PDA

View Full Version : Hypothetically speaking



aaronb
01-19-2011, 12:45 PM
Just out of curiosity? If something like this were on the table. Would we as a franchise, and as a fan base be willing to.

1. Deal Hibbert, Solo and Brandon Rush to OKC for Cole Aldridge, James Harden and a future #1 pick (Lotto Protected)

2. With the Melo deal in Limbo, Deal Granger and Darren Collision to New Jersey for Derrick Favors, Devin Harris and a future 1st round pick

3. Then dangle Devin Harris to see if he could bring back a couple of prospects and picks going forward


I think it would be something to look long and hard about doing. Not sure its even possible at this point with all the moving parts of these deals. But both are likely in the neighborhood of legitimate trade possibilities.

It would leave us post lockout with a High Lotto pick in this coming draft. 3 Very High end prospects (under team control for 4 and 5 more years) and 5-7 First round picks to use in the next 3 drafts. Along with a TON of cap space to facilitate future trades.



Have at it...........

BringJackBack
01-19-2011, 12:53 PM
I'd have to look long and hard about deal number one, even though James Harden is the best guy out of the deal and he's only something like 21. It's extremely hard to come by talented centers like Hibbert. I'd probably just keep Hibbert and Rush (even though, admittedly, I don't really like Rush)

I love the 2nd deal. I don't know if Jersey does though.

With all of those picks and all of the prospects, I'd be somewhat pleased.. even though we'd be in purgatory for another 3 years or so..

Since86
01-19-2011, 12:57 PM
So you're saying you'd deal your starting center, backup center, and starting/backup 2guard for a backup center, backup 2 guard, and a 1st round pick that will be probably in the 20s?


Uhhhhh......pass.

EDIT: If these are the types of deals you want Larry to make, then most people are going to flip-flop positions with you on his GM skills.

BRushWithDeath
01-19-2011, 12:59 PM
No on the first. Yes on the second. Indifferent on the third.

aaronb
01-19-2011, 01:01 PM
I'd have to look long and hard about deal number one, even though James Harden is the best guy out of the deal and he's only something like 21. It's extremely hard to come by talented centers like Hibbert. I'd probably just keep Hibbert and Rush (even though, admittedly, I don't really like Rush)

I love the 2nd deal. I don't know if Jersey does though.

With all of those picks and all of the prospects, I'd be somewhat pleased.. even though we'd be in purgatory for another 3 years or so..


It's true that we'd have another down year or two. But it's a correct bottom up rebuild. I think its safe to say our franchise win ceiling 2013 and beyond would be MUCH higher than it is right now. I do like Hibby as a player. But I'd be fine with replacing him with a Banger,defender, rebounder type going forward.

Slow plodding post move Centers are like Oldsmobile's in todays NBA. You still see some of them out there. But not nearly as many as we once did.

BillS
01-19-2011, 01:08 PM
Wasn't Cole Aldrich a :suicide3: player for a lot of folks on this board?

aaronb
01-19-2011, 01:11 PM
So you're saying you'd deal your starting center, backup center, and starting/backup 2guard for a backup center, backup 2 guard, and a 1st round pick that will be probably in the 20s?


Uhhhhh......pass.

EDIT: If these are the types of deals you want Larry to make, then most people are going to flip-flop positions with you on his GM skills.


There is more to a deal than THIS GUY TODAY IS BETTER THAN THIS GUY TODAY. People with that mindset have no business running a professional team. The deal makes sense because.

1. Harden and Aldridge are 1 and 2 years further from free agency (or huge extensions) than Rush and Hibby.

2. We also get another asset in a 1st round pick who could be use to draft someone useful like another Hibby,Granger,Collision who were all taken with late 1st round picks.

3. We aren't winning anything with the core at hand. So shuffle the deck and try something different

4. That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5, instead of another 10-14


Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers

oxxo
01-19-2011, 01:14 PM
1 No way
2 No way
3 Yes, but harris is not worth that much. No one will do it.

Trophy
01-19-2011, 01:15 PM
No way to both.

MyFavMartin
01-19-2011, 01:19 PM
No on the first. The second I was thinking of something similar yesterday and trying to figure out what Danny would be worth... Favors and their pick this year would be very tempting, but then, they prolly want to Tyler and we'd want Devin, so getting something to work would be complicated.

aaronb
01-19-2011, 01:27 PM
No on the first. The second I was thinking of something similar yesterday and trying to figure out what Danny would be worth... Favors and their pick this year would be very tempting, but then, they prolly want to Tyler and we'd want Devin, so getting something to work would be complicated.


I'd sub Hansboro and Price for Collision in a second if that was required.

Since86
01-19-2011, 01:32 PM
There is more to a deal than THIS GUY TODAY IS BETTER THAN THIS GUY TODAY. People with that mindset have no business running a professional team. The deal makes sense because.

1. Harden and Aldridge are 1 and 2 years further from free agency (or huge extensions) than Rush and Hibby.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. Let's trade away our starting center, who is already better than the player you're trading him for will ever be. Not only that, but let's also trade away the backup center in the process.

And then maybe, when those guys get close to their extension dates, we can trade them for younger players again, and repeat the cycle. That way we can always keep players on the cheap, and never have to pay them big contracts. Brilliant. I wonder why no GM has ever thought of just trading away his vets for young players, so they don't have to pay them. A great idea.....


2. We also get another asset in a 1st round pick who could be use to draft someone useful like another Hibby,Granger,Collision who were all taken with late 1st round picks.

Yes, because all late first round picks work out so well. It's a slam dunk.


3. We aren't winning anything with the core at hand. So shuffle the deck and try something different

Something different doesn't have just one path.


4. That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5, instead of another 10-14


Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers

You're right. Thank God this isn't chess nor checkers. Some people shouldn't advocate trades, just because "shuffling the deck" might make them better, when your idea of "shuffling" makes them worse instantly and long term.

Especially in this draft, when a lot of the prospects that would have came out early stay in college because of the CBA fiasco.

PacersPride
01-19-2011, 01:33 PM
There is more to a deal than THIS GUY TODAY IS BETTER THAN THIS GUY TODAY. People with that mindset have no business running a professional team. The deal makes sense because.

1. Harden and Aldridge are 1 and 2 years further from free agency (or huge extensions) than Rush and Hibby.

2. We also get another asset in a 1st round pick who could be use to draft someone useful like another Hibby,Granger,Collision who were all taken with late 1st round picks.

3. We aren't winning anything with the core at hand. So shuffle the deck and try something different

4. That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5, instead of another 10-14


Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers


This is rich coming from you. your basically saying in an arrogant manner that you do know something.. agian very rich. if you were running the show im guessing you woulda taken peanuts for murphy, Bird landed DC. JO you woulda likely gave up very easily, Bird got an expiring for 10M, and a rookie 7'2 center for a broken down hasbeen with a max contract.

many want to see Hibbert dealt because he has had 2 bad months under a coach 80% of this board or more wants gone. 2 bad months, and started the season off doing very well. the guy is 24, 3rd year player, under a coach that many hope is gone next offseason, and has had 2 bad months in his career so lets throw him to the wolves.. right.

many good coaches prefer heart over talent any day. Hibbert has a ton of heart and work ethic and i will take that over any next potential superstar or a bad character player like blatche anyday.

i found the post insulting so be it.. i wish more folks on here would be accountable to their threads. 2 or 3 seasons from now all these guys will be on the Hibbert fanwagon. same with hansbrough.

bulldog
01-19-2011, 01:37 PM
Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers

Agreed with the poster above, this just sounds needlessly arrogant. Hibbert is a pretty good outcome for a pick in the 10-20 range. He'd be an exceptional outcome for a pick in the 20-30 range, where OKC's first rounders are likely to be. Considering that most draft picks, even first rounders, fail to even make it onto an NBA roster you're immensely overvaluing a first round pick in that first deal. Then again, I think most people overvalue draft picks.

And that's why I play UNO.

PS. This probably belongs on the trade forum, which was created because these speculative trade discussions can clog up the board real fast if you're not careful.

Sparhawk
01-19-2011, 01:39 PM
I'd do the second. I'm just really high on Favors and think he'd be a great fit next to Hibbert. Can you imagine, Hibbert and Favors over the next couple of years? I also think having a guy like Favors can only make Hibbert that much better. That's something really good to build around.

aaronb
01-19-2011, 01:40 PM
This is rich coming from you. your basically saying in an arrogant manner that you do know something.. agian very rich. if you were running the show im guessing you woulda taken peanuts for murphy, Bird landed DC. JO you woulda likely gave up very easily, Bird got an expiring for 10M, and a rookie 7'2 center for a broken down hasbeen with a max contract.

many want to see Hibbert dealt because he has had 2 bad months under a coach 80% of this board or more wants gone. 2 bad months, and started the season off doing very well. the guy is 24, 3rd year player, under a coach that many hope is gone next offseason, and has had 2 bad months in his career so lets throw him to the wolves.. right.

many good coaches prefer heart over talent any day. Hibbert has a ton of heart and work ethic and i will take that over any next potential superstar or a bad character player like blatche anyday.

i found the post insulting so be it.. i wish more folks on here would be accountable to their threads. 2 or 3 seasons from now all these guys will be on the Hibbert fanwagon. same with hansbrough.


I'm not saying I WANT Hibbert to be traded. I'm saying he and Granger are the best trade chips that we have. If we want to rebuild and be a contender. Then that is probably the guys we need to start with.

It's not realistic to think we are going to rebuild by trading expiring deals and guys 10-14 on the roster, keeping everyone else, draft in the mid teens AND lower payroll. It just doesn't work that way.

If we want to be truly competitive in the future. We might need to consider taking a step back, and rebuilding with a stronger foundation. That is the only point I am trying to make.

BRushWithDeath
01-19-2011, 01:42 PM
many good coaches prefer heart over talent any day.



Only if they like being unemployed.

PacersPride
01-19-2011, 01:47 PM
Only if they like being unemployed.

this reference is more in terms of football because ive seen so many nfl coaches that are any good believe they can make a player better who has heart and good atttiude over the opposite. many of these coaches won SB's who have made these statements.

hell even bobby knight would likely agree to this. obviously take the statement with a grain of salt.. there has to be some talent.

hibbert > blatche

DemonHunter1105
01-19-2011, 01:48 PM
Darren is still so young and has started to prove he can play as good as he was last year. In my opinion we just can't give up on him since he hasn't even peaked yet.

Granger on the other hand has probably shown us how good he can possibly be with his All-Star season. I love him as a person and as a player when he drives to the rim. But I would be OK with giving him up as long as it wasn't a lopsided deal to a top-tier team I hate i.e. Celtics, Spurs, or Lakers.

If you are going to package Granger, I say include either Tyler or AJ as the second player and maybe a 1st round pick if we need to sweeten the deal.

If I had to pick three people I do not want to see leave Indy in the next 3 years or so, it would have to be DC, PG, and Roy. Everyone else I can understand getting rid of if it will make us better in the long run.

PacersPride
01-19-2011, 01:57 PM
I'm not saying I WANT Hibbert to be traded. I'm saying he and Granger are the best trade chips that we have. If we want to rebuild and be a contender. Then that is probably the guys we need to start with.

It's not realistic to think we are going to rebuild by trading expiring deals and guys 10-14 on the roster, keeping everyone else, draft in the mid teens AND lower payroll. It just doesn't work that way.

If we want to be truly competitive in the future. We might need to consider taking a step back, and rebuilding with a stronger foundation. That is the only point I am trying to make.

This roster has had so much turnover as is. Im fine letting Obrien go and see whats available this summer. I dont care who we acquire for Granger or Hibbert, were not gonna be competitive with the Magic, Celtics, Bulls, Heat..

Agian, if the right deal comes along then consider it, but we have been panicking to make deals for a very long time, Pacers are finally in a position where we can be patient; let the contracts expire, consider coaching options, and look at free agents and rosters after the CBA.

this season is not going to net us an NBA championship. If we make a move it would need to be the right one, otherwise willing to be patient and wait for the offseason. trading Hibbert seems like a move we will likley regret.

Granger i can live with dealing since we are stocked at the wing, and belive George will be really good, but i dont see the urgency in dealing him either.

Hoping Bird focuses on Dunleavy and/or Ford and tries to get anything possible in return. That should be the starting point for all discussions along with a first.

beast23
01-19-2011, 02:02 PM
There is more to a deal than THIS GUY TODAY IS BETTER THAN THIS GUY TODAY. People with that mindset have no business running a professional team. The deal makes sense because.

1. Harden and Aldridge are 1 and 2 years further from free agency (or huge extensions) than Rush and Hibby.

2. We also get another asset in a 1st round pick who could be use to draft someone useful like another Hibby,Granger,Collision who were all taken with late 1st round picks.

3. We aren't winning anything with the core at hand. So shuffle the deck and try something different

4. That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5, instead of another 10-14


Some people play Chess, other can only understand Checkers

"So shuffle the deck and try something different"
Now that's special. So, what the hell, let's make a trade for the sake of making a trade?

"That deal will likely make OUR 1st rounder this year top 5"
Congratulations, you've found a way to tank without just out and out intentionally losing games.

"Some people play Chess, others can only understand Checkers"...
And some people who think they are playing Chess, have not in fact, figured out that they are actually playing Roulette.

The Pacers are not as far off as you seem to think they are. Without attempting to build on what we have using primarily the forthcoming cap space, you believe we should essentially "blow it up". What you are proposing is that we get rid of players that are considered the "core" and gamble that the remaining youngsters will develop into exceptional players..... oh wait a minute, you actually get rid of a couple of the players that we were waiting to see how they developed. You aren't just going to "blow it up", for whatever reason, you've decided to blow it all to hell.

If Granger is to be traded, it should be for only an equally talented player at a position that is more difficult to fill. Right now, wings are the easiest players to find. So, if you trade Granger, you'd better be getting back a darn good PG, PF or C in return.

I personally don't believe the Pacers are required to trade Granger to get to the next level. And, if they get a little lucky, I think that their actions this summer could enable them to skip the next level altogether and get them back to where they are contending for 3rd or 4th in the East.

We are certainly worse off than merely being able to fix our problems with a "tweak here" and a "tweak there". But jeez man, we have the cap space to make some major changes without blowing anything up. Show a little patience.

aaronb
01-19-2011, 02:08 PM
I dont care who we acquire for Granger or Hibbert, were not gonna be competitive with the Magic, Celtics, Bulls, Heat..


Hoping Bird focuses on Dunleavy and/or Ford and tries to get anything possible in return. That should be the starting point for all discussions along with a first.


I think you are hitting he nail on the head with that 1st point. We aren't going to threaten the top 4 WITH Granger and Hibby. So why should they be untouchable?

Maybe a group of

Aldridge
Favors
George
Harden
Collision

along with a top 5 pick this summer and another 5-7 1st rounders over the next 3 years COULD be enough to threaten the top 4. Especially when you consider how much cap space we will have over the next several seasons.

righteouscool
01-19-2011, 02:13 PM
I would think long and hard about Granger for Favors and a 1st, but I don't want Harris and don't want to give up Collison.

Collison has been our best player by far lately.

aaronb
01-19-2011, 02:13 PM
If Granger is to be traded, it should be for only an equally talented player at a position that is more difficult to fill.




That isn't a realistic thing to expect. What contender is going to trade a core piece of a championship run to hope Granger will rebound into previous form?

90% of modern NBA trades work as BUYERS and SELLERS. Since we are a bad team we would be selling Granger, and hoping to get future assets back in return.

BillS
01-19-2011, 02:17 PM
I think you are hitting he nail on the head with that 1st point. We aren't going to threaten the top 4 WITH Granger and Hibby. So why should they be untouchable?

Maybe a group of

Aldridge
Favors
George
Harden
Collision

along with a top 5 pick this summer and another 5-7 1st rounders over the next 3 years COULD be enough to threaten the top 4. Especially when you consider how much cap space we will have over the next several seasons.

:lol2:

beast23
01-19-2011, 02:23 PM
That isn't a realistic thing to expect. What contender is going to trade a core piece of a championship run to hope Granger will rebound into previous form?

90% of modern NBA trades work as BUYERS and SELLERS. Since we are a bad team we would be selling Granger, and hoping to get future assets back in return.First off, who says that trading Granger should be restricted to only contenders?

Secondly, if we were trading Granger to a contender, it would still remain a fact that neither team is trading from a position of strength. Your opinion is that the Pacers should be thankful that a high and mighty contender would be willing to throw a few prospects and maybe a pick at the Pacers to take Granger and his contract off of their hands. But conversely, can't you see that if a contender were willing to go after Granger, it would be because they saw him as the "x-factor" that would get them over the hump? And, as a result, would be willing to pay quite a bit for a possible run at a championship. A position of strength in a trade has nothing to do with whether you are a bad team or a contender.

And as far as the Pacers are concerned, you make them an offer that is not up to snuff and the Pacers hold ALL of the power. All they have to do is say "No".

aaronb
01-19-2011, 02:31 PM
First off, who says that trading Granger should be restricted to only contenders?

Secondly, if we were trading Granger to a contender, it would still remain a fact that neither team is trading from a position of strength. Your opinion is that the Pacers should be thankful that a high and mighty contender would be willing to throw a few prospects and maybe a pick at the Pacers to take Granger and his contract off of their hands. But conversely, can't you see that if a contender were willing to go after Granger, it would be because they saw him as the "x-factor" that would get them over the hump? And, as a result, would be willing to pay quite a bit for a possible run at a championship. A position of strength in a trade has nothing to do with whether you are a bad team or a contender.

And as far as the Pacers are concerned, you make them an offer that is not up to snuff and the Pacers hold ALL of the power. All they have to do is say "No".

A contender or someone who is impatient in the rebuilding process. But we aren't going to see a Granger for Dwight Howard or Granger for DWade deal coming this way.

You just don't see many "Challenge" trades of Star for Star going on in the NBA. At least not unless one or both guys have a lot of baggage.

I honestly think it would be great if we could deal Ford, Foster and Dunleavy in exchange for an upper echelon PF and SG. I just don't see any way that is going to actually happen?

Overall I just think this core in general is flawed. Unless we find a franchise 4 or 2, and the other position is filled by a guy who could be our 2nd or 3rd best player?

Kegboy
01-19-2011, 02:36 PM
Not to JOBjack the thread, but I am not really interested in trading any of our talent until I see them play under a different coaching staff.