doesn't mean even 1- #1 was asked for. If the Cavaliers want Murphy badly enough Larry Bird should stick to his demand Hickson be included, his job is make the Pacers better not the Cavs.

Anthem
02-02-2010, 12:20 PM
Z, Powe, and the #29 pick works fine for me. Throw in some cash to cover the buyout, maybe, but other than that let's just get this thing done.

Holding out for Hickson's just not realistic.

Sookie
02-02-2010, 12:20 PM
I think that's a fair trade.

Honestly, We'll probably buy out Z. So essentially Cleveland just wants to give us a 30th pick for Murphy.

If they think Murphy is that important, then he's worth more than that. I'm with Bird here. We can get a better deal for Murphy than that, whether it's this year or next.

Truth is, we have the power here. We don't have to get rid of Murphy. It's not like it'll matter much either way for us this season. It matters to the Cavs though. We'll be able to get rid of Murphy. He's got extremely good stats and he'll be an expiring next season. No need to rush. If Bird's going to pull the trigger here, he should make sure we get something.

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 12:20 PM
His "performance" is misleading. His stats are down slightly but so are his minutes so I'm not sure there is any statistical significance there.

I'd comment more on the "hollow stats" but we all know (a) what I mean by that and (b) you-know-who will be on here making one sentence arguments that, of course, are never backed up with any facts or substance, and not even backed up by all that much opinion either.

He's not playing any better or worse than he did last season. His so-called decline in stats is not the reason we are this far under 0.500. He could be putting up 26ppg and taking 16 rebounds per game away from our guards and we'd still be way under 0.500 because we lack a physcial presence.

Put him in a role where he compliments a player that is a physcial post presence and he might be really useful. His stats might go down and his impactiveness (:D) might go up.

Cobalt_Colt
02-02-2010, 12:32 PM
I don't see whats unfair about the deal honestly. How many picks is it 3 1sts and 5 2nds?
Z, Hickson, 2011 1st and 2 2nds sounds.......... like the need to send some cash as well. If they can Iggy or Jamison more power to them, but we can't just give them Murphy for basically nothing, it would be a disservice to ourselves.

Danny Green could take Hicksons place but we need to upgrade one of the 2nds to a 1st.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 12:58 PM
I would call dropping from 45% to 39% in 3p% a significant decline.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 01:04 PM
If management can't figure out how to trade him this month, when his value has never been higher, then we've got real problems.

When Golden State had him, he was virtually untradeable and they had to be willing to take Jackson, Harrington and Saras just to unload him.

That was entirely a trade of "you take my trash, I'll take your trash". Except that the Warriors were far better (by better, I mean "faster") at turning our old trash into something else. We've still got thier old trash, except for Ike who we left on the curb in a recycling bin. (You know I like Dunleavy, but the trash metaphor works.)
Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy. :confused:


Murphy has actually - thanks to the miracle of hollow stats - value and a contending team that he could play a "Sam Perkins, circa 1999-2000" role on.
It's sad....but Sam Perkins is a good way to describe Murphy.

vnzla81
02-02-2010, 01:05 PM
yeah, this is to much for Murphy........they will be lucky if they get big Z and 1st round pick

Hicks
02-02-2010, 01:07 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

I decided to compare Troy's per-36 minutes numbers from last year and this year. It's actually a lot closer than I thought it would be, though there are some differences:

Stat - 08/09 - 09/10

FG - 5.3 - 6.0
FGA - 11.1 - 12.4
FG% - .475 - .485

3P - 2.3 - 2.0
3PA - 5.2 - 5.2
3P% - .450 - .392

FT - 2.2 - 2.1
FTA - 2.7 - 2.7
FT% - .826 - .787

ORB - 2.1 - 2.0
DRB - 10.4 - 9.2
TRB - 12.5 - 11.2

AST - 2.5 - 2.4
STL - 0.8 - 1.0
BLK - 0.5 - 0.7

TOV - 1.7 - 1.6
PF - 3.3 - 2.9

PTS -15.1 - 16.2

Hicks
02-02-2010, 01:07 PM
Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy. :confused:


It's sad....but Sam Perkins is a good way to describe Murphy.

Sam Perkins could guard centers.

Speed
02-02-2010, 01:13 PM
Just for perspective, I think you can basically buy a late first round pick these days, so that teams don't have to have that guaranteed contract on their books. A bottom first round pick is seen as a hinderance by many teams.

Things to consider:

I wonder what they prorated buy out for Z would be?

Wonder how close Leon Powe is to healthy?

No way I think Cleveland should or would consider future draft picks, past this year, since they don't even know if Lebron will be there. Sell that to your fan base, no Lebron and no #1 pick, the following year? Yes, looking at you Isiah Thomas.

JJ Hickson would be a nice get, but I mean he's in no way shape or form a "can't miss" or an immediate impact guy in the way the Pacers would need. I guess what I'm saying is he is absolutely still young and developing. Clev Hickson (with Lebron and low expectations) is far greater than Indy Hickson (with responsibility and expectations).

Speed
02-02-2010, 01:15 PM
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

I decided to compare Troy's per-36 minutes numbers from last year and this year. It's actually a lot closer than I thought it would be, though there are some differences:




Looks like he's right on course, really. He just shot all world from 3 pt land last year at .45. Not surprising this went down. Rest looks very comparable.

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 01:20 PM
I would call dropping from 45% to 39% in 3p% a significant decline.

From .45 to 0.392 is a drop of 5.8%. But what does that mean?

1/0.058 ~= 17.25. Troy shoots 4.5 3FGA per game. 17.25/4.5 is approximately 4 games.

Every four games, Troy is hitting one fewer three-point shot.

A decline... yes, absolutely. Noticeable? Only with a calculator.

Gamble1
02-02-2010, 01:31 PM
If they think Murphy is that important, then he's worth more than that. I'm with Bird here. We can get a better deal for Murphy than that, whether it's this year or next.

I agree that Murphy should be worth more but what does NEXT year bring that this year doesn't. His contract will be expiring but outside of that who is going to think of Murphy as the last piece to a championship team, albeit a small piece. Its obvious that the Cavs need to spread the floor but what other teams need that this year or next. Outside of the Cavs it doesn't appear any of the top 4-6 teams do.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 01:32 PM
Sam Perkins could guard centers.
And he had a better nickname. Okay...fine....then I'll describe Murphy as a similiar player to Kevin Pittsnogle. :p

Hicks
02-02-2010, 01:43 PM
From .45 to 0.392 is a drop of 5.8%. But what does that mean?

1/0.058 ~= 17.25. Troy shoots 4.5 3FGA per game. 17.25/4.5 is approximately 4 games.

Every four games, Troy is hitting one fewer three-point shot.

A decline... yes, absolutely. Noticeable? Only with a calculator.

:huh:

So when you want a 3 point specialist, you don't care if they shoot 30% or 36%?

Sookie
02-02-2010, 01:44 PM
I agree that Murphy should be worth more but what does NEXT year bring that this year doesn't. His contract will be expiring but outside of that who is going to think of Murphy as the last piece to a championship team, albeit a small piece. Its obvious that the Cavs need to spread the floor but what other teams need that this year or next. Outside of the Cavs it doesn't appear any of the top 4-6 teams do.

I think we can get a late first round draft pick for Murphy at any time, honestly. Which is essentially what the Cavs would be trading because we'll most likely buy out Z.

So therefore, try to get the best deal and don't pull the trigger to quickly. There's no rush for this.

Kraut N Beer
02-02-2010, 01:46 PM
From the Cavs side, Murphy is a good addition for a championship run but likely not someone you go and get by trading away a promising young talent. At this point, I would even be close to considering Murphy for Z straight up just for the cap savings, or Murphy for Z plus a pick (any pick) and we agree to drop Z in a month to re-sign with the Cavs. Sign someone off the NBDL that is hungry and finish out this awful season.

I just can't see anyone else making an aggressive play for Murphy. No one wants to take on more salary next year due to the free agency bonanza this summer. Who is there besides Cleveland that has a serious chance at the Finals and would be going after Murphy with a fat offer? Cleveland has a lot more leverage on this trade if they are the only one looking to deal for Murphy.

vnzla81
02-02-2010, 01:48 PM
just give me a 12pack for Murphy and we have a deal.............

Trophy
02-02-2010, 01:52 PM
It seems to me that Bird is telling Cleveland "if you really want Troy, you have to do what I want." I don't think he minds having Troy either if he's looking for more value.

Washington is being less picky with Cleveland when moving Jamison so it now appears that deal will be made rather than ours. This is probably good news for Cleveland since Jamison was their top choice.

I would be happy with Hickson and some draft picks, but if Cleveland says no it's no and we're going to have to find another team to make a deal with. Maybe not with Troy included, but someone else who will reasonably give us value in return for a player we deal.

Sookie
02-02-2010, 01:53 PM
It seems to me that Bird is telling Cleveland "if you really want Troy, you have to do what I want."

Washington is being less picky with Cleveland when moving Jamison so it now appears that deal will be made rather than ours. This is probably good news for Cleveland since Jamison was their top choice.

I would be happy with Hickson and some draft picks, but if Cleveland says no it's no and we're going to have to find another team to make a deal with. Maybe not with Troy included, but someone else who will reasonably give us value in return for a player we deal.

I thought Jamison was the only player Washington wanted to keep.

My point is..we can get rid of Murphy for cap space at any time...and we have a year to do it..why not try to actually get something of worth now?

Trophy
02-02-2010, 02:01 PM
I thought Jamison was the only player Washington wanted to keep.

My point is..we can get rid of Murphy for cap space at any time...and we have a year to do it..why not try to actually get something of worth now?

It appears that Cleveland still has hopes on getting him, but since Bird actually told Cleveland a deal, they're denying the trade. Washington never actually denied any rumors containing Jamison so it leaves Cleveland with the idea to still get him. Cleveland has many other options that can work. They're looking at Igudala.

I think Bird wants him here and would want him to return if he can be brought back for a cheaper contract. That is if Tyler still isn't the go-to PF yet.

MillerTime
02-02-2010, 02:19 PM
Personally, I would see the Cavs kind of desperate for a player like Murphy or Jamison. They are in need of a 4 that can stretch the defense. If you have noticed (as of late), Z has been shooting a lot of 3's because the paint is just too 'clogged' for Shaq and Lebron

CableKC
02-02-2010, 02:24 PM
I thought Jamison was the only player Washington wanted to keep.

My point is..we can get rid of Murphy for cap space at any time...and we have a year to do it..why not try to actually get something of worth now?
Technically, you are right....we can get Cap space for Murphy at any time.....either now ( way more easier ) or next season ( much harder ). Realistically, I think that you ( and many others ) aren't seeing the whole picture IF you are looking for clearing enough Cap space to make a Financial and SalaryCap difference in the 2010-2011 season.

This season...it's quick and simple:

Option 1 ) Trade him ( or any of the other Big 4 contracts ) for an Expiring 2009-2010 Contract and he's off the books in 2010-2011. Done...TPTB doesn't have to worry as much about any LT concerns they have.

Next season.....we have 2 options when it comes to trading Murphy.

Option 2 ) The only REALISTIC AND SUBSTANTIVE way that we can get Cap Space for Murphy is by trading him to a Team with enough SalaryCap space to absorb the majority of his $11 mil 2010-2011 contract. Since the majority of the Teams that can take on Murphy's $11 mil 2010-2011 contract are shopping for Lebron, Bosh, Wade and Amare in Aisle 6 near the Freezer section, what do you think will be the cost for a Team with very valuable CapSpace to take on Murphy's contract? The answer is simple.....a high price.

Option 3 ) If we don't deal with a Team with SalaryCap space....then this means that we ( at the very least ) we have to take back a contract that is valued at 25% less then what Murphy's 2010-2011 contract is....and what's worse is that it is very likely that the contract lasts beyond the 2010-2011 season. Unless there is a Player with a Longer contract that you'd want on the Pacers as part of the future core that is ( more then likely ) overpaid....then we're going to be forced to take on more Salary.

If I am missing any other scenarios where we could move any of the Big 4 that would be considered realistic...let me know.

If there isn't.....for me....option 1 is the only realistic and least costly option. The other options just cost too much for me. I don't think that a 2010-2011 Expiring contract is worth as much as many of you think simply because of the unique 2010-2011 FA market that Teams are saving their SalaryCap space for. That simply leaves dealing with Teams that would be looking for an Expiring contract...or more specifically a Team that is lookign to do a Salary Dump ( literally and proverbially ) on us.

I don't know about you....but I'd much rather start with a clean slate Financially then continually play "kick the SalaryCap can down the road" for another 2 or 3 seasons or be forced to give up assets ( picks, prospects, $$$ and/or future Capspace ) that we can't afford to give up.

BTW....despite many Writers/Bloggers saying that Murphy is drawing the most interest on the Team.....I am beginning to doubt that any Teams that were really serious beyond a cursory call...with the exception being the Cavs that appear to have the most interest. Unless I missed or forgot which Teams are interested in Murphy....doesn't anyone find it odd that the Cavs are the only Team that has been mentioned when it comes to him in trade rumors?

Speed
02-02-2010, 02:44 PM
What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan?

Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.

Baba O'Riley
02-02-2010, 02:52 PM
Z and a 1st. would be fine with me, just not this years 1st.

This is exactly what I want, just in case LeBron leaves Cleveland this summer and the Cav's go back to being a crap franchise. Pacers could have the possibility of getting 2 lottery picks in the 2011 draft. :dance:

d_c
02-02-2010, 02:59 PM
His contract will be expiring but outside of that who is going to think of Murphy as the last piece to a championship team, albeit a small piece. Its obvious that the Cavs need to spread the floor but what other teams need that this year or next. Outside of the Cavs it doesn't appear any of the top 4-6 teams do.

Murphy is hardly the last piece to a playoff team, much less a championship one.

Look at the borderline 8th/9th seeds in either conference jockeying for the final playoff spot.

Ask yourself this: Would you say that adding Murphy to any one of those teams all of sudden pushes that team over the top to "secure" that playoff spot or make them the favorite to get it? I just don't get the sense that Troy would all of a sudden be the difference maker. I never have.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 03:18 PM
What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan?
Good point...that wasn't something I'd consider.....players to be used in a S&T.

But I counter that we have at least 2 other Big Expiring contracts ( Dunleavy and Ford ) that we could use to match Salaries ( assuming that Foster decides to retire after this season and we get some Relief there ). Dunleavy+Ford's expiring contracts would allow us to take in between $15.25 mil to $23.81 mil in 2010-2011 Salary. So, yes.....I concede that our Big 3/4 Expiring Contracts COULD have more value. But just like the other scenarios that I painted....I think that there will be a greater cost then "just a single 1st round pick" ( which would be a starting point for any Team looking to do a S&T scenario with top tier FAs ).

Can we afford to give up anything else beyond that if they want more ( which is realistic given what they are giving up )?

I don't mean to come off as "I am right and you are wrong" when it comes to dumping Murphy for SalaryCap relief. IMHO....I just don't think that we can effectively utilize the Expiring contract like we would have in any other year without costing us something.

One more thing....a S&T scenario does not fix any LT concerns that I think the Owners will have going into next season.


Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.
3 seasons ago, I'd agree....but in today's Cap consious NBA.....SalaryCap/Financial flexibility means more then just having the option to sign FA....having it allows your Team to be involved in other opportunities that could benefit the Team ( see what the Blazers, Clippers and OKS were able to do over the last couple of seasons with Capspace. ). That is what I am looking for here when it comes to SalaryCap/flexiblity so that we are not limited only to improving the team via Draft or FA. I know it's not optimal....but not having that gets us stuck in the situation we are in now.

wintermute
02-02-2010, 03:18 PM
Option 1 ) Trade him ( or any of the other Big 4 contracts ) for an Expiring 2009-2010 Contract and he's off the books in 2010-2011. Done...TPTB doesn't have to worry as much about any LT concerns they have.


regarding this... i'm wondering whether foster's possibly career-ending injury has removed the urgency to make a luxury tax motivated trade?

if foster retires for medical reasons, we can remove his salary from the cap one year from the date he last played, which would likely move us under the luxury tax threshold for next season. hence no need to move murph right away.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 03:25 PM
This is exactly what I want, just in case LeBron leaves Cleveland this summer and the Cav's go back to being a crap franchise. Pacers could have the possibility of getting 2 lottery picks in the 2011 draft. :dance:
Which is exactly why the Cavs are probably reluctant to give up any draft picks beyond this season.

At most, it makes sense....this season, the Cavs can end up with a late 1st round pick....next season....they could end up in a worst situation then they are now.

wintermute
02-02-2010, 03:25 PM
My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan?

Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.

i'd say our expiring contracts plus our lottery pick would make a tempting trade package next season, assuming we're willing to move our pick. if not, the expiring contracts won't get a lot back, i think.

on the cap space front, the latest leaks regarding cba negotiations suggest that player contracts are going to be much smaller starting in 2011. so our 2011 cap space might be able to "buy" more than we previously thought. that's assuming suitable players are available and willing to sign here though, which was your point i guess.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 03:41 PM
regarding this... i'm wondering whether foster's possibly career-ending injury has removed the urgency to make a luxury tax motivated trade?

if foster retires for medical reasons, we can remove his salary from the cap one year from the date he last played, which would likely move us under the luxury tax threshold for next season. hence no need to move murph right away.
count55 would probably have to confirm.....but I suspect that would have some impact on the 2010-2011 LT implications. Removing Foster from the LT equation for next season would probably pull us back from the "brink of falling off the LT cliff". Admittedly, if the S&T scenario is truly what the Pacers are looking for.....Foster retiring would probably allow for us to pursue that option....but again...it comes to how much a S&T scenario for a Top Tier FA would cost us.

If a S&T scenario is the way to go...my preference is still to dump at least one of the other Big 3 contracts for a 2009-2010 Expiring Contract ( preferably Murphy's to simply give us some breathign room ) and then go for a S&T scenario while including some combination of Ford+Dunleavy ( while likely giving up 2x1st round picks or 1x1st round pick and a prospect ) . Otherwise....dump one of the Big 3 Contracts and let the rest of them expire.

90'sNBARocked
02-02-2010, 04:05 PM
Just end up Murphy for Z and the 29th or 30th pick and I'm in.

I was also adamat about the same thing. The I started to think "why should we help the Cavs? I understand (or think I do) the luxury tax implactions, but we would be basically giving them the only player in NBA history to be in the top 5 in rebounding and 3pts shooting , for cap space (assuming we would waive Big Z so he can resign with Cleveland)

If this is all Cleveland is willing to give , then I say Bird is right to decline

I dont want any of Clevelands draft picks we have enough mediocore talent on the roster and any of Clevelands picks will be bottom of first

I say we either get Big Z and JJ Hickson for Murphy or we keep him until next year

ChicagoJ
02-02-2010, 04:09 PM
:huh:

So when you want a 3 point specialist, you don't care if they shoot 30% or 36%?

I see what you're getting at. Prior to this morning, I hadn't really considered it. That's not really a discussion of accuracy, though. That's volume.

In general, I don't want a three-point specialist in the first place. But that's another conversation. Now, I like shooters that are versatile enough to step back and hit a three, but not a "specialist." When I think "three point specialist", I still think of Matt Bullard.

90'sNBARocked
02-02-2010, 04:23 PM
I would call dropping from 45% to 39% in 3p% a significant decline.

Agreed

Also the biggest decline , at least to me, is his positive attitude

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 04:57 PM
I was also adamat about the same thing. The I started to think "why should we help the Cavs? I understand (or think I do) the luxury tax implactions, but we would be basically giving them the only player in NBA history to be in the top 5 in rebounding and 3pts shooting , for cap space (assuming we would waive Big Z so he can resign with Cleveland)

If this is all Cleveland is willing to give , then I say Bird is right to decline

I dont want any of Clevelands draft picks we have enough mediocore talent on the roster and any of Clevelands picks will be bottom of first

I say we either get Big Z and JJ Hickson for Murphy or we keep him until next year

I understand and can even agree with some things, BUT don't sell short the pick. It can be used to draft a player, or it can be used as a trading chip. I don't see Hickson in the equation with the Pacers, but Leon Powe might be gotten. Again, if nothing else he could be used in a trade. I, like you, want the best deal possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the demand so unreasonable that it kills trading Murphy's albatross contract and Jimmy's crutch either.

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 05:02 PM
Also the biggest decline , at least to me, is his positive attitude


Absolutely! Only a blind person hasn't noticed the change this year. Or one wearing blinders and is so stubborn they can't see the trees for the forest.

Peck
02-02-2010, 05:46 PM
What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan?

Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.

Preach it from the mountain top!!!!

Naptown_Seth
02-02-2010, 05:47 PM
You aren't trading for a player, you are trading for a massive cash savings.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, let's say the lux is coming in so that we go $1m over.

We pay $1m tax on that. We loose 4-5m in benefits paid to teams under the cap. We pay Troy his $12m. So trading him only for the 29th pick gets you maybe Booker or Poindexter, still a solid player and saves you 16-18m bucks.

The space away from the lux tax means you can take a salary increase on another trade if need be without going over the tax.

And if you buyout Z you likely get minor savings, maybe 500K perhaps.


Or keep him and let him take the team to where? This isn't the NBA 3 years ago, this is the new, declining cap numbers NBA where every team values salary space MORE than talent.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 06:01 PM
I understand and can even agree with some things, BUT don't sell short the pick. It can be used to draft a player, or it can be used as a trading chip. I don't see Hickson in the equation with the Pacers, but Leon Powe might be gotten. Again, if nothing else he could be used in a trade. I, like you, want the best deal possible, but at the same time I don't want to see the demand so unreasonable that it kills trading Murphy's albatross contract and Jimmy's crutch either.
I really think the best that we can get is Powe+Z+$$$$.....the Cavs don't give up something that they don't really want to give up and we get a PF that maybe able to help us. Unfortunately, Powe is likely to be out until after the ASB.

CableKC
02-02-2010, 06:14 PM
You aren't trading for a player, you are trading for a massive cash savings.

To repeat what I've said elsewhere, let's say the lux is coming in so that we go $1m over.

We pay $1m tax on that. We loose 4-5m in benefits paid to teams under the cap. We pay Troy his $12m. So trading him only for the 29th pick gets you maybe Booker or Poindexter, still a solid player and saves you 16-18m bucks.

The space away from the lux tax means you can take a salary increase on another trade if need be without going over the tax.

And if you buyout Z you likely get minor savings, maybe 500K perhaps.

Or keep him and let him take the team to where? This isn't the NBA 3 years ago, this is the new, declining cap numbers NBA where every team values salary space MORE than talent.
Preach it from the mountain top!!!!

It's not always about what we get in return......it's also about what we don't have to pay in the end.

Wage
02-02-2010, 07:01 PM
I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.

NapTonius Monk
02-02-2010, 07:07 PM
It appears that Cleveland still has hopes on getting him, but since Bird actually told Cleveland a deal, they're denying the trade. Washington never actually denied any rumors containing Jamison so it leaves Cleveland with the idea to still get him. Cleveland has many other options that can work. They're looking at Igudala.

I think Bird wants him here and would want him to return if he can be brought back for a cheaper contract. That is if Tyler still isn't the go-to PF yet.

For some reason, I don't see Iguadola as that great a fit in Cleveland, especially if they're needing another player to space the floor. His game seems redundant (of course on a much smaller scale) with LBJ.

pacergod2
02-02-2010, 07:18 PM
I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.

Because the NBA is more than just what players you like or don't like. The NBA is a business and money has more to do with the league than players and teams. That is why we consider salary cap perspective when talking about the decisions of the Pacers (a company) or other teams. If I told you that you were on the hook for $16M next year, would you not do what you could to avoid having to pay such a massive bill? Of course you would. Even if you wipe your a*s with $100 bills.

NapTonius Monk
02-02-2010, 07:24 PM
Murphy is hardly the last piece to a playoff team, much less a championship one.

Look at the borderline 8th/9th seeds in either conference jockeying for the final playoff spot.

Ask yourself this: Would you say that adding Murphy to any one of those teams all of sudden pushes that team over the top to "secure" that playoff spot or make them the favorite to get it? I just don't get the sense that Troy would all of a sudden be the difference maker. I never have.

This is the difference between a championship squad and a team struggling to make the playoffs. We're looking for the missing ingredient. Cleveland is looking for a missing garnish. Murphy's not a difference maker that ensures Cleveland wins the title. He just adds an element that might make it a bit easier to do so with what he provides.

NapTonius Monk
02-02-2010, 07:28 PM
Preach it from the mountain top!!!!

It's not always about what we get in return......it's also about what we don't have to pay in the end.

Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?

CableKC
02-02-2010, 07:31 PM
I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.
You're right....we have no clue what the Owners are directing Bird to do with those Contracts....for all we know....they could be telling Bird to get the most out of a trade for any of the Big 4 regardless of the Financial impact to the Team.

I'd really wish this were the case.....but the reality is that the Pacers aren't the same as the Lakers where they could afford to pay a lot of $$$ for going over the LT based off of the sale of Kobe Bryant Jerseys along. Given the financial woes of PS&E over the last couple of seasons, dwindling Revenues and fanbase.....it's not out of the realm of possibility that the financial impact to the Team of any trade is not a major concern for the Owners.

Trophy
02-02-2010, 07:33 PM
Would Bird be more optimistic about moving Mike if a team offered as oppose to Troy which we see is happening now?

CableKC
02-02-2010, 07:35 PM
Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?
Yes, you are correct ( as Seth eloquently pointed out ;) )

Wage
02-02-2010, 07:36 PM
Because the NBA is more than just what players you like or don't like. The NBA is a business and money has more to do with the league than players and teams. That is why we consider salary cap perspective when talking about the decisions of the Pacers (a company) or other teams. If I told you that you were on the hook for $16M next year, would you not do what you could to avoid having to pay such a massive bill? Of course you would. Even if you wipe your a*s with $100 bills.

I really don't follow what any of this is supposed to mean.

Of course the NBA is about more than what players you like or don't like. No idea what this is even referencing.

As far as salary cap concerns go, I understand why fans want to discuss such things. It's fun to pretend GM the team and imagine what we can do with our cap room. This, however is about the Luxury Tax. Only ownership can have a valid opinion on how important that number is to them.

As to your last point about "being on the hook for $16M next year", there are far too many factors to just say "get out from under it at all costs."

CableKC
02-02-2010, 07:46 PM
I really don't follow what any of this is supposed to mean.

Of course the NBA is about more than what players you like or don't like. No idea what this is even referencing.

As far as salary cap concerns go, I understand why fans want to discuss such things. It's fun to pretend GM the team and imagine what we can do with our cap room. This, however is about the Luxury Tax. Only ownership can have a valid opinion on how important that number is to them.
What I think that pacergod2 is trying to say is that the NBA is a business. What moves Owners sign off on can often be motivated purely for Financial reasons....mostly ( as we have seen with the Nuggets dumping Camby for a 2nd round pick and the Jazz including Maynor to move Harpring for Financial relief ) due to LT concerns.

Of course, we're just fans and all we're doing is making assumptions based off of what Ownership wants to do and how important the LT is....but is it really far fetched to assume that Owners that have been losing a lot of $$$ over the last couple of seasons would be reluctant to pay LT next season and therefore factor this consideration into their decision making process on what to do?


As to your last point about "being on the hook for $16M next year", there are far too many factors to just say "get out from under it at all costs."
Could you elaborate on what factors you are referring to?

Wage
02-02-2010, 07:55 PM
Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC. ;)

It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 08:37 PM
Absolutely! Only a blind person hasn't noticed the change this year. Or one wearing blinders and is so stubborn they can't see the trees for the forest.

Call me blind then because I honestly hadn't noticed. What makes you guys say that beyond rumors from outsiders? Looking directly at Murphy, I don't see anything like that.

Justin Tyme
02-02-2010, 08:40 PM
Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC. ;)

It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.


IIRC, Bird acknowledged during the past off season ownership was not going to go over the LT. Keep in mind that teams under the LT will share the money other teams pay for being over th LT. For a team like the Pacers who are having finanical difficulties, it means they will get about 5 mil for being under the LT. Hence, Pacers ownership is not wanting to do any trades that would put them over the LT and lose them 5 mil. Nor do they want to pay a dollar for each dollar they are over the LT. Thus the LT plays a very important part in making trades. You probably already knew this, but just in case you didn't maybe it helps to put it in perspective.

Hicks
02-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Ok, my quote-fu is weak, so this is in response to CableKC. ;)

It is quite reasonable to believe that the owners are eager to get under the LT and would make a trade where that was the primary, or even only real benefit. We have no real evidence to suggest where ownership stands on the matter right now though. A LT debate makes more sense to me after a trade like this is completed, and we have evidence of it's importance to ownership.

As to the last comment you quoted about "getting out from under $16M", I was simply responding to Pacergod, and trying to make sense of it all.

Bird and the Simons have been quite clear for years that they (Simons) don't want to pay the luxury tax. That's been solidly established.

So whether or not the team is looking at having to pay it plays a direct role in any moves they will or won't make.

The further below the LT they are, the more likely they are to take on salaries.

Smoothdave1
02-02-2010, 09:37 PM
Here the thing about Murphy: If we keep him, are we a playoff contender? Doubtful. If we trade him, what types of savings would we realize? Let's break it down:

-- Murphy makes roughly 12 million for 2010/2011
-- We realize LT savings of 1-2 million
-- We gain the tax that other teams play 4-5 million
-- Maybe Cleveland sends us some money for Z's buyout (1-2) million.
-- Additional savings this year (1-2 million)

Plus, I understand that Z has been paid most of his salary thus far, so the cost to us would be minimal.

Let's also assume we grab a pick in 2011 (that turns out to be a later first rounder)

Keeping Murphy (assuming we go over the LT): 19-20 million
Trading Murphy: Savings of 19-20 million

I'm not the one signing the checks, but you know that Morway and Bird know the implications.

My main concern is that the Pacers are playing musical chairs with Murphy and once the trade deadline comes, they might be stuck with Murphy if another team comes in with a better deal that Cleveland jumps at first. In this NBA environment, other teams are looking at savings and may make a deal that may not make sense from a talent standpoint, but they realize savings.

If Foster retires and, if the Pacers deal Murphy for an expiring, the Pacers could realize savings of 18.6 million off the cap, plus additional luxury tax savings that may push the savings up towards 25 million.

Better players than Murphy have been dealt for salary cap purposes and Larry needs to evaluate the situation so that we're not in a position like we were last year with Tinsley.

My dark horse team to acquire Murphy: Dallas. Dampier's contract is not guaranteed for next season and they could obtain immediate salary cap relief.

Anthem
02-02-2010, 09:48 PM
Getting under the cap also helps with trades next year, wouldn't it? Because we'd be able to absorb a higher salaried impact player, even if the salaries aren't an exact match. Is that correct?
Yep. We're also much more likely to be a sign a decent player over the summer. We won't have crazy money to throw around, but a DJones/JJack-type deal would be very do-able. If we've got Murphy past the trade deadline, that means we'll be only paying for minimum-level players next summer.

owl
02-02-2010, 10:30 PM
You're right....we have no clue what the Owners are directing Bird to do with those Contracts....for all we know....they could be telling Bird to get the most out of a trade for any of the Big 4 regardless of the Financial impact to the Team.

I'd really wish this were the case.....but the reality is that the Pacers aren't the same as the Lakers where they could afford to pay a lot of $$$ for going over the LT based off of the sale of Kobe Bryant Jerseys along. Given the financial woes of PS&E over the last couple of seasons, dwindling Revenues and fanbase.....it's not out of the realm of possibility that the financial impact to the Team of any trade is not a major concern for the Owners.

It also may be a case not being able to look past the end of your nose. We really do not know Troys value. If they feel he is worth more than Z and some tinker toys and not trading for that would be better long term for the Pacers then just maybe I give the benefit of the
doubt to management.

d_c
02-03-2010, 02:25 AM
Would Bird be more optimistic about moving Mike if a team offered as oppose to Troy which we see is happening now?

Murphy, for all his flaws, has proven that he's much more durable than Dunleavy.

Any team looking to acquire Dunleavy right now is going to pay a lot of money while not knowing how many minutes he can handle. That's not exactly something that goes over well with team owners and management these days.

Tom White
02-03-2010, 11:52 AM
Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy. :confused:




I always thought all the Diogu talk was just someone blowing smoke up someone else's rear. I don't mean that comment towards any of the posters. I'm talking about writers/broadcasters supposed sources.

Tom White
02-03-2010, 11:53 AM
Sam Perkins could guard centers.

Sam was also simply way cooler.

d_c
02-03-2010, 12:04 PM
Although d_c and many here would have to confirm this...I thought that it was the Pacers insistance on getting Diogu that the GSW trade expanded from a Dunleavy for SJax to one that included Harrington and Murphy. :confused:

It's most likely the other way around.

The original trade the Warriors wanted was the same thing they tried to do with the Hawks the previous summer: They wanted a straight up Murphy for Harrington swap. They tried all summer long to get that done with Atlanta but the Hawks wanted nothing of it (Hawks ownership at the time didn't want any long term contracts).

The Pacers were also unwilling to do that.

It wasn't until Dunleavy for Jax as well as Diogu were thrown in that the Pacers were willing to do it. The Warriors also liked Sarunas a lot. Nellie said his son had scouted him extensively and liked what he saw. They thought he was a a pretty good asset to "even out" the trade.

Tom White
02-03-2010, 12:04 PM
From the Cavs side, Murphy is a good addition for a championship run but likely not someone you go and get by trading away a promising young talent. At this point, I would even be close to considering Murphy for Z straight up just for the cap savings, or Murphy for Z plus a pick (any pick) and we agree to drop Z in a month to re-sign with the Cavs. Sign someone off the NBDL that is hungry and finish out this awful season.

I just can't see anyone else making an aggressive play for Murphy. No one wants to take on more salary next year due to the free agency bonanza this summer. Who is there besides Cleveland that has a serious chance at the Finals and would be going after Murphy with a fat offer? Cleveland has a lot more leverage on this trade if they are the only one looking to deal for Murphy.

Agreed. I don't know how anyone could consider the team with the best record in the league to be desperate enough to trade off a promising young player and a 1st for Murphy.

I would have to think Cleveland looks at him as a player it would be nice to get, but the fate of the franchise doesn't hang in the balance if they don't.

Tom White
02-03-2010, 12:14 PM
What about this next year if they don't move Murphy now though.

Let's say you are convinced Amare is fully recovered and deserves a full max contract. Stay with me, I'm trying to make a point. Phoenix does not think he is worth that, by any means, so they sign and trade him (I think he picks up his 17 million player option for next season) and the Pacers trade Murphy and Dunleavy (expirings) and a future #1 pick for him. Phoenix does it for the #1, Pacers do it for a multi time allstar who plays a position of need.

Don't get caught up in whether you agree with the trade components or not. My point is this, can't you keep Murphy and still trade him for a player like Amare or Monte Ellis even who Golden State see as overpriced, but may be ready to rebuild. Even if you have to trade Dun and Murph for Magette and Ellis. I mean my point is those expirings still have tons of value, right.

What about if a team is woefully over the cap next year and just need to shed salary.

What if Rudy Gay is seen as wanting too much, couldn't you do the same deal with Memphis and sweeten it with a pick?

Please don't respond to this by saying oh I'd never spend money on Amare or I'd never give up a 1st round pick. I'm talking concept here, execution can be debated later.

My point is, isn't there scenarios that you can actually use these expirings next year to get instantly better? Isn't that not only an option, but the plan? Capspace is meaningless to me unless it turns into a player who can at least contribute somewhat equal to his pay.

I have to agree with you. Cap space does need to be turned into productive player(s). I wonder what effect on revenue adding someone like Amare would have for the Pacers? Is he someone who could play PF next to Hibbert? I don't know the answers, but it might be fun to find out.

CableKC
02-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Keeping Murphy (assuming we go over the LT): Pay an additional 19-20 million in the 2010-2011 season
Trading Murphy: Savings of 19-20 million
Fixed...for clarification. ;)


I'm not the one signing the checks, but you know that Morway and Bird know the implications.

My main concern is that the Pacers are playing musical chairs with Murphy and once the trade deadline comes, they might be stuck with Murphy if another team comes in with a better deal that Cleveland jumps at first. In this NBA environment, other teams are looking at savings and may make a deal that may not make sense from a talent standpoint, but they realize savings.
For this very reason, that is why I am on the "dump Murphy for Z+$$$ and Powe ( if we can get him ) " camp....as opposed to the "dump Murphy for Z+$$$+1st round" camp. Because I do not want to go into next season with the same situation that the Jazz were in at the beginning of this season....I just want to dump Murphy and be done with it...I don't even want the 1st round pick....$$$ ( for the buyout ) and Powe ( if he's available and can play after the ASB ) would be sufficient for me. I know that I am the "lone voice" when it comes to not even asking for the 1st round pick...much less Hickson....but I think that it's so important to move one of the Big 4 Contracts that I'd be willing to not ask for it just to come in with a much better asking price then the Wizards.

It's not that I'm trying to undervalue Murphy and what he brings to the floor.....the problem is that I know what Murphy doesn't brings to the floor. Unfortunately, the list of things he "doesn't bring to the floor" far outwieghs the list of things that he "does bring to the floor". As many have said...his value isn't going to be any higher then it is now.....we should move him when we have the chance.


My dark horse team to acquire Murphy: Dallas. Dampier's contract is not guaranteed for next season and they could obtain immediate salary cap relief.
IMHO...to the Mavs, Dampier is like Foster to the Pacers. He's the closest thing ( next to Gooden ) that would be considered their Defensive anchor. I think that the Mavs keep Dampier unless he can be used in a trade to balence out salaries to acquire a Player that gets them over the hump. And as d_c like to point out ;) , Murphy isn't that type of Player....especially when they have a much better version of Murphy in Dirk.

CableKC
02-03-2010, 01:35 PM
I have to agree with you. Cap space does need to be turned into productive player(s). I wonder what effect on revenue adding someone like Amare would have for the Pacers? Is he someone who could play PF next to Hibbert? I don't know the answers, but it might be fun to find out.
I'm totally guessing here....but I think that the "Non-Franchise Level Players that are better suited to be the 2nd Best Player on the Team and the occasional Best Player on the Team" type players like Amare and Bosh ( both of which have heavily hinted that they want to play in a better situation ) will be "sign and traded" by their current Team between now and ( more then likely ) the 2010-2011 Offseason. If this scenario is likely true....then for Players like Amare...the Team doing the S&T will likely be asking for more then just a 1st round pick....they'd be asking for multiple 1st round picks and/or some prospect. I'd guess that it depends on what the opposing Teams would be asking for...but I have a feeling the cost would simply be too high.

CableKC
02-03-2010, 01:49 PM
http://ken-berger.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/11838893/19891570?


Via CBS Sports by Ken Berger:

It’s been well documented that the Cavaliers’ infatuation with Antawn Jamison has been rekindled. What’s been underplayed is the reason behind it: LeBron James is the one driving the team’s pursuit of Jamison, according to a source, and Cavs GM Danny Ferry – as usual – is trying to appease the King. A couple of problems: The Wizards want a young asset in return, and Zydrunas Ilgauskas – while a fit salary-wise – doesn’t fit that description. The sensible piece to include in the deal would be J.J. Hickson, whom the Cavs are reluctant to give up. But if the Cavs got Jamison, what value would Hickson be to them as their fifth big man? One scenario that is believed to be under discussion would have the Cavs hoping the Wizards bought out Ilgauskas after the trade, using some cash added to the deal by Cleveland. That way, the Cavs could sign Ilgauskas back on a minimum deal, giving them the player James covets (Jamison) and a 7-foot-4 insurance policy for Shaquille O’Neal. The Wizards would have to ask themselves if getting out from under Jamison’s contract and adding Hickson is enough to justify a deal that would get them under the tax next summer, but not under the cap.

If Lebron wants Jamison......I can totally see the Cavs doing what they can to get him. :( Not only as a way to fill their need for a Stretch PF...but to say to Lebron..."look we did what you wanted us to do to help win a Championship" in an effort to keep him in Cleveland ( which I think will happen anyway ). Hickson can be a sticking point....since Lebron likes to keep him as well. What's funny is that Lebron is pretty much the "guy behind the curtain" running the show. I'd guess it all comes down to what the King wants....keep Hickson and not get Jamison...or give up Hickson to get Jamison.

This is one of the reasons why I have always thought that we shouldn't have set the asking price too high.....we should have "struck when the iron was hot". Jamison is simply a better player then Murphy. The only way that we could have negated that would have been to come in with a lower asking price.

Trophy
02-03-2010, 01:50 PM
It appears to me that Cleveland will soon stop looking into Troy and either look at their top choice in Jamison and see if Washington is still interested or just forget about about getting shooting PF and just use Jawad Williams some more. He's been looking good for them and I'm surprised they want more.

CableKC
02-03-2010, 02:01 PM
It appears to me that Cleveland will soon stop looking into Troy and either look at their top choice in Jamison and see if Washington is still interested or just forget about about getting shooting PF and just use Jawad Williams some more. He's been looking good for them and I'm surprised they want more.
It's not hard to convince the Wizards to move Jamison....it all comes down to the Cavs meeting the asking price for Jamison. I think that the Cavs are going to make a major move before the trade deadline and doubt that they would settle for living with Jawad Williams.

The Cavs are in a position where they have to not only make a serious run at the Championship WHEN they have Lebron as a member of the Team....they have to show him that they are serious in surrounding him with a Team that can win them a Championship going forward. Sitting and doing nothing isn't going to get them over that hump. Sure, the Cavs will have a fairly expensive 2nd/3rd scoring option on the Team that will just stand there and take 3pt shots....but he'll satisfy Lebron while filling a need.

Speed
02-03-2010, 02:02 PM
I think Jamison is a much better player than Murphy, first off. Much, much. Murphy is younger and has a shorter contract though. I don't agree that just because the first offer was too high that you just say forget about it. If Jamison doesn't work out and we are approaching the deadline, I think the Cavs are stupid to not call and see if there is room to negotiate for Murph.

I'd guess in the NBA you never come to the table with your best offer, a month before the deadline, unless your desperate. Desperate usually means your willing to make a bad deal. Pacers don't need to make a bad deal here.

If the Cavs are so incredulous about the ridiculous low offer from the Pacers and refuse to try to improve their team because they are offended. That's just poor management. I mean it's still busniness.

Smoothdave1
02-03-2010, 11:19 PM
If the Cleveland deal falls through, are there any other teams who might have an interest in Troy? I really don't know of any off the top of my head. I mentioned Dallas before, simply because Cuban seems willing to do about anything. But would a team like Houston or someone else have any interest in Murph?

CableKC
02-04-2010, 03:48 AM
If the Cleveland deal falls through, are there any other teams who might have an interest in Troy? I really don't know of any off the top of my head. I mentioned Dallas before, simply because Cuban seems willing to do about anything. But would a team like Houston or someone else have any interest in Murph?
Unlike the Foster rumors....the only team that I recall being interested in Murphy was the Cavs. That's the problem....I think that there may have been some cursory interest....but probably nothing that really surfaced.

If the rumor that Foster really is retiring.....I'm guessing that they don't feel as much pressure to try to move Murphy this season.

vnzla81
02-04-2010, 10:59 AM
here is more info from yahoo

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-netslosing020310&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The Indiana Pacers have asked a steep price from the Cleveland Cavaliers for Troy Murphy: Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a No. 1 draft pick. So far, Cleveland has balked. The Pacers would buy out Z’s contract, though, and he would be free to return to the Cavs in 30 days. This is still the Cavs’ No. 2 option behind making a deal for Washington’s Antawn Jamison.

sportfireman
02-04-2010, 01:36 PM
here is more info from yahoo

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-netslosing020310&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

The Indiana Pacers have asked a steep price from the Cleveland Cavaliers for Troy Murphy: Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and a No. 1 draft pick. So far, Cleveland has balked. The Pacers would buy out Z’s contract, though, and he would be free to return to the Cavs in 30 days. This is still the Cavs’ No. 2 option behind making a deal for Washington’s Antawn Jamison.

thats not too much in my opinion..............they're raping us if we accept anything less.

Shade
02-04-2010, 01:41 PM
I would be happy with Z and either Hickson or the pick. But I'm not going to freak if we keep Murphy. After all, he is still a big expiring contract next season, so he'll still be very tradable.

Shade
02-04-2010, 01:43 PM
thats not too much in my opinion..............they're raping us if we accept anything less.

I sincerely hope that Cleveland doesn't expect us to trade them Murphy for just cap relief.

pwee31
02-04-2010, 02:00 PM
Pretty much the same information, from another source

http://www.sbnation.com/2010/2/3/1290513/nba-trade-deadline-breakdown-amare-stoudemire-rumors-antawn-jamison-andre-iguodala



Indiana Pacers

Status: Seller
Team Weaknesses: Outside shooting, perimeter defense, team speed, interior scoring
Projected 2010 cap room: $-13 million ($1 in luxury tax room)
Untouchables: Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert
Potentially on the block: Troy Murphy ($11 million this year, one more year), Mike Dunleavy ($9.8 million this year, one more year), T.J. Ford ($8.5 million this year, one more year)
Expiring Contracts: Earl Watson ($2.8 million)
Prospects: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, A.J. Price
Good trade partners: Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Phoenix
Possible targets: Any expiring contract

Indiana wants to move guys to "refreshen the stagnant air in the fieldhouse," as SB Nation's Indy Cornrows e-mails, but they aren't finding many takers. Nobody wants T.J. Ford, and pretty much nobody wants Mike Dunleavy. Jeff Foster would have been a nice piece ... if he didn't just get hurt. That leaves Troy Murphy, who is a nice player, but one that only really fits in well on one team: Cleveland.

Despite that, Indiana's driving a really hard bargain for Murphy right now, which of course makes no sense considering their lack of leverage. Keeping Murphy isn't the end of the world -- the Pacers are all-in on the 2011 plan -- but immediate salary relief would be nice for a non-playoff team pushing the luxury tax.

Shade
02-04-2010, 02:07 PM
Indiana Pacers

Status: Seller
Team Weaknesses: Outside shooting, perimeter defense, team speed, interior scoring, coaching
Projected 2010 cap room: $-13 million ($1 in luxury tax room)
Untouchables: Danny Granger, Roy Hibbert
Potentially on the block: Troy Murphy ($11 million this year, one more year), Mike Dunleavy ($9.8 million this year, one more year), T.J. Ford ($8.5 million this year, one more year)
Expiring Contracts: Earl Watson ($2.8 million)
Prospects: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, A.J. Price
Good trade partners: Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Phoenix
Possible targets: Any expiring contract

Indiana wants to move guys to "refreshen the stagnant air in the fieldhouse," as SB Nation's Indy Cornrows e-mails, but they aren't finding many takers. Nobody wants T.J. Ford, and pretty much nobody wants Mike Dunleavy. Jeff Foster would have been a nice piece ... if he didn't just get hurt. That leaves Troy Murphy, who is a nice player, but one that only really fits in well on one team: Cleveland.

Despite that, Indiana's driving a really hard bargain for Murphy right now, which of course makes no sense considering their lack of leverage. Keeping Murphy isn't the end of the world -- the Pacers are all-in on the 2011 plan -- but immediate salary relief would be nice for a non-playoff team pushing the luxury tax.

Fixed.

Shade
02-04-2010, 02:08 PM
Despite that, Indiana's driving a really hard bargain for Murphy right now, which of course makes no sense considering their lack of leverage. Keeping Murphy isn't the end of the world -- the Pacers are all-in on the 2011 plan -- but immediate salary relief would be nice for a non-playoff team pushing the luxury tax.

If trading Murphy isn't the end of the world for us, why would we have no leverage? Cleveland is the one wanting to make a "championship move" here. Our only real threat in negotiation is Washington with Jamison.

Gamble1
02-04-2010, 02:16 PM
If trading Murphy isn't the end of the world for us, why would we have no leverage? Cleveland is the one wanting to make a "championship move" here. Our only real threat in negotiation is Washington with Jamison.
I haven't heard too many arguments that next years situation will magically get us a better deal for Murphy. He is a player with a niche and unless we can find a team that values that in addtion to cap relief we will not get a better deal, IMO. IT would be nice to know what teams will need this cap relief in 2011/12.

count55
02-04-2010, 02:19 PM
From Chad Ford

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeWatch-100204

Listing Murph as 2nd most likely


2. Troy Murphy, F, Pacers
The Pacers are struggling and looking to the future for hope. They were poised to potentially trade Jeff Foster, but with Foster likely now out for the season, their focus moves to Murphy. With a number of contending teams interested in him, the Pacers seem to be in the right place to make a deal.

While Murphy may be overpaid, there are few bigs in the league who can rebound and spread the floor the way he can, which gives him value to a number of teams. The Cleveland Cavaliers continue to be the team with the most interest. If the Cavs can't land Antawn Jamison, Murphy appears to be their second option. At a minimum, the Pacers likely will be able to get back expiring contracts and one asset (either a draft pick or J.J. Hickson) for Murphy.

McKeyFan
02-04-2010, 02:33 PM
:huh:

So when you want a 3 point specialist, you don't care if they shoot 30% or 36%?

Interesting concept.

When you get down to it, you really want a guy who has a high percentage when the game is on the line. The entire game stat percentage just doesn't tell that story at all.

For example, Derek Fisher. I have no idea what his 3p % is, but I want that guy on my team. It seems like he always hits the three when it matters.

In the same way, contrast Jarret Jack and Rush/ Troy/and even Dun. Jack had a knack for hitting when it mattered.

McKeyFan
02-04-2010, 02:48 PM
I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.

Bird makes it clear on regular occasion that the Pacers are going to stay below the luxury tax.

It's no mystery that the Simons, in commercial real estate, would instruct Bird not to spend several more million.

With that given, it totally affects the discussions around here regarding what kinds of trades and deals might be done.

McKeyFan
02-04-2010, 02:56 PM
Murphy, for all his flaws, has proven that he's much more durable than Dunleavy.

Any team looking to acquire Dunleavy right now is going to pay a lot of money while not knowing how many minutes he can handle. That's not exactly something that goes over well with team owners and management these days.

If I were a GM I'd steer way away from Dunleavy. He seems like he's about to shatter at any moment. A pity. He was my favorite Pacer two years ago.

Unclebuck
02-04-2010, 03:00 PM
I'm especting the Cavs to make a trade. With the Magic and Celitcs struggling and the Hawks not ready yet, the cavs are in good position and will likely go for it this year.

Shade
02-04-2010, 03:27 PM
I haven't heard too many arguments that next years situation will magically get us a better deal for Murphy. He is a player with a niche and unless we can find a team that values that in addtion to cap relief we will not get a better deal, IMO. IT would be nice to know what teams will need this cap relief in 2011/12.

He's also an expiring contract next season.

He'll be traded at some point this season or next.

kellogg
02-04-2010, 03:37 PM
Another big reason it would be a plus to move Murphy now is that if we don't, we likely ruin our chances at a high lotto pick...if we move him it benefits us in multiple ways: more development time for the young guys, worse record this year, which translates into better odds at a higher lotto pick.

If Bird keeps Murphy it would go down as bad of a decision as him picking up Flip Murray a few years ago...he won us several games, we still missed the playoffs, and we got stuck with a lousy pick.

Shade
02-04-2010, 03:45 PM
Another big reason it would be a plus to move Murphy now is that if we don't, we likely ruin our chances at a high lotto pick...if we move him it benefits us in multiple ways: more development time for the young guys, worse record this year, which translates into better odds at a higher lotto pick.

If Bird keeps Murphy it would go down as bad of a decision as him picking up Flip Murray a few years ago...he won us several games, we still missed the playoffs, and we got stuck with a lousy pick.

I'm not sure if we wouldn't have a better chance at a high lotto pick if we kept Murphy this year.

EDIT: Post #33,333. :cool: :tacocat:

cdash
02-04-2010, 03:53 PM
He's also an expiring contract next season.

He'll be traded at some point this season or next.

Yeah, but we don't get salary relief if we wait until next season, which means we are likely a tax paying team. I sincerely doubt our owners would be willing to pay the luxury tax on a craptastic team.

Shade
02-04-2010, 03:55 PM
Yeah, but we don't get salary relief if we wait until next season, which means we are likely a tax paying team. I sincerely doubt our owners would be willing to pay the luxury tax on a craptastic team.

Are we definitely going to be over the lux tax threshold next season if we stand pat this season? And, if so, by how much?

cdash
02-04-2010, 03:56 PM
Are we definitely going to be over the lux tax threshold next season if we stand pat this season? And, if so, by how much?

I'm not sure. Count55 is the guru there (obviously), but the way I took it is that we already have enough salary under contract to be over the luxury tax threshold next season if the cap is at it's current projected level.

McKeyFan
02-04-2010, 04:08 PM
I'm not sure. Count55 is the guru there (obviously), but the way I took it is that we already have enough salary under contract to be over the luxury tax threshold next season if the cap is at it's current projected level.

Unless Foster is done.

Gamble1
02-04-2010, 04:25 PM
He's also an expiring contract next season.

He'll be traded at some point this season or next.

True but that’s not the point. What I am asking is what time frame increases the odds for a better trade involving Murphy. Right now we are only have one poker player at the table and if we wait until next year does that mean we will have 3 guys competing for his services or none? This is why I want to know who will be looking for a 3 point specialist next year with a need for salary cap. If I was Bird this is how I would go about trading Murphy. Find out which year has the better odds and go from there.

cdash
02-04-2010, 04:27 PM
Unless Foster is done.

Even if he is done, it would have to be a medical slam dunk for his salary to be taken off our cap.

Naptown_Seth
02-04-2010, 04:42 PM
I can't understand why people are arguing about luxury tax savings on a message board. It's like arguing about Granger's stock portfolio, who cares?

The luxury tax is something that only ownership can have a valid opinion on. If ownership decides they value the LT savings more than other factors, they will give Bird the order to trade Murphy for expiring contracts. If the LT is not that large of a concern, they will let Bird do as he wishes with a prospective trade.

As fans, we are out of the loop when it comes to luxury tax decisions.
Yes, because we are in the loop on all the other decisions.

IF they care about lux tax??? IF????

They do and it's beyond debate now. They've made many moves to protect against it, or passed on moves. They LET JACK GO because of lux tax limits.

And if the lux tax is a barrier then I repeat YOU CAN'T TAKE BACK MORE MONEY IN TRADES if you are at that barrier.

You know how tough it is to get dead-on matches? What if it's TJ Ford for Crawford and the $1m increase the Pacers take on is the dealbreaker? Is keeping Troy worth that, because that's exactly the kind of impact we are talking about.

You are trying to get the books in order because it frees up a bunch of moves that have next to nothing to do with cap space or free agency. Extensions, SnTs, the 125% salary in return exception...these are moves that a team under the lux tax threshold can consider.

I mean if they are planted against the lux tax and refuse to go past it then that means they wouldn't even use the MLE if they had it.

Being at the lux tax literally makes every signing past that point cost DOUBLE.


This is not just as simple as "hey, if they want to spend the money".


Good lord, some of this thread sounds like people never heard of the CIB story either.





*I'm not saying that moving Troy now is the only move, I'm only saying that the impact of such a deal, savings plus only the 29th pick isn't nearly as shabby as some make it sound. It does help the team quite a bit. Maybe something better can be found, but this wouldn't be a punt in the least, it would be sound financial strategy in the world of declining caps and thresholds.

graphic-er
02-04-2010, 04:44 PM
Murphy is going no where, is performance against the Raps this week is all any playoff team needs to convince themselves not to take a chance on him. A double double, but let andrea bargnani go off for 35. That like 15 pts Lebron would have to make up for.

Speed
02-04-2010, 04:51 PM
Put him on a team that needs the things he does well and can limit the stuff he doesn't do well and he's very valuable, imo.

The Toronto game is what happens when he's your primary PF and has to play 30+ minutes of defense. That's not how a contender would use him. Think of him in bench role as a guy you can hide defensively and exploit his range.

Trophy
02-04-2010, 06:05 PM
Looks like Cleveland might not get what they want.


It's no secret the Cavs would like to add Antawn Jamison at the trade deadline, as they'd like a stretch 4 to throw into their offense. With Jamison's talent, it's a move that could put the Cavs over the top in the East.

But there's been some chatter the Wizards aren't necessarily interested in dealing with the rival Cavs.

And as ESPN's Chad Ford notes today, the Wizards are also expecting some solid talent in return.

Add in that the Pacers are asking for more than the Cavs are willing to return in a Troy Murphy deal, and that Andre Igoudala, another potential get for the Cavs, is rumored to possibly be traded to another couple teams, and there's a chance the Cavs might not end up with either of their potential three targets by the deadline.


Nothing new, just an update from ESPN.

cdash
02-04-2010, 06:13 PM
I'm really not worried about all these reports that suggest the Pacers are asking for "too much" for Murphy. I would wager that one GM (probably Cleveland's) leaked out such a thing a few weeks ago in order to drive the price down, and every media outlet subsequently reported that same information. When we get closer to the deadline, both sides will give a little bit, and I think Murphy will be traded.

Gamble1
02-04-2010, 06:13 PM
Put him on a team that needs the things he does well and can limit the stuff he doesn't do well and he's very valuable, imo.

That maybe true but "that list" of possible teams to me is small and with that the price to acquire him will be lower than if he had more skill.

MikeDC
02-04-2010, 06:18 PM
This is just like the owners wanting a hard cap and salaries at 45 percent.

Its a starting point. We got about 2 weeks of negotiations to see what we actually end up with.

Perhaps. But if we end up with nothing it'll be disastrously bad.

CableKC
02-04-2010, 06:32 PM
This isn't any real update....but greater insight into what the Wizards may ( or may not be doing ):

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2010/02/is-it-time-to-deal.html?wprss=wizardsinsider


Posted by Michael Lee on http://www.washingtonpost.com

The Wizards have been reluctant to move Jamison because he ranks among Grunfeld's favorite players. Although Jamison is 33, Grunfeld doesn't want to give away a player who averages more than 21 points and nearly nine rebounds, and he also has little desire to help Cleveland win a championship -- especially after the Cavaliers signed away Larry Hughes five years ago.
This is the only glimmer of hope I have of the Wizards sticking with their ( likely ) higher asking price for Jamison. I'm really hoping that Grunfeld sticks to his reluctance to help the Cavs improve their team and therefore make it that much harder for them to trade Jamison.

If the Wizards stick to their guns and it simply comes down to asking price, then I really hope that ( at most ) we ask for Z+1st round pick+$$$.

MikeDC
02-04-2010, 07:20 PM
This isn't any real update....but greater insight into what the Wizards may ( or may not be doing ):

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/wizardsinsider/2010/02/is-it-time-to-deal.html?wprss=wizardsinsider


This is the only glimmer of hope I have of the Wizards sticking with their ( likely ) higher asking price for Jamison. I'm really hoping that Grunfeld sticks to his reluctance to help the Cavs improve their team and therefore make it that much harder for them to trade Jamison.

If the Wizards stick to their guns and it simply comes down to asking price, then I really hope that ( at most ) we ask for Z+1st round pick+$$$.

LOL, Grunfeld should send the Cavs a bouquet of flowers and fine chocolates for signing Larry Hughes.

Hicks
02-04-2010, 07:35 PM
Looks like Cleveland might not get what they want.



Nothing new, just an update from ESPN.

If you're going to paste that, you need to include the link. Please edit the link in. Thanks.

CableKC
02-04-2010, 08:49 PM
LOL, Grunfeld should send the Cavs a bouquet of flowers and fine chocolates for signing Larry Hughes.
:laugh: You're right. But if Grunfeld wants to hold a grudge....and it make him think twice about shipping Jamison in a bow to the Lebrons....I'm hoping that he still feels like a jilted boyfriend being dumped by an ex for another guy. :D

Wage
02-04-2010, 09:50 PM
Yes, because we are in the loop on all the other decisions.

IF they care about lux tax??? IF????

They do and it's beyond debate now. They've made many moves to protect against it, or passed on moves. They LET JACK GO because of lux tax limits.

And if the lux tax is a barrier then I repeat YOU CAN'T TAKE BACK MORE MONEY IN TRADES if you are at that barrier.

You know how tough it is to get dead-on matches? What if it's TJ Ford for Crawford and the $1m increase the Pacers take on is the dealbreaker? Is keeping Troy worth that, because that's exactly the kind of impact we are talking about.

You are trying to get the books in order because it frees up a bunch of moves that have next to nothing to do with cap space or free agency. Extensions, SnTs, the 125% salary in return exception...these are moves that a team under the lux tax threshold can consider.

I mean if they are planted against the lux tax and refuse to go past it then that means they wouldn't even use the MLE if they had it.

Being at the lux tax literally makes every signing past that point cost DOUBLE.


This is not just as simple as "hey, if they want to spend the money".


Good lord, some of this thread sounds like people never heard of the CIB story either.





*I'm not saying that moving Troy now is the only move, I'm only saying that the impact of such a deal, savings plus only the 29th pick isn't nearly as shabby as some make it sound. It does help the team quite a bit. Maybe something better can be found, but this wouldn't be a punt in the least, it would be sound financial strategy in the world of declining caps and thresholds.

You are putting words in my mouth now. I never said that trading Troy for LT savings was a bad move, I simply stated that we have no idea how much ownership values Troy vs LT savings.

Of course ownership cares about the LT. Every owner cares about the LT, it's simply a matter of how much? I would argue that the Jack deal we did not match was less about LT concerns and more about being a terrible contract in the first place. I would hope ownership would not have matched that offer if we had zero dollars on the books.

So again, my point is simply "How much do the owners want to get under the LT." If they trade Murph for nothing but savings, I will be fine with the move, and will understand ownership's position.

Anthem
02-05-2010, 12:47 AM
Troy for Z, Powe, and a pick. Book it.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 12:48 PM
1) Cleveland is in our division and we play them 4 times a year.

2) Cleveland wants to keep LeBron.

3) Cleveland wants to trade for one of our starters.

4) Cleveland wants us to buy out the player they trade to us so he can go back to Cleveland.

5) Many Pacer fans are more than willing to go along with this trade as outlined. Just Murphy for Z.

FORGET THE MONEY, LOOK AT THE TRADE! YOU DO NOT GIVE ASSETS AWAY!

You do not help division rivals! Bird and Morway are not asking to much for Murphy!

CableKC
02-05-2010, 12:59 PM
1) Cleveland is in our division and we play them 4 times a year.

2) Cleveland wants to keep LeBron.

3) Cleveland wants to trade for one of our starters.

4) Cleveland wants us to buy out the player they trade to us so he can go back to Cleveland.

5) Many Pacer fans are more than willing to go along with this trade as outlined. Just Murphy for Z.

FORGET THE MONEY, LOOK AT THE TRADE! YOU DO NOT GIVE ASSETS AWAY!

You do not help division rivals! Bird and Morway are not asking to much for Murphy!
I'll take my chances of Murphy burning us on the offensive end over the next 2 seasons if it meant that we could improve our Financial/SalaryCap situation next season while removing JO'Bs crutch and instantly improving the athleticsm of the Frontcourt by "addition though subtraction".

I could care less about what happens with the Pacers over this season and the next since part of the the "3 year plan" IMHO likely factors in being a Team that is "realistically rebuilding while pretending to be a competitive Team that hopes to returns to the Playoffs". I don't like giving up what could be considered an asset for next to nothing.....but financially, the Pacers may not have any choice. Besides, nothing really is going to happen until the start of the 2011-2012 season. Until then.....because the PS&E are losing $$$$......the Pacers simply need to stay afloat...both from a Financial and SalaryCap perspective.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 01:36 PM
I'll take my chances of Murphy burning us on the offensive end over the next 2 seasons if it meant that we could improve our Financial/SalaryCap situation next season while removing JO'Bs crutch and instantly improving the athleticsm of the Frontcourt by "addition though subtraction".

I could care less about what happens with the Pacers over this season and the next since part of the the "3 year plan" IMHO likely factors in being a Team that is "realistically rebuilding while pretending to be a competitive Team that hopes to returns to the Playoffs". I don't like giving up what could be considered an asset for next to nothing.....but financially, the Pacers may not have any choice. Besides, nothing really is going to happen until the start of the 2011-2012 season. Until then.....because the PS&E are losing $$$$......the Pacers simply need to stay afloat...both from a Financial and SalaryCap perspective.

You are arguing Pacer finances, something that none of us know much about. Forget about finances! Ask yourself this. Would Herb have bought Mel's share of the Pacers if he was worried about finances?

Look at the trade, and who it's with!

We don't have to do a bad trade just to get under the tax!

Trophy
02-05-2010, 01:40 PM
If you're going to paste that, you need to include the link. Please edit the link in. Thanks.

It's from ESPN NBA Rumors. I apologize. I'm usually good with including links.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors?date=20100204&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20100204

cdash
02-05-2010, 01:45 PM
You are arguing Pacer finances, something that none of us know much about. Forget about finances! Ask yourself this. Would Herb have bought Mel's share of the Pacers if he was worried about finances?

Look at the trade, and who it's with!

We don't have to do a bad trade just to get under the tax!

Everything is always about the money. It's a factor, and a big one, which is why we discuss it.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 01:58 PM
Everything is always about the money. It's a factor, and a big one, which is why we discuss it.

Cliches aren't always true!

And as fans we are usually only concerned with the money factor as it relates to whether a trade will work. In this case people are worrying about getting under the tax a year and a half from now.

However the money aspect in this case is just camouflage for most people wanting to make a bad deal because they want Murphy gone. That's why I say look at the deal without the money!

Peck
02-05-2010, 02:25 PM
From my point of view only here.

When I thought this season still had any chance of being meaningful I was all for Troy to the Cavs. for just big Z. Not because I give one whipstich about the salary cap or tax implications of the deal but because I honestly believed that moving Troy off of our team would have helped with the on court product. Not because Troy is a bag of crap or anything but the combination of Troy and O'Brien together is.

Now that I have officially given up on the season I am now opposed to any trade that does not at least net us some form of asset in return. Draft pick, young player, both, either or, I don't care.

owl
02-05-2010, 02:49 PM
I want the best deal possible for Troy regardless of the implications for this year. I just want the best deal since this is not the team that will be winning anything soon anyway.

cdash
02-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Cliches aren't always true!

And as fans we are usually only concerned with the money factor as it relates to whether a trade will work. In this case people are worrying about getting under the tax a year and a half from now.

However the money aspect in this case is just camouflage for most people wanting to make a bad deal because they want Murphy gone. That's why I say look at the deal without the money!

The money is a fairly large part of the equation, no? Personally, I think trading Murphy while he has some legitimate value is the right move. We aren't going anywhere, and if we can get a decent asset in return (Hickson or maybe Green+late first rounder), while at the same time giving ourselves more flexibility under the luxury tax threshold, why would that be a bad deal?

owl
02-05-2010, 02:53 PM
1) Cleveland is in our division and we play them 4 times a year.

2) Cleveland wants to keep LeBron.

3) Cleveland wants to trade for one of our starters.

4) Cleveland wants us to buy out the player they trade to us so he can go back to Cleveland.

5) Many Pacer fans are more than willing to go along with this trade as outlined. Just Murphy for Z.

FORGET THE MONEY, LOOK AT THE TRADE! YOU DO NOT GIVE ASSETS AWAY!

You do not help division rivals! Bird and Morway are not asking to much for Murphy!

This is what I was saying awhile back in this thread. I wondered if anyone cared about such
things.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 02:53 PM
The money is a fairly large part of the equation, no? Personally, I think trading Murphy while he has some legitimate value is the right move. We aren't going anywhere, and if we can get a decent asset in return (Hickson or maybe Green+late first rounder), while at the same time giving ourselves more flexibility under the luxury tax threshold, why would that be a bad deal?


That sounds pretty close to what the Pacers are asking for.

cdash
02-05-2010, 02:55 PM
That sounds pretty close to what the Pacers are asking for.

Well, it sounds pretty close to the rumors we are hearing, and for good reason: it makes sense to both teams.

90'sNBARocked
02-05-2010, 03:18 PM
Call me blind then because I honestly hadn't noticed. What makes you guys say that beyond rumors from outsiders? Looking directly at Murphy, I don't see anything like that.

Its justy my perception, I dont have anything really to back it up, except vividly remeber Troy's tip in to beat the Lakers and him throwing his hands up and running down the court.

I have yet to see anything close to that this year

I guess only Troy really knows

Naptown_Seth
02-05-2010, 03:20 PM
Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.

CableKC
02-05-2010, 03:23 PM
You are arguing Pacer finances, something that none of us know much about. Forget about finances! Ask yourself this. Would Herb have bought Mel's share of the Pacers if he was worried about finances?

Look at the trade, and who it's with!

We don't have to do a bad trade just to get under the tax!
Actually, Teams do make Bad trades just to get under the Tax ( look at the Nuggets/Camby and the Jazz/Harpring+Maynor trades ). They do it all the time...not because they want to...but because they have no choice.

Believe me, I'd like to forget about the financial aspect of any trade....but I seriously doubt that the Pacers FO/Owners do.

Anthem
02-05-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.
Excellent point, Seth. Excellent point.

I don't think the Cavs are balking at giving away the pick. Hickson seems to be the sticking point.

CableKC
02-05-2010, 03:30 PM
However the money aspect in this case is just camouflage for most people wanting to make a bad deal because they want Murphy gone. That's why I say look at the deal without the money!
Not in my case. I want Murphy traded because he's the most tradeable of the Big4 Contracts ( which is depressing ) and his departure would have the biggest financial impact on the Team next year.

I admit that I think that if he was moved it would significantly the athleticism of the Frontcourt ( only cuz JO'B would have no choice but to play someone that is more athletic then Murphy is ).....but my greater concern are the financial implications of keeping any of the Big4 Contracts. In this case, I'd rather do a salary Dump of Murphy's contract now so that we have greater flexibility to improve the mediocre Team we have next season.

I agree, if there was a trade of Murphy that I knew was way better then ( what amounts to ) an Expiring Contract and Powe ( and/or ) a late 1st round draft pick....I'd definitely consider it. But since there isn't ( at least that we are aware ) and I have a preference to move Murphy's contract now....instead of later.....I'll live with any deal we could possibly get from Cleveland.

CableKC
02-05-2010, 03:38 PM
This is what I was saying awhile back in this thread. I wondered if anyone cared about such
things.
If we were on the cusp of being a Playoff bound Team this year or next year......I would care. If we were trading a impact Player that would be on the Team at the start of the 2011-2012 season....then I would likely care.

Based off of what I have seen of Murphy and what he is capable of doing and ( most notably ) what he isn't capable of doing.....I think that Murphy could help them...but I don't think that he is going to impact the Cavs as much as Sheed did when he was traded to the Pistons. On top of that....Murphy will help them for 2 seasons.

Since Murphy will likely be relegated to a Matt Bonner/Brian Scalabrine role by the start of the 2011-2012 season ( when we really have to consider such a move ) either on the Cavs or on some other Team and we are not a likely Playoff bound Team this season as well as next season....I don't care as much about the impact of trading him to a team in the same division. We're talking about Murphy here.....we're not talking about trading Granger.

CableKC
02-05-2010, 03:44 PM
Excellent point, Seth. Excellent point.

I don't think the Cavs are balking at giving away the pick. Hickson seems to be the sticking point.
Not only am I hoping that the Wizards are asking for Hickson ( and sticks to it ), I really hope that Bird and the Owners want more then that. I'd be ecstatic with Z+Pick...but since I'm a pessimist and don't think that we will realistically go anywhere this ( and next :( ) season....unlike Peck....I'd be happy with a straight Salary Dump.

d_c
02-05-2010, 03:50 PM
let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.


This should be stickied somewhere so people realize exactly what an expiring contract by itself is worth.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 03:59 PM
Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.

Actually I'm not missing the picture. I just think the Pacers front office is doing a good job!

d_c
02-05-2010, 04:03 PM
Actually I'm not missing the picture. I just think the Pacers front office is doing a good job!

They should hold out for as much as they can for Murphy, but ultimately if the Cavs don't throw in extra stuff, they need to trade Murphy for Big Z straight up and take the $12M savings.

Because as Naptown Seth correctly pointed out, Big Z right now is very explicitly showing you that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much.

If you save up Troy Murphy for next season's trade deadline, you'll find out that the type of offers you'll get for him will look a lot like..................Troy Murphy, just with an additional year on their contract.

Will Galen
02-05-2010, 06:53 PM
Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.


They should hold out for as much as they can for Murphy, but ultimately if the Cavs don't throw in extra stuff, they need to trade Murphy for Big Z straight up and take the $12M savings.

Because as Naptown Seth correctly pointed out, Big Z right now is very explicitly showing you that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much.

If you save up Troy Murphy for next season's trade deadline, you'll find out that the type of offers you'll get for him will look a lot like..................Troy Murphy, just with an additional year on their contract.

I just disagree. I like how Bird and Morway are playing it. I don't see wanting to get under the tax a year and a half from now as a reason to make a bad trade with a division rival now. And I bet that's how they see it.

We have time, They know what's going on behind the scenes. If they trade Murphy for cap relief, I'll buy it. Otherwise no.

And as for Naptown Seth pointing out that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much. The counter argument to that is it would be getting Cleveland what they want.

I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.

And I still think what is diving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.

Anthem
02-05-2010, 09:06 PM
I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.
Sure. But I'd consider Z, Powe, and this year's first to be a good offer.


And I still think what is driving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.
Yeah, I can agree with that. It's true for me, at least.

Dr. Awesome
02-05-2010, 10:17 PM
Will, if you don't do the Troy deal for cash savings, you CAN'T DO OTHER DEALS.

That's the part you aren't thinking about. You will be giving up the chances at other assets, this summer and next season. A team might want us to take back more salary in order to get a talent upgrade in another deal, but we can't because we are smashed against the tax and the cost will break the team.


Stop oversimplifying this. You make deals to setup other deals, you improve your POSITION in the market.

I'm not saying you might not get something for Troy next year, but let's examine what an expiring contract will get you with a prime direct example:

BIG Z

What does his expiring this year bring the Cavs? Troy Murphy? Not even him, not according to you guys. You have to entice the Pacers to do that deal with picks and other players and cash maybe.

So just WTF is Troy's almost identical expiring contract going to be worth next year on the market? Something less than Troy unless we throw in other assets.


Is that the key? To turn Troy's salary into something not even as good as Troy, much like the Cavs are doing with the same expiring salary this year???

The "for cash" people aren't the ones missing the picture here.

You make a lot of fair points, but your forgetting something...

The Cavs are beggers right now, not choosers. No team in the NBA wants to help the Cavs keep LeBron, so for them to get better, they are going to have to overpay for anyone. The only reason I don't care about helping the Cavs get better is because I believe LeBron will stay in Cleveland regardless if they win or not. So if we can get them to overpay for Murphy, I'm all for it - at least we get something too.

If your going to bring up that, you may as well also bring up the Pau Gasol case where he was acquired for close to nothing outside of expirings and poor prospects(Gasol became good but wasn't considered an elite prospect at the time).

I don't think we'll get the value some think we will get here, I'm just saying our situation is very different from Clevelands.

vnzla81
02-05-2010, 11:40 PM
make a deal by espn, they talk about Murphy here

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4891694

jeffg-body
02-05-2010, 11:55 PM
I think this is a great starting point. Remember we are not the desperate ones here. Start high and get a fair deal.

d_c
02-06-2010, 02:33 PM
I just disagree. I like how Bird and Morway are playing it. I don't see wanting to get under the tax a year and a half from now as a reason to make a bad trade with a division rival now. And I bet that's how they see it.

We have time, They know what's going on behind the scenes. If they trade Murphy for cap relief, I'll buy it. Otherwise no.

And as for Naptown Seth pointing out that an expiring contract by itself doesn't get you that much. The counter argument to that is it would be getting Cleveland what they want.

I just disagree with you guys. I think it's better to wait unless you get a good offer.

And I still think what is diving this with most posters is just wanting to get rid of Murphy.

The Pacers right now should be concerned with their own situation and not how much or how little they're helping Cleveland.

Yes, I agree that you should wait it out for a better offer, but if none comes, then I'd trade him straight up for Z and take the $12M savings (or more, depending on the luxury tax) next year.

It has more to do than with just getting rid of Murphy. With Murphy on the payroll, using the MLE is out of the question (it'd put you clear into luxury tax territory, which Bird has clearly stated the ownership doesn't want to pay). Clear Murphy off the books and you can all of a sudden use the MLE.


I think this is a great starting point. Remember we are not the desperate ones here. Start high and get a fair deal.

No, you're not the desperate ones. You're the ones with the owners who wouldn't hesitate to save $12M if they got a chance to do it.

Will Galen
02-06-2010, 03:48 PM
Clear Murphy off the books and you can all of a sudden use the MLE.

No, you're not the desperate ones. You're the ones with the owners who wouldn't hesitate to save $12M if they got a chance to do it.

This has always been a bad argument! Tell me how the owner is saving $12m if you then use the MLE? :devil:


Yeah I'm just harassing your side now.

I've already said I disagree several times. Your side can say what you will, or repeat your points again and again, I think trading Murphy for just Z's expiring is a bad deal.

If Pacers management makes that deal I'll think they decided you guys side of the argument was the best way to go. However, I'll bet anyone on here a piece of well chewed gum that they don't.*


* I don't gamble.:p

Tom White
02-06-2010, 04:06 PM
The Cavs are beggers right now, not choosers.

I still have a problem labeling the team with the best record in the league as beggars. They certainly haven't been on their knees so far.

d_c
02-06-2010, 04:22 PM
I've already said I disagree several times. Your side can say what you will, or repeat your points again and again, I think trading Murphy for just Z's expiring is a bad deal.

If Pacers management makes that deal I'll think they decided you guys side of the argument was the best way to go. However, I'll bet anyone on here a piece of well chewed gum that they don't.*


* I don't gamble.:p

So what exactly is the purpose of keeping Murphy if he he has the equivalent trade value one year from now that Ilgauskas has now? That's the point Naptown Seth brought up and I think it's a valid point.

If you keep Murphy for at least up to this summer (as opposed to trading him for an expiring Z), then you had better get a pretty good deal for him. If you're unable to find any deal, then you just made your owner spend $12M to keep Murphy next season for no reason other than to say that you didn't help the Cavs.

I'd be more interested in helping your own franchise than to take pride in not helping anyone else. If you can help your owner by saving him money and giving yourself more options to make other moves, then you do it.

Doug
02-06-2010, 04:29 PM
So what exactly is the purpose of keeping Murphy if he he has the equivalent trade value one year from now that Ilgauskas has now?
Apparently Z's trade value is "last piece needed to compete for a championship".

Y'all make it sound like they having to try to give him away. Troy's a pretty good player, despite his defensive and contractual liabilities.

vnzla81
02-06-2010, 04:36 PM
So what exactly is the purpose of keeping Murphy if he he has the equivalent trade value one year from now that Ilgauskas has now? That's the point Naptown Seth brought up and I think it's a valid point.

If you keep Murphy for at least up to this summer (as opposed to trading him for an expiring Z), then you had better get a pretty good deal for him. If you're unable to find any deal, then you just made your owner spend $12M to keep Murphy next season for no reason other than to say that you didn't help the Cavs.

I'd be more interested in helping your own franchise than to take pride in not helping anyone else. If you can help your owner by saving him money and giving yourself more options to make other moves, then you do it.

I agree with this, not only Big Z would bring you a Murphy, look at Houston trying to move 20mil in Tmac and they can't get a good deal, expiring contracts now are overrated, maybe two years ago, but now teams are paying more attention to their books and they are not willing to give up talent for expirings anymore.

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2010, 05:04 PM
The only reason that I want Murphy gone so that JOB would be forced to play a more inside/outside game with Roy Hibbert. As a side note, Big Z + Hickson/Powe + Draft Pick is a fair deal to me.

Pacerized
02-06-2010, 08:38 PM
I still think that with the new CBA looming our expiring contracts may have a lot more value next year then they do this year. At worst they give us cap space for the free agent market in 2011. If we can't make the team better in trading one I see no reason to do it now.

speakout4
02-06-2010, 08:43 PM
The only reason that I want Murphy gone so that JOB would be forced to play a more inside/outside game with Roy Hibbert. As a side note, Big Z + Hickson/Powe + Draft Pick is a fair deal to me.
We are not going to get Hickson. They would be crazy to trade him for Murphy. Possibly he could be included for Jamison but I doubt Hickson is leaving CLE.

ksuttonjr76
02-06-2010, 11:45 PM
We are not going to get Hickson. They would be crazy to trade him for Murphy. Possibly he could be included for Jamison but I doubt Hickson is leaving CLE.

Hence the reason why I typed "Hickson/Powe".

Will Galen
02-07-2010, 09:33 AM
The way Cleveland is playing they really don't need to make a deal. I'll be surprised if they do.

BBALL56HACKER
02-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Why do pacers want Powe back ? They don`t need to add his money to payroll. If pacers can not get Hickson back, I would still do the trade for Z /1ST pick. but NO Powe back!

Justin Tyme
02-07-2010, 02:29 PM
Why do pacers want Powe back ? They don`t need to add his money to payroll. If pacers can not get Hickson back, I would still do the trade for Z /1ST pick. but NO Powe back!


Why don't you want Leon Powe?

Naptown_Seth
02-07-2010, 02:39 PM
Excellent point, Seth. Excellent point.

I don't think the Cavs are balking at giving away the pick. Hickson seems to be the sticking point.
And don't dismiss that pick (not you, I mean in general). Right now you might be able to take a flier on 1 of 2 shooting guards, Lace Dunn (Baylor) and Poindexter (Wash). Both are iffy to make it, not sure either is quite enough the athlete for it, but both are scoring very well and have good shooting strokes. Personally I prefer Dunn but then I think he might play his way into the top 20-23.

People are also talking about Booker slipping to 29-30 range, so you bolster your bench PF which is basically what Hickson is anyway.

I don't love the deal but the team is in a tough spot and this is the kind of stuff you do.

How'd they move Artest? For 3-4 months of Peja, who sat half the playoff games even.

How'd they move JO? For expiring Rasho, TJ who we have been benching, and a 17th pick. Luckily that was Hibbert, but then Ford is now one of the 4 contracts we still want to move.

How'd they move Jackson? Don't get me started, that's how we got here in the first place.

How'd they move Tinsley? Buy out, which is a zero return trade for only MILD financial savings.

They have struggled to move Dun, Ford and apparently Troy. It all adds up to the reality that he's not worth a whole lot right now, even coming off his best season ever.


AND we are headed to a possible lockout. It's not so clear what 2011 expirings will be worth because it's not clear if there will even be a market or what shape it will be in if there is.

We've known for some time the team was kinda F'd. This is what that feels like, these are the kinds of deals teams send at you. Frankly I think the JO deal was a minor miracle and a triumph by Bird, a smaller deal you still don't want and a #17 pick.


It's not a 3 year plan, it's a 3 year waiting period till TPTB can start functioning with a healthy salary situation that is more in line with the amount of talent on the team. Next trade deadline is when the team STARTS the rebuild, not finishes it.

PaceBalls
02-07-2010, 02:48 PM
2011 is starting to get me nervous with the lockout. The players have other options now days. European/Asian teams are paying out big salaries, and I can see the best players in the NBA going overseas for a few years while the NBA is on hold/dead. All it takes is 1 year of that to destroy the league.

Peck
02-07-2010, 02:52 PM
It's not a 3 year plan, it's a 3 year waiting period till TPTB can start functioning with a healthy salary situation that is more in line with the amount of talent on the team. Next trade deadline is when the team STARTS the rebuild, not finishes it.

That is now my firm belief as well.

As last season wrapped up and at the start of this season I bought into the entire "3 year plan" stuff they were saying. But as time has gone on this season the more I have thought about it the more I am convinced that this isn't really a plan as much as it is in waiting on the inevitable to happen. I mean yes they did sign a couple of their last contracts to coincide with the expiring deals of Murphy & Dunleavy but other than that it doesn't seem to be a real cohesive plan other than to say "well we now have money to work around with".

Which I guess is a plan but I'm not sure what the real plan is. Do we become competitive in year three? My guess is no.

I think maybe a lot of this is my own fault to be honest with you as I actually was stupid enough to think this year was going to be different than what we have gotten. Some of the season has gone down due to injury but not most of it.

We are just far worse than I ever dreamed we would be and I have a feeling that we are worse than the front office thought we would be as well.

I hope both you and I are wrong here and that two years from now we are considered one of the elite teams in the NBA, but I just have a feeling that we are years and years and years away.

vnzla81
02-07-2010, 03:03 PM
but I just have a feeling that we are years and years and years away.

I have the same feeling, I think that next year they are going to do the same thing they did this one, sign cheap players and hope to make the playoffs and then next year and the year after that.

Will Galen
02-07-2010, 04:30 PM
Next trade deadline is when the team STARTS the rebuild, not finishes it.

The rebuild plan we talk about is the one Morway and Bird refer to. Their plan will not end at next season's trade deadline because we could still have Murphy, Ford, Foster, and Dun's contracts on the roster. That means the rebuild Bird is talking about will end two summers from now when those contracts expire and the roster is rebuilt.

By then, barring trades etc., we could have these players under contract;

1) Granger
2) Hibbert
3) Rush
4) Hansbrough
5) Price
6) D. Jones
7) This years 1st rounder
8) This years 2nd Rounder
9) Next Years 1st Rounder (If no lockout)
10) Next years 2nd rounder (If no lockout)
11) Our 2nd rounder from Dallas (If no lockout)
12-15) The players we pick up from trading or letting Murphy, Ford, Foster, and Dun's contracts expire. As well as having Tinsley off the books.

In actual fact teams are always rebuilding, meaning trying to get better. And this is where we should be at the end of Bird's rebuild.

Another thought. With the CBA ending it might be a complete year before the teams play again. If so, we could have another college draft before teams play again.

And with a lockout looming it could also mean that there will be a lot of underclassmen declaring for the draft this year and trying to get salaries under the present CBA. Of course the underclassmen could just decide to stay in collage though the lockout.

BBALL56HACKER
02-07-2010, 05:05 PM
Why don't you want Leon Powe?

He does not bring anything to the roster that you can`t get from Mcroberts . Plus with his salary and the extra we take back in the deal for Z-MAN will most likely put us in luxury tax range.

diamonddave00
02-07-2010, 07:22 PM
Plus Powe has already had 3 major knee surgeries , its just a matter of time till he's done.

CableKC
02-08-2010, 12:28 AM
Plus Powe has already had 3 major knee surgeries , its just a matter of time till he's done.
He has a contract that is owed less then 1 mil and is a Team Option for 2010-2011.

Powe is a stop-gap solution for this season ......nothing more.....since our PF/C rotation would pretty much be reduced to Hibbert and Granger.

Anthem
02-08-2010, 08:43 AM
He has a contract that is owed less then 1 mil and is a Team Option for 2010-2011.

Powe is a stop-gap solution for this season ......nothing more.....since our PF/C rotation would pretty much be reduced to Hibbert and Granger.
Exactly. There's zero financial risk of taking the dude.

Pacerized
02-08-2010, 09:56 AM
Taking Powe would be fine with me in order to free the roster spot up for the Cavs after we buy out Z. The only thing of value I would expect in this trade would be their 2011 1st. round pick. Their 2010 pick is no better then a 2cd. rounder and that would be giving away Murphy for nothing. If we can't get their 2011, or 12 pick then I'd rather wait until next season when Murhpys expiring contract will have more value.

Justin Tyme
02-08-2010, 11:58 AM
The Cavs have won 11 games in a row and have beat all their competition in the EC, so I don't see them trading for Murphy. I feel that ship sailed along time ago. I expect to see Murphy playing as a Pacer again next season. :(

ksuttonjr76
02-08-2010, 12:44 PM
The Cavs have won 11 games in a row and have beat all their competition in the EC, so I don't see them trading for Murphy. I feel that ship sailed along time ago. I expect to see Murphy playing as a Pacer again next season. :(

I'm pretty sure the Cavs thought the same thing last season, and looked what happened. They lost, because they didn't have no else who could help Lebron on offense and rebounds. Last season, it was basically Lebron against the Magic.

d_c
02-08-2010, 01:08 PM
I'm pretty sure the Cavs thought the same thing last season, and looked what happened. They lost, because they didn't have no else who could help Lebron on offense and rebounds. Last season, it was basically Lebron against the Magic.

They lost because they had no answer in how to matchup with Orlando's forward duo of Lewis and Turkoglu. Both those guys are tall SFs who could shoot and put the ball on the floor against bigger, slower players. When you pair up that kind of duo with an inside beast like Howard, that is tough to matchup with. Murphy would have had the exact same problem as the other Cavs bigmen trying to defend that.

Orlando had one of the toughest frontcourts to matchup with in the past 30 years or so. It was a totally different look than anyone else ever gave. They caused problems for a lot of teams. They had that advantage until they ran into a team that had tall/mobile forwards up front who could neutralize their forward advantage (Odom/Ariza) along with a couple of really talented 7 footers (Gasol/Bynum).

Troy Murphy would not have have helped them matchup against that. The Magic this year don't pose the same matchup problem without Turkoglu.

Trophy
02-08-2010, 01:47 PM
Here's a recent article regarding Cleveland and making a trade.

http://news-herald.com/articles/2010/02/07/sports/nh2055479.txt


Rumor mill

-- Multiple sources say the Cavs will stand pat at the trade deadline unless they are overwhelmed by a deal. Wizards forward Antawn Jamison might be the only way to truly get their attention.

-- Forward/center Troy Murphy might be with the Pacers all season unless the front office drops its demands of getting Zydrunas Ilgauskas, J.J. Hickson and multiple draft picks in return. That's absurd.

It's possible that was an opening salvo. The Pacers know they won't get anything close to that for Murphy, a slow, plodding defender who can shoot 3-pointers.

"It's a business, and I understand there's a possibility that I could be moved," Murphy said. "I can't get away from the ongoing rumors."

-- It would be risky to give up Hickson in any deal. Once he truly gets "it," he's going to be a load. Someone said he hasn't hit a jumper outside of 15 feet since late December.

-- The Celtics would like to move guard Ray Allen's $19 million expiring contract. The proposed deal that would send him to the Bulls for forward Tyrus Thomas and guard Kirk Hinrich has some legs. There's no shot the Celtics can get Warriors guard Monta Ellis for Allen.

-- There's talk of Wizards guard Mike James coming to the Cavs. But don't the Cavs have a surplus of guards when Mo Williams and Delonte West return?

-- The Bobcats are reportedly having difficulty paying their bills. That's why owner Bob Johnson is intent on selling the team. Likely buyers are Michael Jordan or a group headed by former Rockets president George Postolos. Some observers are predicting the Bobcats could sell for as low as $300 million.

-- Warriors coach Don Nelson loves former Cavs guard Coby Karl, who scored 12 points in 38 minutes against Houston last week. Karl has a chance of being signed for the rest of the season.

-- The Nets would like to get out of their $7.5 million penalty for breaking their lease with the Izod Center. Ideally, they'd like to play the next two years at the Barclays Center in Newark and then move to Brooklyn.

-- The Pistons have major issues and would love to move guard Rip Hamilton or forward Tayshaun Prince. Hamilton signed a three-year extension last year, which is a major sticking point with potential teams.

In reality, Cleveland isn't making any trade and Troy is staying put and probably we won't make any kind of trade either.

Infinite MAN_force
02-09-2010, 12:37 AM
Troy for Z, Powe, and a pick. Book it.

This.

There is no gaurentee when it comes to foster and a possible medical retirement, and this team WILL NOT pay the luxury tax. If we don't make this deal because Larry held out for Hickson, than Larry is an idiot.

Hicks
02-09-2010, 12:45 AM
I dunno; I'm in "believe it when I see it" mode with any trade at the deadline. I'm just not anticipating it.

Anthem
02-09-2010, 08:53 AM
I dunno; I'm in "believe it when I see it" mode with any trade at the deadline. I'm just not anticipating it.
I'm not either, which depresses me. We should have pulled the trigger already.

Pacerized
02-09-2010, 10:06 AM
If the Cavs really have a chance to land Stoudemire or Iguodala for Z and Hickson then they'd be nuts to consider giving up Hickson for Murphy. When I see Hickson play I see an athletic prospect. He may never reach the level of Iguodala and I can't ever see him becoming the player Stoudemire is. If the Suns trade Stoudemire in this fashion I think that would exceed the lopsided trade of Gasol to the Lakers. I doubt if either trade goes down but one of them does we might want to rethink the value of an expiring contract. Asking for Hickson in the Murphy trade is too much to ask for.


http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/64568/20100209/cavs_76ers_remain_most_likely_destinations_for_sto udemire/

"As the Feb. 18 trade deadline approaches, the Cavaliers and 76ers have been most frequently mentioned as suitors for Phoenix's Amare Stoudemire.

A deal with Cleveland would provide the Suns with a significant amount of salary cap and luxury tax relief. A package centered around young forward J.J. Hickson and center Zydrunas Ilgauskas, who received most of his salary up front this season, could get Phoenix out of luxury tax territory.

Trading with Philadelphia could get the Suns more help right away, perhaps someone like Andre Iguodala, Marreese Speights or even Detroit's Ben Gordon if a third team gets involved."

vnzla81
02-09-2010, 02:23 PM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/30787



Frank (Cleveland)


Recent chatter says the Cavs stay pat at the deadline unless something blows them away... do they need to make that move to take the 'ship?

Chad Ford (1:25 PM)


I don't believe it. I think that's classic posturing at the deadline. Washington and Indiana are asking for A LOT for Jamison and Troy Murphy. I think this is Cleveland's way of saying "If you keep asking for so much, we may not do anything." Problem is, no one believes it. Danny Ferry has been pretty aggressive the past few weeks. They really want to add a stretch four. I think the Cavs will cave and do something. Given Washington's reluctance to trade Jamison, I think Troy Murphy is the most likely candidate.

Will Galen
02-09-2010, 02:55 PM
I'm not either, which depresses me. We should have pulled the trigger already.

The best deals go down at the last moment. I'm glad they haven't made a trade yet. Especial the one where posters were wanting to trade Troy for Z straight up. Bad trade!

Bball
02-09-2010, 03:45 PM
The best deals go down at the last moment. I'm glad they haven't made a trade yet. Especial the one where posters were wanting to trade Troy for Z straight up. Bad trade!

It depends on who is in the driver's seat. The best deal at the last minute might win... but if you're not offering the best deal to begin with then you're not going to win by waiting it out.

Naptown_Seth
02-09-2010, 04:01 PM
I'm not either, which depresses me. We should have pulled the trigger already.
Per my GSW rants, I disagree in the sense of "must be done now". I'm fine to have a midnight deal worked out. Be smart about what you are trying to do...but not too smart. ;)

However in the sense of "seems like it would have happened already", I do kind of agree there.


But let's all recall the "never gonna happen" Harrington deal. The Pacers now are the Hawks then. The Hawks waited and waited and in the end they got plenty, even though Indy was the only team that could make that situation work.



Will, I don't think anyone said ONLY Z. I think what was said was a pick in addition at least. I really think people are reading too much into the Powe or Hickson impact. Not that they can't play, but them not being a Pacer has minimal long term big winning impact. As we know all too well, it's not that tough finding bench role player types.

Maybe one of them is later used to spice up another trade perhaps, but much more than that? Seems unlikely.

McKeyFan
02-09-2010, 04:06 PM
I'm still hopeful. The Cavs have to finalize in their minds that Jamison is out before they can get serious about Murph.

And, hopefully, the Jamison thing is fading fast.