PDA

View Full Version : Pacers Talks With Cavaliers, Kings Appear Quiet



90'sNBARocked
02-17-2010, 04:38 PM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/2/17/1313780/pacers-news


The rumors involving the Indiana Pacers in general and Troy Murphy in particular have become faint, though. Today's links have plenty of updates but include scarce mention of the Pacers.

Cleveland appears focused on Amare Stoudemire and then Antawn Jamison for their power forward needs. Other reports have Corey Maggette and the third choice for the Cavs as a last resort should a deal for either Stoudemire or Jamison fail to materialize.

There are no updates out of Sacramento on their interest in Troy Murphy and Milwaukee has pulled away from negotiation, apparently over the Pacers refusal to take on Charlie Bell's contract which has two years remaining after this season. I imagine, there's a similar story in negotiations with the Kings and Beno Udrih's contract which is more onerous than Bell's with three more years and about twice the money.


Not suprising as expected, much to do about nothing

I remember Tom saying though it will be harder to trade Murphy/Dunleavy/Ford next year

I hope LB didnt overplay his hand

Trophy
02-17-2010, 04:43 PM
Speak up SAC!

MillerTime
02-17-2010, 04:46 PM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/2/17/1313780/pacers-news




Not suprising as expected, much to do about nothing

I remember Tom saying though it will be harder to trade Murphy/Dunleavy/Ford next year

I hope LB didnt overplay his hand

WHy would it be harder to trade those player next season? Next season is there last year under contract. I would imagine it be much easier to trade them

CableKC
02-17-2010, 04:55 PM
http://www.indycornrows.com/2010/2/17/1313780/pacers-news
Not suprising as expected, much to do about nothing

I remember Tom saying though it will be harder to trade Murphy/Dunleavy/Ford next year

I hope LB didnt overplay his hand
Overplaying our hand with the Cavs? Likely...but I don't think it would have made a difference with them.

I seriously think that that even if Bird first said that they'd do a straight SalaryDump for Murphy with Z at the beginning of the process that the Cavs would have responded with a "sounds interesting...let me get back to you after I make a few calls to some other Teams" response.

Murphy would have been the "defcon 1" option for the Cavs. The fact that the Cavs have been looking everywhere for any other trade before they even consider a deal with Murphy tells you something.

As for overplaying the Pacers hand with other Teams like the Kings or the Bucks? IMHO, very likely....the Pacers asked for too much. Everyone knows that if we don't make a move now for a Salary Dump for one of the Big4 Contracts that we'd be majorly screwed next season....that's why no one wanted to give us more than what we really needed....an Expiring Contract.

CableKC
02-17-2010, 05:02 PM
WHy would it be harder to trade those player next season? Next season is there last year under contract. I would imagine it be much easier to trade them
The problem isn't how easy it would be to move them if we wait til next season...the problem is how much we'd have to give up ( assets and/or future Capspace ) in order to move them.

Teams willing to give up some asset to us usualy are over the LT. Teams over the LT know that they have to give up something in order to get out from under the LT threshold......the problem is that the Pacers WILL BE over the LT in 2010-2011...which means that it's going to be harder to get something of value for our Expiring Contracts....especially if everyone knows that we have no choice but to move them or the Simons end up paying the LT ( something we know they don't want to do ).

tadscout
02-17-2010, 05:09 PM
As for overplaying the Pacers hand with other Teams like the Kings or the Bucks? IMHO, very likely....the Pacers asked for too much. Everyone knows that if we don't make a move now for a Salary Dump for one of the Big4 Contracts that we'd be majorly screwed next season....that's why no one wanted to give us more than what we really needed....an Expiring Contract.

I'm sorry they are both asking asking us to take on a bad contract to make a trade... in which would but a dent into our 2011 plan...

I'm sorry but I'm sure LB and Simon would rather take a gamble where the luxury tax will be this offseason (since no one and their mother has any idea where it'll be)... than hurting/ delaying the rebuild process even more.

In the situation we are in you keep the players we have unless we get value back and doesn't hurt our future plans... it's stupid to make a move to just make a move.. or trading b/c of a possibility of LT problems, and in doing so you screw over your future plans...

Not everything is about money... it has to make basketball sense too. We can't survive operating with a Clippers mentality in Indiana.

MillerTime
02-17-2010, 05:22 PM
The problem isn't how easy it would be to move them if we wait til next season...the problem is how much we'd have to give up ( assets and/or future Capspace ) in order to move them.

Teams willing to give up some asset to us usualy are over the LT. Teams over the LT know that they have to give up something in order to get out from under the LT threshold......the problem is that the Pacers WILL BE over the LT in 2010-2011...which means that it's going to be harder to get something of value for our Expiring Contracts....especially if everyone knows that we have no choice but to move them or the Simons end up paying the LT ( something we know they don't want to do ).

Im sure we could land someone like Okafor for an expiring contract. Or do you guys feel we would have to give up some more assets. Bobcatz basically traded Okafor for a smaller (in length) contract

CableKC
02-17-2010, 05:43 PM
I'm sorry they are both asking asking us to take on a bad contract to make a trade... in which would but a dent into our 2011 plan...

I'm sorry but I'm sure LB and Simon would rather take a gamble where the luxury tax will be this offseason (since no one and their mother has any idea where it'll be)... than hurting/ delaying the rebuild process even more.

In the situation we are in you keep the players we have unless we get value back and doesn't hurt our future plans... it's stupid to make a move to just make a move.. or trading b/c of a possibility of LT problems, and in doing so you screw over your future plans...

Not everything is about money... it has to make basketball sense too. We can't survive operating with a Clippers mentality in Indiana.
I know that I'm not going to convince you or anyone else that thinks that it's okay to "stand pat".....so I'm not going to even try. We'll just agree to disagree and see what happens.

PacerGuy
02-17-2010, 05:50 PM
IMO is should be EASIER to move those guys n/y!
Why?

Now granted there will be no LeBron - Bosh - Wade franchise changers n/y (excluding Durant), but there WILL be an "Expiring CBA".
The NBA is pushing hard for contracts that are more "League Friendly/Team Friendly" in their construction (less money, less years, less guarentee). Any previously signed contract will be "grand-fathered in", while all new contracts for '11-'12 & beyond will be under this new "friendlier" format. So, IMO EVERY team would rather have players signed to a "post-new CBA" construction - especially all the smaller marker teams (like Us).
That said, if we were willing to take on a contract of a very good player under the current system, in exchange for an expiring player, how would that be "Harder" to trade? IMO is will be substancially "Easier"!

IMO I'm not too sure it would not be smart to have a team w/ all new CBA by letting our current cap-eaters (Murph, Dun, TJ, Foster, + Tin's buyout) all just expire w/o adding any "current CBA" deals, unless of course it's an offer we just can't pass up. This is why I'm not going to freak-out if we end up doing little-to-nothing.
(I just want Murph traded do to the no-court opportunities of others it could provide.)

90'sNBARocked
02-17-2010, 05:52 PM
WHy would it be harder to trade those player next season? Next season is there last year under contract. I would imagine it be much easier to trade them

Well I believe Tom made the quote in the Murphy update thread, I willl have to research where exactly it was though

tadscout
02-17-2010, 06:17 PM
I know that I'm not going to convince you or anyone else that thinks that it's okay to "stand pat".....so I'm not going to even try. We'll just agree to disagree and see what happens.

I'm not saying I'm hoping we do nothing... I'm just saying I hope we don't do anything desperate or stupid.

There is a difference.

Now that I'm clarified I'll stop there... and agree to disagree...

Pacemaker
02-17-2010, 06:44 PM
I admit I have no knowledge on this matter but isn't our 2011 plan flawed ? I heard people say that the 2011 free agent class will try to address their free agent status sooner than later because of the repercussions of a possible NBA Labor Dispute. Will there be someone amicable when we finally have the money ??? :confused:


I'm sorry they are both asking asking us to take on a bad contract to make a trade... in which would but a dent into our 2011 plan...

I'm sorry but I'm sure LB and Simon would rather take a gamble where the luxury tax will be this offseason (since no one and their mother has any idea where it'll be)... than hurting/ delaying the rebuild process even more.

In the situation we are in you keep the players we have unless we get value back and doesn't hurt our future plans... it's stupid to make a move to just make a move.. or trading b/c of a possibility of LT problems, and in doing so you screw over your future plans...

Not everything is about money... it has to make basketball sense too. We can't survive operating with a Clippers mentality in Indiana.

tadscout
02-17-2010, 06:53 PM
I admit I have no knowledge on this matter but isn't our 2011 plan flawed ? I heard people say that the 2011 free agent class will try to address their free agent status sooner than later because of the repercussions of a possible NBA Labor Dispute. Will there be someone amicable when we finally have the money ??? :confused:

My understanding is if the owners get any kind of player pay reduction in the new CBA like they want... it will only help our 2011 plan... no matter who is available (b/c you can always make trades w/ capspace)... but point being we would be one of the most financially better off teams under the new CBA and be able to be the most flexible in transactions when it comes to signings and trades...

owl
02-17-2010, 06:59 PM
Frankly, what I see is the Pacers just letting all the bad contracts expire and see where
the CBA is at after that. With the same set up next year we are very likely to be a high
lottery pick team again.

90'sNBARocked
02-17-2010, 07:10 PM
Frankly, what I see is the Pacers just letting all the bad contracts expire and see where
the CBA is at after that. With the same set up next year we are very likely to be a high
lottery pick team again.

But knowing our luck, they will lockout after the 2010-2011 season, therby freezing us from making moves