PDA

View Full Version : No Deals for the Pacers - Jim O'Brien



1984
02-18-2010, 08:59 AM
"I think as much as every team in the league wants to do some things to improve your basketball team, it just seems that it's very difficult to make deals and everybody wants to improve their basketball team, but when we go to New Orleans this will be the group we will have," O'Brien said.
- Indianapolis Star (Source)

Cheers.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 09:29 AM
Why the h*ll is it always JOB opening his mouth about possible trades? Most coaches usually STFU during this time period. It makes you wonder if he's the one causing some of these trades to fall through. Bird needs to tell JOB to STFU on trade situations. If you don't know then STFU. If you're not involved in the process then STFU. That's why I'm so frustrated. All these trade rumors surrounding Troy Murphy, and JOB keeps telling the media that no one will be traded. Trade deadline passes and ALL the teams that Indiana was rumored to be dealing with make other moves. Were all the rumors smoke screens for the fans????

Please JOB, STFU for the rest of the season.

Shade
02-18-2010, 10:25 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

count55
02-18-2010, 10:31 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

You're going to be sorely disappointed.

NapTonius Monk
02-18-2010, 10:35 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

Yeah

Shade
02-18-2010, 10:37 AM
You're going to be sorely disappointed.

It wouldn't be the first time. :(

Next season will tell us all we need to know about Larry's ability to do this job.

Pacemaker
02-18-2010, 10:46 AM
You're going to be sorely disappointed.

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 ???

graphic-er
02-18-2010, 11:25 AM
4 expirings will not buy 2 all-stars in 2011 because the cap will be lower than it will be next season. You could see a sub 50million cap in 2011, because the owners are clamoring to save money. One of those expiring's should have been used this year to get us under the cap and to get us some younger assets.

focused444
02-18-2010, 11:32 AM
Why the h*ll is it always JOB opening his mouth about possible trades? Most coaches usually STFU during this time period. It makes you wonder if he's the one causing some of these trades to fall through. Bird needs to tell JOB to STFU on trade situations. If you don't know then STFU. If you're not involved in the process then STFU. That's why I'm so frustrated. All these trade rumors surrounding Troy Murphy, and JOB keeps telling the media that no one will be traded. Trade deadline passes and ALL the teams that Indiana was rumored to be dealing with make other moves. Were all the rumors smoke screens for the fans????

Please JOB, STFU for the rest of the season.

At first I thought you may have overreacted. Then I realized how if I were a GM on any team in any sport, one of my strict rules would be for the coach to be as minimalistic as possible when commenting on trades. Pretty solid point.

focused444
02-18-2010, 11:34 AM
4 expirings will not buy 2 all-stars in 2011 because the cap will be lower than it will be next season. You could see a sub 50million cap in 2011, because the owners are clamoring to save money. One of those expiring's should have been used this year to get us under the cap and to get us some younger assets.

Is it four or five

Murph
Dun
Foster
Ford

Tinsley???

graphic-er
02-18-2010, 11:37 AM
Is it four or five

Murph
Dun
Foster
Ford

Tinsley???

Not sure about that, but regardless, bringing in 2 all-stars in 2011 is going to put the Pacers over the Cap and into Lux Tax. Simon isn't going there.

wintermute
02-18-2010, 11:39 AM
tinsley can't be traded.

too bad the wizards imploded this year instead of next year. oh well.

DaveP63
02-18-2010, 11:40 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of B-List players, if we play our cards right.

Fixed;)

90'sNBARocked
02-18-2010, 11:42 AM
I got to say this is by far and away the most depressing season I have had as a Pacer fan.

Every freakin year before the deadline, we just never , ever pull the trigger

So bird doesnt pull a trade, he better damn well make use o thos expirings next year to bring in a top talent

I am so depressed right now I am speechless

I can not think of 1 reason to watch the Pacers right now

why? To see Jim Obrien continue to try and seek out wins that only put us farther away from a good draft choice?

Washington is now on a better track than the Pacers

How the fk does Obie have a job?

Why does Bird keep saying this patience crap? How much of a fool does he think we are? The 3 year plan is what again?

Oh thats right 3 years of mediocrity, 3 years of losing, 3 years of signing journeyman to overpaid contracts then telling the fans "were building a team"

sorry to be so emotional but I cant deal with this , it is extreemly depressing to know the team you love and root for will not even be a playoff contender in the next 5 years

Naptown_Seth
02-18-2010, 11:44 AM
The one odd thing out there is the Bucks have got Warrick held back from another deal because they have an unknown one that might be pending that would require him to be used.

Murphy for Warrick (final year though) and Gadz (1 more year, but less cost than Troy) works. Pacers would be asking at least for Warrick as payment for so severely upgrading Gadz like that. Pacers would probably be talking a pick as well. Pacers benefit is Warrick could come off the cap which basically slips them under the lux tax limit while still leaving them with a slightly reduced expiring with Gadz deal.

Unless you think Troy is carrying the team to someplace special or can for certain be turned into something great next FEB, this isn't a crazy deal. It's the kind of deal you do when money is tight and you aren't winning anyway.

You barely lose anything in the "valuable expiring contracts" area thanks to Gadz. You just don't have Troy playing for you which hasn't exactly been helping anyway, at least in terms of W-L.

90'sNBARocked
02-18-2010, 11:49 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

Great point shade

BUT

after all that has gone on, do you really have faith in Bird and company that they will no how to proceed with the big 3 expiring contracts?

To me they have shown that they have no clue on how to build a team so I see us having massive cap space and Bird and Co make poor descisions again

what have they done in the last 3 years to make us believe they will handle thsi challenge well?

90'sNBARocked
02-18-2010, 11:50 AM
It wouldn't be the first time. :(

Next season will tell us all we need to know about Larry's ability to do this job.

shade,

not callin ya out bro but

dont you kinda know about Birds ability to do the job already?

focused444
02-18-2010, 11:51 AM
Not sure about that, but regardless, bringing in 2 all-stars in 2011 is going to put the Pacers over the Cap and into Lux Tax. Simon isn't going there.

I didn't think bird was going there either. I never heard any talk of 2 all stars. I thought it was more like get another all star to play along 2008-09 Granger, most likely via trade, then fill out the roster. All while hoping the younger guys improve.

I think your estimation of the cap dipping below 50 mil is a little low, but if you have some info on that I would be interested. I do try to keep up with this stuff.

count55
02-18-2010, 11:52 AM
The one odd thing out there is the Bucks have got Warrick held back from another deal because they have an unknown one that might be pending that would require him to be used.

Murphy for Warrick (final year though) and Gadz (1 more year, but less cost than Troy) works. Pacers would be asking at least for Warrick as payment for so severely upgrading Gadz like that. Pacers would probably be talking a pick as well. Pacers benefit is Warrick could come off the cap which basically slips them under the lux tax limit while still leaving them with a slightly reduced expiring with Gadz deal.

Unless you think Troy is carrying the team to someplace special or can for certain be turned into something great next FEB, this isn't a crazy deal. It's the kind of deal you do when money is tight and you aren't winning anyway.

You barely lose anything in the "valuable expiring contracts" area thanks to Gadz. You just don't have Troy playing for you which hasn't exactly been helping anyway, at least in terms of W-L.

Yeah, the Salmons deal details are up in the air (it's going to happen, it's just unclear as to whether it will be Warrick/Alexander or Thomas/Elson) because of some other trade that may or may not have fizzled last night.

I have to believe it's the Murphy deal, but I wouldn't take back Gadz unless I'm getting 'Sova.

In other words, I'd probably say, "No" to Warrick/Gadz, even though it might get us under the tax (which is no guarantee). I'm pretty sure that Bird will as well.


I'd prefer something along the lines of Ridnour/'Sova/Alexander (or Elson or Thomas). Clears the salary, we get a young prospect (a good one, too), and we could probably re-sign Ridnour for a discount next year.

count55
02-18-2010, 11:55 AM
I didn't think bird was going there either. I never heard any talk of 2 all stars. I thought it was more like get another all star to play along 2008-09 Granger ,most likely via trade, then fill out the roster. All while hoping the younger guys improve.

I think your estimation of the cap dipping below 50 mil is a little low, but if you have some info on that I would be interested. I do try to keep up with this stuff.

50 mil is the worst case scenario under the current CBA, but the owners want to reduce the percent of BRI that the salaries get, which would further reduce future salary caps.

the jaddler
02-18-2010, 11:59 AM
sad face

pwee31
02-18-2010, 12:04 PM
It's always good to have 4 hours left before the deadline, and be 18-35, yet already know you're not moving anyone.

At least keep the opportunity open. What are we just answering the phone now and saying NOPE, or do you just stop answering the phone altogether

count55
02-18-2010, 12:15 PM
It's always good to have 4 hours left before the deadline, and be 18-35, yet already know you're not moving anyone.

At least keep the opportunity open. What are we just answering the phone now and saying NOPE, or do you just stop answering the phone altogether

C'mon, now. Bird and Morway have probably told O'Brien that there was probably not going to be a trade, and that they were not going to hold anyone off of last night's flight to New Orleans.

Of course, they're answering the phones today, and if a deal is struck, they'll call New Orleans and tell them to keep that player out of the game and at the hotel, just as Chicago did with Salmons last night.

Obie's comments were simply an answer to a question, and they will have no bearing whatsoever on whether a deal gets done today or not. Now, if the NBA were a 13-year old girl's slumber party, then I could see an opposing GM maybe locking themselves in the bathroom over the quote, but, otherwise...

HOOPFANATIC
02-18-2010, 12:20 PM
unless I'm getting 'Sova.

In other words, I'd probably say, "No" to Warrick/Gadz, even though it might get us under the tax (which is no guarantee). I'm pretty sure that Bird will as well.

.

I feel it would be a poor business decision to say no to a trade like this. You are gettting two virtually uknown players, to anyone thats not an insider, who may be motivated to produce. Also it would give the media outlets something to hype, possibly sparking some added attendance.

Maybe they don't want people to come to the games so when they move the team they have something to blame it on.:devil:

wintermute
02-18-2010, 12:22 PM
not sure if this has been posted in one of the other murphy threads, but one of the bucks' beat writers thinks that a murphy trade could still go down:

http://my.journaltimes.com/post/woelfel-world-of-sports/bucks_set_to_send_warrick_alexander_to_bulls_for_s almons.html



Bucks set to send Warrick, Alexander to Bulls for Salmons

Posted by: gwoelfel on February 17, 2010 at 11:47PM CST

GERY WOELFEL

This much we know for sure:

Sometime Thursday, the Milwaukee Bucks will have a new shooting guard in John Salmons.

What we don't definitively know is what the Bucks will be giving up to the Bulls for Salmons.

Early Wednesday night, a myriad of reports had the Bucks sending veterans Kurt Thomas and Francisco Elson to the Chicago Bulls, who are trying desperately to clear salary-cap space in an attempt to land a blue-chip free agent this summer, presumably Toronto star forward Chris Bosh.

But later Wednesday evening, other reports surfaced the Bucks were going to send Hakim Warrick and Elson to Chicago.

About a hour ago, though, I was told by reliable sources the Bucks would likely send Warrick and young forward Joe Alexander to the Bulls.

Warrick didn't play Wednesday night against the Houston Rockets and, after the game, he acknowledged that he had heard earlier in the day he might be traded to Chicago. Alexander, who is currently playing for the Fort Wayne (Ind.) Mad Ants in the D-League, couldn't be reached for comment.

The combined contracts of Warrick ($3 million) and Alexander ($2.58M) is $5.58M -- or virtually the same as Salmons' $5.8 million contract.

If the Bucks do move Alexander and Warrick to the Bulls, as expected, it would enable them to pursue another deal, one most likely involving Thomas.

The Bucks have been extremely active in trade talks the last two weeks and have explored deals with the New York Knicks and Indiana Pacers.

With the latter team, the Bucks were hoping to lure away veteran big man Troy Murphy. I've been told the Pacers, who are ready to go into a rebuilding mode, are still receptive to dealing Murphy to the Bucks.

But the Bucks, who had been somewhat reluctant to take on Murphy's $12 million contract for next season, are even less likely now with the impending arrival of Salmons.


the thing is, with salmons adding almost $6m to the bucks' payroll next season, they almost certainly will hit the luxury tax if they obtain murphy as well, UNLESS they send out gadz in the trade. so the bucks' proposal to us must include gadz. the question for us is, who are the other players, and is it worth our while to avoid the tax early. the difference of the contracts of murphy and gadz ($12m - $7m = $5m), should get us below the tax, but not comfortably.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 01:28 PM
At first I thought you may have overreacted. Then I realized how if I were a GM on any team in any sport, one of my strict rules would be for the coach to be as minimalistic as possible when commenting on trades. Pretty solid point.

I did overreact a tad bit (maybe), but I'm really racking my brain to remember if any other coach spoke about possible trades as often (if at all) as JOB did.

able
02-18-2010, 01:46 PM
It wouldn't be the first time. :(

Next season will tell us all we need to know about Larry's ability to do this job.


U sure about next season or will it be the next season ?

I personally have passed that stage for some time, LB is an idiot in that position, the sooner he leaves the sooner we can start a real 3 or 5 year plan to recovery, the path we are on now has not even a simmer at the end of the tunnel

d_c
02-18-2010, 01:55 PM
Is it four or five

Murph
Dun
Foster
Ford

Tinsley???

Tinsley is still being paid and counts against the cap, but a player who has been bought out can't be traded and neither can his contract.

nerveghost
02-18-2010, 01:55 PM
I'm happy with no deal - the best move is patience here. Why make a move for the sake of making a move. Anything they do has to benefit the team in the long term, not the short term. Unless they can get draft picks or a young player, there is no reason to make a deal.

I'm liking the Pacers strategy here - high draft pick this year, probably next year - and then in a position to make a move. Posters here have argued in favor of hitting bottom to get better - well, that's what is happening, so we, as fans, need to have patience. This year is the beginning, the first step in a positive direction. Things are grim now, but just think of the possibilities - top 4 draft pick, a handful of young players and assets already on the roster, big contracts to expire. There is a lot to be positive about.

If you were someone that was in favor of losing and hitting rock bottom, you shouldn't be complaining now.

d_c
02-18-2010, 01:58 PM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

You have a shot at a high lottery pick, but this year is sort of a good indicator of what large expiring contracts bring back: A 33 year old Antawn Jamison and Kevin Martin. And Houston had to attach a decent asset (Landry) going back the other way to get Martin.

Ultimately, a large expiring (Big Z) and a decent but not great prospect (Hickson) were not enough to land someone like Amare. I never got the feeling that deal was really going to happen.

Speed
02-18-2010, 02:00 PM
The Pacers need to really hit big on the next two drafts. Should be top 7 this year and that needs to become a starting caliber player for this whole thing to have a chance to work, imo.

graphic-er
02-18-2010, 02:46 PM
Only one player remains in the way of the Pacers getting a good shot at Wall, and thats Devin Harris! If Harris can't get his head together and realized that he is about to be replaced, and his career is gonna take a huge it from that. Then he'll start reeling off wins there in NJ.

HOOPFANATIC
02-18-2010, 03:03 PM
"Wiki"
Since the weighted lottery system introduced in 1990, only three teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery.

Don't like them odds!!!

odeez
02-18-2010, 03:08 PM
Thanks for the good news JOB! :cry: :mad: :censored:

nerveghost
02-18-2010, 04:18 PM
"Wiki"
Since the weighted lottery system introduced in 1990, only three teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery.

Don't like them odds!!!

Actually, those are good odds for us - i don't think we'll be among the worst 2 teams.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 09:29 PM
"Wiki"
Since the weighted lottery system introduced in 1990, only three teams with the worst record went on to win the lottery while only four teams with the second-worst record have won the lottery.

Don't like them odds!!!

Actually, those are good odds. That means the Top pick went to a team who didn't have the worse or 2nd worse record 12 other times. I wonder how often teams "changed" positions.

d_c
02-18-2010, 09:43 PM
Actually, those are good odds. That means the Top pick went to a team who didn't have the worse or 2nd worse record 12 other times. I wonder how often teams "changed" positions.

It was a bit of a misprint. Orlando in 1993 is the only team with the worst odds to have "WON" the lottery. There were 2 other instances where the team with the worst odds got a #2 or #3 pick (I believe Charlotte in 1999 got the #3 pick). I think that's the statement they were actually trying to make.

In addition, after Orlando won in 1993, the league reweighted the odds to further reduce the chance of another occurence of that happening. They basically took lotto balls away from teams with better records.

Finally, you have a lower chance as the team with best record to win the lotto compared to 1993 because there are now more teams in the league, which means more teams in the lottery. In 1993, there were only 11 teams in the lottery (Orlando being 11th worst). Now there are 14 teams, so your chances of winning with the worst odds are far slimmer than they used to be.

Naptown_Seth
02-18-2010, 09:47 PM
Since I'd rather have Turner than Wall, I see "winning" as hitting for either of the top 2 spots.

I wish I thought Cousins wouldn't kill 3 people at Club Rio in 2012, he'd be great to add though he's duplicating Roy's role. This is one reason why I favor Patterson who is far more a true PF type that can play off a post up center.

If only there were a way to also add a pick for Robinson. He'd be great as Danny's backup. You add Turner and Robinson in one draft, that's getting better in a hurry in terms of talent.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 09:55 PM
It was a bit of a misprint. Orlando in 1993 is the only team with the worst odds to have "WON" the lottery. There were 2 other instances where the team with the worst odds got a #2 or #3 pick (I believe Charlotte in 1999 got the #3 pick). I think that's the statement they were actually trying to make.

In addition, after Orlando won in 1993, the league reweighted the odds to further reduce the chance of another occurence of that happening. They basically took lotto balls away from teams with better records.

Finally, you have a lower chance as the team with best record to win the lotto compared to 1993 because there are now more teams in the league, which means more teams in the lottery. In 1993, there were only 11 teams in the lottery (Orlando being 11th worst). Now there are 14 teams, so your chances of winning with the worst odds are far slimmer than they used to be.

It would be Indiana's luck to slide from a Top 8 pick to the 14th...

d_c
02-18-2010, 09:59 PM
It would be Indiana's luck to slide from a Top 8 pick to the 14th...

That's impossible.

The lottery is only the lottery for the top 3 spots. The #4-14 simply goes by order of record.

So if you have the 8th worst record, it's possible (though very unlikely) that 3 teams with better records than you will "win" a Top 3 pick. And in that case, you will be picking #11.

So if you have the 8th worst record, the only possible positions your pick will be at is #1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10 or #11. It's completely impossible for you to get a pick at any other position.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 10:30 PM
That's impossible.

The lottery is only the lottery for the top 3 spots. The #4-14 simply goes by order of record.

So if you have the 8th worst record, it's possible (though very unlikely) that 3 teams with better records than you will "win" a Top 3 pick. And in that case, you will be picking #11.

So if you have the 8th worst record, the only possible positions your pick will be at is #1, #2, #3, #8, #9, #10 or #11. It's completely impossible for you to get a pick at any other position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Lottery

If there's a mathematical chance, then anything is possible. Basically, they use a redundancy method in determining drafting positions. They pick balls to determine the # 1 spot then scratch Team A off the list. Next, they pick balls again to determine the # 2 spot, then scratch Team B off the list, and so on.

My comment about getting the 14th pick was a sarcastic statement not meant to be taken seriously. If it makes you happy, then let's rally for the 11th pick to make the possibility of the 14th pick possible.

d_c
02-18-2010, 10:34 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Lottery

If there's a mathematical chance, then anything is possible. Basically, they use a redundancy method in determining drafting positions. They pick balls to determine the # 1 spot then scratch Team A off the list. Next, they pick balls again to determine the # 2 spot, then scratch Team B off the list, and so on.

There is no mathetmatical chance. None. Zero.

They pick balls to determine the #1 spot, then the #2 spot, then the #3 spot......and then that's it. They stop. The actual lottery is only a contest to see who gets top 3 picks.

After the top 3 is determined, then #4-14 just goes in order of team record of the teams that didn't get a top 3 pick.

From the link you posted:


When the first three teams have been determined, the remaining picks are given out based on regular season record with the worst teams getting the highest picks. This assures each team that it can drop no more than three spots from its projected draft position.

ksuttonjr76
02-18-2010, 10:45 PM
There is no mathetmatical chance. None. Zero.

They pick balls to determine the #1 spot, then the #2 spot, then the #3 spot......and then that's it. They stop. The actual lottery is only a contest to see who gets top 3 picks.

After the top 3 is determined, then #4-14 just goes in order of team record of the teams that didn't get a top 3 pick.

From the link you posted:

Calm your nerves, man. Not every comment I make needs an in-depth analysis. Would it make you happy if I start using green font?

d_c
02-19-2010, 01:54 AM
Calm your nerves, man. Not every comment I make needs an in-depth analysis. Would it make you happy if I start using green font?

You were the one talking about how they use a redundancy method, etc... You said in your own words that there was, in fact, a mathematical chance of landing such a pick with such a given record. That's incorrect.

I'm not hating or giving you a hard time and I'm not even going in depth. I just pulled an excerpt from the link that you provided. I'm just setting the record straight of how the lottery actually works.

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2010, 02:35 AM
I'm with D_C on this one. Sounded the same way to me.

And every year we have people talking about the lottery like all the spots are up for grabs when they aren't, so naturally he's going to step in when it sounds like that's being said again.



BTW, last year I think it was I pointed out that the odds of sliding down were actually higher than the odds of getting a top 3 pick. Maybe it was 2 years ago.

d_c
02-19-2010, 02:50 AM
I'm with D_C on this one. Sounded the same way to me.

And every year we have people talking about the lottery like all the spots are up for grabs when they aren't, so naturally he's going to step in when it sounds like that's being said again.

Thanks. Apologies to anyone if it seems like I came off like some prick, but the record needs to be set straight about stuff like that.

You are correct. Too many people think every spot is up for grabs in the lottery and it's like some big free for all. It's just not true.

The best example that can be given: It's totally impossible for the team with the 5th worst record to get the #4 pick. If you thought the lottery was some free for all, you would think that's an absurd statement to make, but it's not. The way the lottery works makes it is mathematically/logistically impossible for that outcome to occur.

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2010, 05:20 AM
You were the one talking about how they use a redundancy method, etc... You said in your own words that there was, in fact, a mathematical chance of landing such a pick with such a given record. That's incorrect.

I'm not hating or giving you a hard time and I'm not even going in depth. I just pulled an excerpt from the link that you provided. I'm just setting the record straight of how the lottery actually works.

I'll just start using the green font going forward. It's really not that deep, man.

Bball
02-19-2010, 07:09 AM
Pacer fans are going from being experts on the CBA wording about moral clauses and the like to being experts on the lottery system.

I'm not sure what this means.... Is it good or bad? ;)

Major Cold
02-19-2010, 08:36 AM
I want a good pick and I want player development. I am not willing to sacrifice player to development for a chance at a chance of getting a superstar. Play Price and the youth, but please do not sacrifice that to get a worse record.

d_c
02-19-2010, 09:28 AM
I'll just start using the green font going forward. It's really not that deep, man.

When it's not that deep, put your wikipedia links in green while you're at it.

FWIW, I'm not even trying to be deep, man. I'm just trying to be correct.

Tom White
02-19-2010, 10:30 AM
I'm actually fine with this. Puts us in better positioning for a high lottery pick this season, and sets us up with FOUR large expiring contracts to deal next season. We should be able to parlay that into at least a pair of All-Star caliber players, if we play our cards right.

Shade, I'm not calling you out or anything, but I would like for you to give some idea who you think those players and teams willing to trade those players might be.

I just don't see it. Who got traded this year that you would call all-star caliber?

Martin and Landry might have been two of the best, but they are not all-stars. So, shine up that crystal ball and tell me what you see.