PDA

View Full Version : Would you give next years first and Rush for a young PG?



pacers74
06-25-2010, 04:54 PM
Title says it all. Would you give next years first for our new PG?
I would do it.

microwave_oven
06-25-2010, 04:56 PM
John Wall, yes. Eric Maynor, no.

What caliber of "young PG" are you referring to?

Coop
06-25-2010, 04:56 PM
Assuming the PG is an established player that would be here for 5+ years and could get us to the playoffs next year, yes. If we plan on having another sub-par year waiting for players to develop, I'd rather have the lottery pick next year. It all depends on who the PG is.

BornReady
06-25-2010, 04:57 PM
depends on the pg

pacers74
06-25-2010, 04:57 PM
Collison, Hill, Lawson type PG.

tadscout
06-25-2010, 04:58 PM
A young, starting caliber PG yes... and the pick is a lottery protected 1st.

Psyren
06-25-2010, 04:59 PM
It depends what young point guard you're talking about.

Clarify who you had in mind, if you will :D

pacers74
06-25-2010, 05:03 PM
I am talking about the guys we have tried to get already. Collison, Hill, Flynn are a yes for me. Maynor probably not.

Psyren
06-25-2010, 05:05 PM
I am talking about the guys we have tried to get already. Collison, Hill, Flynn are a yes for me. Maynor probably not.
Collison: Yes
Flynn: Yes
Hill: Not with next years 1st. I would for just Rush or Rush + Filler/Expirer
Maynor: No

Anthem
06-25-2010, 05:06 PM
Young PG, huh? I hear Acie Law is available.

OakMoses
06-25-2010, 05:07 PM
I don't think any of those players represent a significant talent upgrade over Rush.

MaHa3000
06-25-2010, 05:07 PM
No....
Rush straight up for a Hill, Lawson, Collison ...then yes.
Heck, our fist pick next year may be better then any of those.
I think we might be overrating these guys because we need a pg so bad.
imo

OakMoses
06-25-2010, 05:08 PM
Young PG, huh? I hear Acie Law is available.

Marcus Williams too.

pacers74
06-25-2010, 05:10 PM
Bird says he is trying to win now. That means he would give up next years pick for someone to help him when now, right?

pacers74
06-25-2010, 05:12 PM
Hey, I was mad when Atlanta took our future all-star PG in Law.:laugh:

Coop
06-25-2010, 05:14 PM
For Collison, Flynn, Maynor -- No

For Parker, Paul -- Yes. I would even add more to the trade for these two.

trailrunner
06-25-2010, 05:16 PM
Collison, Hill, Lawson type PG.

No, we can get this caliber PG by trading Rush and/or Ford or Murphy. Which is what I hope the Pacers plan is.

pacers74
06-25-2010, 05:17 PM
No, we can get this caliber PG by trading Rush and/or Ford or Murphy. Which is what I hope the Pacers plan is.


I hope you are right!

jeffg-body
06-25-2010, 05:19 PM
Yes, if it were for a sure fire upgrade, not Hill, Maynor or Flynn.

ESutt7
06-25-2010, 05:19 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't add the pick. No guarantee we make the playoffs at all. And next year's draft may be really good. I'd like to move the expirings more than Rush personally, but if we get a good enough PG I'd add Rush.

IndyPacer
06-25-2010, 05:22 PM
Bird says he is trying to win now. That means he would give up next years pick for someone to help him when now, right?

I hope not. Not getting back equal value for a short term fix could set us back a few years long term. But fortunately it looks like he's not willing to give up too much in a desperation move. I'd be willing to make an equal value trade for someone like Collison, but if we have to overpay, I'm OK with signing a decent vet until we can upgrade through future drafts.

Bird will take plenty of criticsm from the public for "not getting it done" after talking to several teams and not coming away with a PG, but I personally praise him for not getting desperate and screwing up the core of young players we have. Granger, Hibbert, George, Rush, and Price are all pretty nice players for the future. I'm not ruling out Hansbrough, either, because in essense he's basically still a rookie because of all the time he missed. McRoberts also made some big strides.

I think we have a better group of players than we think because they've been playing in system that doesn't fit most of them. Does anyone other than JOB really think Hibbert is going to maximize his potential in a system that emphasizes 3-point shooting and small ball? Or Rush who should be a catch and shoot guy and a defensive specialist when our PF Murphy is the one taking the outside shots?

Magic P
06-25-2010, 05:23 PM
I'd only give up a first for a Paul-Rondo type player.

ChicagoJ
06-25-2010, 05:27 PM
We give up Rush we're going to need to get a starting SG in return. George and Stephenson may have "upside potential" but I don't hear anybody arguing that they are as NBA-ready as Rush/ Hibbert (who were not consistent starters as rookies.)

If our starting lineup next season is PG-TBD/ Stephenson/ Granger/ George/ Hibbert we will get a top-four lottery pick. Maybe even higher.

Maybe that's a good thing overall. But in the short-run?

Shawne#4
06-25-2010, 05:28 PM
I'm not sure whether or not most of those PG's are that much better than a healthy A.J. Price, at least enough to warrant giving up Rush and a potential lottery pick. Honestly, the only "available" point guard I would trade for in this scenario is Collison.

ChicagoJ
06-25-2010, 05:29 PM
Bird says he is trying to win now. That means he would give up next years pick for someone to help him when now, right?

If that were really true, don't you think he would have drafted NBA-ready players, not "upside potential" players.

pacers74
06-25-2010, 05:40 PM
I really do hope Bird holds out for the best deal. I just hope he doesn't hold out to long and miss out on something, also.

This could be a long summer of waiting.

1984
06-25-2010, 05:50 PM
Collison, Hill, Lawson type PG.

Collison and Lawson yes. However, Hill gives me concern. He is a good point guard on a fantastic team. Is he an NBA starter? That has to be proven. I'd trade Rush and Ford for Hill, but no more. On some level, I feel similar about Lawson. I am far more impressed by Collison. I watched both players play a lot of basketball, and I think Collison has a Darrel Armstrong-like game that would translate well into the Pacer's system.

Am I wrong if I say, "But I feel like it is all a pipe dream?" It seems like it has been 10 years since we had a quality point guard. Oh wait, it has been 10 years. Yikes.

idioteque
06-25-2010, 07:09 PM
Depends what next year's draft class looks like. I think we will be a late lottery team next year again and if the draft is going to have a lot of PG's, of course we wouldn't trade our pick.

maragin
06-25-2010, 07:20 PM
We give up Rush we're going to need to get a starting SG in return.

Starting SG? This (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2000/03/11/acc_men_ap/t1_dunleavy_ap-01.jpg) gentleman (http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gq7gNt8P0030/340x.jpg) would like to have a word (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4522911651_fec7b95534_o.jpg) with you.

Will Galen
06-25-2010, 07:45 PM
And next year's draft may be really good.

That's really doubtful.

With a possible lockout looming college players came out earlier than they wanted this year because they wanted paid. Next year kids will probably stay in school an extra year because of the fear of the same lockout.

Justin Tyme
06-25-2010, 08:18 PM
depends on the pg


The same.

Psyren
06-25-2010, 08:19 PM
Starting SG? This (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/college/news/2000/03/11/acc_men_ap/t1_dunleavy_ap-01.jpg) gentleman (http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gq7gNt8P0030/340x.jpg) would like to have a word (http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4522911651_fec7b95534_o.jpg) with you.
But that gentleman needs to stay healthy.

Justin Tyme
06-25-2010, 08:29 PM
There is always Felton, Blake, Duhon to consider. I know the thread said young PG, but still.

Kegboy
06-25-2010, 08:35 PM
Who's our coach this year?

Uh, no.

ESutt7
06-25-2010, 09:39 PM
That's really doubtful.

With a possible lockout looming college players came out earlier than they wanted this year because they wanted paid. Next year kids will probably stay in school an extra year because of the fear of the same lockout.

We'll see. I didn't think about that. I just know there were some hyped freshman PGs coming in. Let's hope there isn't a lockout...

Anthem
06-26-2010, 07:14 AM
I'm not sure whether or not most of those PG's are that much better than a healthy A.J. Price, at least enough to warrant giving up Rush and a potential lottery pick.
My fear as well.

LoneGranger33
06-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Just to say "no" in a different way - If we're going to give away a first-rounder, we better make sure the person we get back helps us make that pick relatively worthless. I don't think any of the rumored names - including Collison - does that.

I wouldn't have been terribly upset if we traded one of our expirings away for a two-year Hinrich stint. And I suppose we could still do that.

McKeyFan
06-26-2010, 11:19 AM
But that gentleman needs to stay healthy.

That gentleman needs to have his reverse lobotomy.

MLB007
06-26-2010, 02:30 PM
I am talking about the guys we have tried to get already. Collison, Hill, Flynn are a yes for me. Maynor probably not.

Hill is NOT a pg!!! He averaged .7 apg. Yes that's 7/10 of ONE assist per GAME.
How he gets mentioned with Collison and Flynn is beyond me :eek:

D-BONE
06-27-2010, 12:06 PM
If that were really true, don't you think he would have drafted NBA-ready players, not "upside potential" players.

What Bird obviously meant with the three-year plan was three-years for pre-rebuilding phase of undoing being held financial hostage by Murphleavy et al. From that point you figure there's an equilibrium to actually really try to build something.

Sure, we've put some pieces in place to build some momentum starting in year four (true rebuild ground level), but essentially in total it's more like a 5-6 year plan. Only way I can see that speeding up is if Bird pulls a blockbuster move on the level of bringing in a willing Tony Parker via S&T or similar. Don't necessarily think adding Collison and Okafor, for example, would advance us as much as a legit quality, experienced point. But it might indicate the continuation of the draft philosophy of stockpiling young potential types.

I'm bouncing off J's comment because I know he's said about the same thing before. But it's even clearer when you take into account him pointing out here the draft philosophy this year-much more along the lines of a traditional "rebuild" approach.

D-BONE
06-27-2010, 12:07 PM
Hill is NOT a pg!!! He averaged .7 apg. Yes that's 7/10 of ONE assist per GAME.
How he gets mentioned with Collison and Flynn is beyond me :eek:

If we're truly trying to fill the PG niche, I don't think Hill is an appropriate choice based on his strengths as a player. Unless we are supremely confident he can successfully develop the requisite PG attributes. I, for one, would be unable to make that assertion.

D-BONE
06-27-2010, 12:14 PM
I'm torn on this. I would be thrilled to add a better PG option, but who is both realistic to acquire and best for that role? At the same time, I am absolutely intrigued with seeing how the Paul-Granger-Rush dynamic will play out.

So as much as I want a legit PG option, I'm still not overly excited by the prospect of shipping out Rush. We don't have a new coach, but we are adding more talent (hopefully) around him, which might lead to him blossoming into something we would regret having given up.

joew8302
06-27-2010, 12:30 PM
For Collison, Flynn, Maynor -- No

For Parker, Paul -- Yes. I would even add more to the trade for these two.

Parker has one yr left on his contract. You would add more than Rush and a first rounder to get Parker for a year? Not me.

I would for Collison. For Maynor, Lawson and Flynn no. That first round pick is a pretty steep price to pay considering it will almost certainly be a top 10 pick.

Justin Tyme
06-27-2010, 12:37 PM
A coustmer of mine once said that the worst time to buy something is when you are in dire need of it, b/c you are apt to make a bad deal when you're in dire need. They said the best time to buy something is when you don't have a dire need for it. You are more selective and can get good deals then. I always felt that was a great philosophy and adapted it into my life. I have picked up many a wonderful deal following that philosophy.


Other teams see the Pacers seem to have a dire need for a PG, so they will try to exploit that to their advantage to get the Pacers to overpay.

Jrod Jones
06-27-2010, 02:29 PM
No....
Rush straight up for a Hill, Lawson, Collison ...then yes.
Heck, our fist pick next year may be better then any of those.
I think we might be overrating these guys because we need a pg so bad.
imo

Why do you think Rush has the ability to net Lawson or Collison straight up? The only way that type of trade works out is if we take on a huge contract... The Hornets don't consider Rush on the same level as Collison. No one does. BUT they do think he is good enough talent to get in return while dumping a contract like Okafor's

Kid Minneapolis
06-27-2010, 07:34 PM
I really like Collison. I think he could be really good. The rest of those guys.... not sure.

ChristianDudley
06-27-2010, 07:48 PM
As stated above, it would all depend on who we'd be getting as our PG of the future. It would be easier for me to trade Rush now than anytime before because now we are STACKED at the wings with good, young players.

Pacerized
06-27-2010, 08:47 PM
I agree with others in that it would depend on the young PG. I think we'll be in the draft lottery again next year and a future lottery pick has a higher value then Rush. Both combined don't have the value to get a top 10 young pg. I'd do it for Collison or the rights to Rubio. I'd trade one or the other for Flynn or Harris but I know Minn. and New Jersey would value both players more then that.
I think this season is a write off unless LB trades at least 2 of our expiring contracts for a starting pg, and 4. I'd rather be patient and see if that's possible rather then trade our young assets. We might have to wait until next years draft to know who our starting pg of the future will be.

MLB007
06-27-2010, 09:07 PM
A coustmer of mine once said that the worst time to buy something is when you are in dire need of it, b/c you are apt to make a bad deal when you're in dire need. They said the best time to buy something is when you don't have a dire need for it. You are more selective and can get good deals then. I always felt that was a great philosophy and adapted it into my life. I have picked up many a wonderful deal following that philosophy.


Other teams see the Pacers seem to have a dire need for a PG, so they will try to exploit that to their advantage to get the Pacers to overpay.


Sure, in an ideal situation.
We're not. And we need a pg.
Badly