Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Player subtractions for the next season

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Age
    42
    Posts
    117

    Cool Player subtractions for the next season

    Let's take a close look on roster changes.

    Our beloved Pacers ended this unsuccessful NBA-season for their part with the following 15 players on their roster.

    Jamaal Tinsley
    Flip Murray
    Travis Diener
    Andre Owens
    Kareem Rush
    Marquis Daniels
    Stephen Graham
    Danny Granger
    Mike Dunleavy
    Shawne Williams
    Jermaine O'Neal
    Troy Murphy
    Ike Diogu
    Jeff Foster
    David Harrison


    I think now it's time to ponder which players should and/or will return to the team for the start of the next season. Here is my conclusion for this matter based on a short yet impartial player-by-player positional evaluation.

    PG:

    Tinsley has been inactive quite often because of repetitive injuries and has become more and more unpopular among fans. He is pretty productive, but we cannot afford to let him mainly not be able to play. We absolutely need a reliable PG as a starter. So he should be traded.
    Murray was a starter lately but didn't finish games often. He is a free agent and should be used as a combo guard. He could return because he can score and thus clearly carry some scoring load as a backup SG. However, he needs to be a bigger force defensively than he has been.
    Diener shouldn't start games. He is too small and unathletic to guard opponent's starter, but he has some nice basketball IQ, he doesn't turn the ball over too often and can push the tempo up when needed offensively. He could well be used as a trade bait or as a sweetener.
    Owens didn't earn much minutes late in the season. He obviously doesn't have quality playmaking skills, but he seems to be a capable perimeter defender, which is useful in our team. He is a free agent and in case his price tag ain't too high we could re-sign him as a filler PG.

    Real-life prediction:
    Tinsley, Murray and Owens won't be back, Diener will be back

    SG:

    Rush had his ups and downs during the season. Surely, he wasn't as consistant as we wished. He is a decent defender, but as a distance shooter too one-dimensional offensively. He is a free agent and likely will be offered such a deal elsewhere that we have no sense to match.
    Daniels has been a disappointment to some degree. He simply ain't as productive as we hoped. Also, he has some off-the-court baggage.
    He can play multiple positions and create scoring chances with his penetration, so he has value. Trading him would be best thing to do.
    Graham didn't play much this season. He is a free agent with no special strengths. Typically he just got some garbage time, or DNP-CD, under his belt and even though he was relatively efficient, all indicates that he ain't going to be in our plans for upcoming season.

    Real-life prediction:
    Rush and Graham won't be back, Daniels will be back

    SF:

    Granger certainly established himself as one of our best players this season, if not the best. He is developing perhaps towards stardom. He definately has considerable value in the league, especially with his present contract, but we need to keep him and give him an extension.
    Dunleavy was considered as one of the most improved players this season. He was very important for us offensively. Trading him should be investigated carefully, because his salary is high and his value is now surely at its highest. Nonetheless, he should be keeped as yet.
    Williams is a project and accordingly he has been given some time to mature and develop. However, he seems sort of jammed in this SF position. Add to this his inconsistancy and some off-the-court issues
    and figure that he should now be traded maybe for a good draft pick.

    Real-life prediction:
    Granger, Dunleavy and Williams will all be back

    PF:

    O'Neal was once again injured for the large part of the season. He proved to be defensive stopper in the paint, but it seems that he has lost a step in the offensive end. His salary is huge and we could invest that money better by trading him and getting a few pieces in return.
    Murphy offered some inside-outside scoring and rebounded decently while nicely improved during the season. He struggles defensively but he can shoot the ball. Because he has relatively such a high salary, he could well be traded, but probably is still worth using as a backup.
    Diogu didn't get meaningful minutes regularly in spite of O'Neal's absense. He is considered as somewhat undersized for his position. He could score inside but clearly ain't a good team defender. He has no real use and thus should be used as a trade bait or as a sweetener.

    Real-life prediction:
    Diogu won't be back, O'Neal and Murphy will be back

    C:

    Foster is a valuable hustle player with limited scoring skills. He does
    continuously a lot of dirty work on the court. Every team simply needs that kind of willingness. He is also a very dependable postup defender and rebounder. He is still very useful, mainly as a backup C though.
    Harrison was practically our lone true C, but he didn't respond to that well enough. He wasn't such a force on both ends of the floor that we sure would have liked him to be. He also had a serious disciplinary problem. He is a restricted free agent and ain't considered to return.

    Real-life prediction:
    Harrison won't be back, Foster will be back


    This is how Pacers' depth chart should present itself, in my opinion (starter/backup/filler) after these suggested changes are made.

    PG: -/-/Owens

    SG: -/Murray/-

    SF: Granger/Dunleavy/-

    PF: -/Murphy/-

    C: -/Foster/-


    Now I will try to suggest what type of players we are going to need to fill in holes in this depth chart in order to get a full roster.

    1. First and foremost we need a star-caliber PG. No matter how. Not necessarily a superstar, but a very good offensive-defensive weapon, to say the least. He mustorchestrate our team and be good at that.
    - We would also like to have an offensive-minded backup PG. Owens could serve as a filler. I don't mind bringing back Diener as a backup PG, but then he shouldn't play nearly as many minutes as this season.

    2. Defensive-minded SG, please. He should be our best perimeter defender, maybe capable to defend multiple positions. We don't need him to score much, just to stop opponent's best perimeter scorer.
    - Then Murray could be our backup SG. He could also operate some PG duties. Furthermore, we would use a filler for SG. He should be able to shoot the ball. Rush would do fine provided his price tag ain't too high.

    3. In case Williams will be traded, which I recommend, we could use a filler SF. Most likely he ain't going to play any significant minutes next season, so therefore his contract shouldn't be massive, nor his duties.
    - Dunleavy could actually play as our sixth man, compared to Ginobili of the Spurs, for example. Of course, Dunleavy will eventually play major minutes out of position, like this season, together with Granger.

    4. If O'Neal will be traded (most likely he is not going to opt out of his contract) we definately need a decent substitute for him. Preferably not even nearly as expensive. This sub should be able to defend well.
    - Surely Murphy could start but it's better to have him as an offensive-minded backup sharing big minutes as PF with a newcomer starter PF. We also would hire a filler. He will be a bench layer for the most part.

    5. In our system, a real inside presence would be very attractive. So we would love a dominator of the boards as starter C. We didn't have any this season with O'Neal sidelined. Use some big bucks to get this.
    - With offensive-minded starting C Foster would fit in nicely for us as a supplementary backup C. As a filler we would like to have a big body, maybe a project much like Harrison. A promising big C surely is useful.


    So, as I see it, we would indeed need pretty many new quality players in our team - perhaps as many as four new starters! But I must point out that we do have several ways to obtain them, naturally through trades, draft and free agency. To my understanding, by trading some of our assets presented above should all this revamping be possible.

    I guess it's also worth keeping in mind that we need to be open for any improvements of the team we can get. This means that anybody should be tradable if opportunity comes. Building a team is very multidimensional thing in its entirety. Making one change affects to many things, tiny as they may be. (This part was for Larry Bird, )

    There are two steps for us to get a competive team next season. Firstly, we must quickly get rid of all the bad or inappropriate parts, that is to say players that for some reason don't fit in to this team. Secondly, we just need to get the players necessary to accomplish this job. As simple as that. Here I have tried to address the first step.

    I would like you to take a stand for this topic. Please feel free to express your opinion. Thank you for your attention!

  2. #2
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,565

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Your real-life predictions don't match up with your suggested lineup. It should be:

    PG: -/Diener/-
    SG: -/Marquis/-
    SF: Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne
    PF: JONeal/Murphy/-
    C: -/Foster/-

    As for my realistic expectations, the only players that I think will be moved are Marquis and Ike. We're not going to resign Flip, Kareem and Harrison. I think that the primary core of players are still here....including Tinsley.

    Despite JO'Bs comments, I have very little confidence that Bird can pull out some deal that sends Tinsley away or worse....nets us a deal that worsens our financial situation simply cuz he wants him gone.

    In fact...I think that there is a greater chance that JONeal will be moved before Tinsley. I'm not saying that it's wise to do so....I'm just saying that teams would actually want a player like JONeal whereas there are no teams that would want Tinsley.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Age
    42
    Posts
    117

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Your real-life predictions don't match up with your suggested lineup. It should be:

    PG: -/Diener/-
    SG: -/Marquis/-
    SF: Granger/Dunleavy/Shawne
    PF: JONeal/Murphy/-
    C: -/Foster/-
    Well, you see, that is simply because my suggested lineup is different than my real-life prediction!

    I partly agree with your expectations. JT and/or JO'N trades are obviously not easy thing to do - and no wonder why. Still, I'm sure there will be teams offseason looking and longing for assists JT could possibly produce for them.

    But I will claim that we would desperately need some new infusion, even new core players so to speak, in order to improve significantly. It ain't impossible.

    I believe that JO'N could pretty well stay in our team whereas JT probably couldn't. The reason is the famous baggage JT has, not to mention JO'B's comments that our PG situation needs to be re-addressed. Also, JO'N has kind of leadership abilities and status in our team that JT apparently hasn't.
    Last edited by FinPacers; 04-28-2008 at 07:29 PM. Reason: error

  4. #4
    Feed the big fella. Infinite MAN_force's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Broadripple
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,253

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    I think Graham will be back. He is under contract next year (team option) but obrien specifically mentioned him as someone who would be playing in the summer league this year.
    "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

    - ilive4sports

  5. #5
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite MAN_force View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think Graham will be back. He is under contract next year (team option) but obrien specifically mentioned him as someone who would be playing in the summer league this year.
    I agree...we're going to need cheap filler in the last three or four slots, and I think he's worth a flyer. After all, the devil you know...

  6. #6
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    IMF - I also agree on Graham. That wasn't a slip up by JOB. Now of course SG might play his way out of town ala Brewer but given the need to rework things I think letting him fill one of the backup/roster fodder roles makes more sense than resigning other non-impact guys.


    We looked at Rush and Ike and Owens. Not enought showed up to warrant further investiment.

    Tins is done because they've hit the point where they don't care about the hit. Some other team has a guy that doesn't want to be there and they'll make the swap to get this non-essential player.

    Tins will then have a modest run with the new team until he gets frustrated/disinterested there too. Who cares. He's not the PG of the future and he's just not about to become more tradable either.

    Going into last year he had more value IF he worked out, so it made the gamble worth it. More so considering that JOB had come on board and was promising a new style of play.

    This year Tins presents no value as either a trade piece nor a potential player (ie, if healthy, etc). The only thing you don't want to do is make him cost even more by outright cutting him.

    This is not motivated by personal dislike on my part. I'm neutral on that front. I'm just looking at the signals they've given and the praticality of moving forward. JO still makes sense to keep, Tins does not.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    We will debate this all summer I'm sure, but my outs are:

    PF: None

    C: Murphy

    SF: None

    PG: Tinsley, Owens, Murray*

    SG: Rush, Daniels

    Team Depth Chart:

    PF: JO/Ike

    SF: Dunleavy/Williams

    C: Foster/Harrison

    PG: ?/Diener

    SG: Granger/Graham

    • Why retain Harrison over Murphy? Two reasons: 1) Harrions will provide interior post-defense, and 2) he will continue to play underneath the rim and around the paint which is more than I can say for Murphy.
    • Why retain Ike? Give him one more year under JOB and a chance to work w/JO in the off-season. His injury held him back at first coming into last season then it was the need to stretch the defense then there was the need for interior defense. Ike was simply the odd man out each time, but give him a chance play himself into the rotation and if he doesn't pan out by the trade deadline, trade him.
    • *Retain Flip Murray only because he's a combo Guard who has more of an up-side than Daniels and he provides some veteran leadership among the reserves. Of course, one way to resolve that is to bring Dunleavy off the bench yet give him the same amount of minutes he had as a starter.

  8. #8
    Banned Jonathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,833

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Several Pacer Fan's want to get rid of Tinsley; but what team wants him unless you unload a blockbuster deal ie 8 Player Trade. Teams would be willing to take the expiring contracts of Foster & Q6. They might also covet IKE or even our first round pick; but the only way the deal gets done is parting with one of three Dunleavy/Granger/S Williams.
    Try to work out a deal involving Murphy & Tinsley? Good Luck.

  9. #9
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Several Pacer Fan's want to get rid of Tinsley; but what team wants him unless you unload a blockbuster deal ie 8 Player Trade. Teams would be willing to take the expiring contracts of Foster & Q6. They might also covet IKE or even our first round pick; but the only way the deal gets done is parting with one of three Dunleavy/Granger/S Williams.
    Try to work out a deal involving Murphy & Tinsley? Good Luck.

    I think you're making this too complicated. We just have to be willing to take back an equally ugly or uglier contract - a la Jerome James, Brian Cardinal, or Jared Jeffries, and we'll find a taker for JT.

  10. #10
    Member Taterhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,288

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    If we are only looking to deal guys like Murphy and Tins, we aren't going to have a very productive off-season. In Tinsley's case I think it's much more likely they will bring in a new starter and let him come off the bench if his attitude and play warrant that. If he acts up again, they go to Diener very quickly.

    I would say as far as departures that one of the three SF's is most likely, probably Dunleavy. Or even Granger if the other team will take Murphy or Tinsley along with him. Shawne or Ike could be included as sweetner in a big deal. JO could be dealt if the deal is right (cap relief, draft pick, young big man). And Marquis and Foster should be held onto until the deadline. If a top player comes up (and they almost always do), we would have a very nice package including those two expirings and a draft pick.

    I would say we don't have an untouchable on this team. All options should be open, and anything can happen.

  11. #11
    Banned Jonathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,833

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by count55 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think you're making this too complicated. We just have to be willing to take back an equally ugly or uglier contract - a la Jerome James, Brian Cardinal, or Jared Jeffries, and we'll find a taker for JT.
    Count,
    1. Memphis has a log jam at PG. They are looking to build for the future and do not want long term deals. Tinlsey is due 21 million over three years.
    2. New York has several bad contracts but do you think Donnie Walsh wants a back court of Jamaal Crawford & Jamall Tinsley along w/ Nat Robinson?
    3. Jerome James in a Pacer's uniform only helps our chance of more lottery balls in 2009.
    4. Jared Jeffries would not be bad for Tinsley straight up but The Knick organization is looking to move Starbury (expiring contract) and probably have a team take on the salaries of one of these three (Q Richardson, Jared Jeffries, Jerome James) along with a young player Balkman/Robinson. I fell Jared Jeffries is the most tradeable of the three.

  12. #12
    100 Miles from the B count55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,772

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Count,
    1. Memphis has a log jam at PG. They are looking to build for the future and do not want long term deals. Tinlsey is due 21 million over three years.
    2. New York has several bad contracts but do you think Donnie Walsh wants a back court of Jamaal Crawford & Jamall Tinsley along w/ Nat Robinson?
    3. Jerome James in a Pacer's uniform only helps our chance of more lottery balls in 2009.
    4. Jared Jeffries would not be bad for Tinsley straight up but The Knick organization is looking to move Starbury (expiring contract) and probably have a team take on the salaries of one of these three (Q Richardson, Jared Jeffries, Jerome James) along with a young player Balkman/Robinson. I fell Jared Jeffries is the most tradeable of the three.
    Those were simply the contracts I could come up with at the time. I'm just saying there are a lot of other GM's who have mistakes that they'd like to have go away.

  13. #13
    Yeah, I'm a Pacers fan. MyFavMartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    In the Washington DC area
    Posts
    4,302
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Could send JT to Pacers West (Sacramento) to take on Kenny Thomas' contract....

    I'm sure Sac will do everything to resign Beno, but if they don't, they'd be in dire straights for a PG.

    Let's hope someone like Miami makes a run at Beno in FA....

  14. #14
    Banned Jonathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,833

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by iPACER View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Could send JT to Pacers West (Sacramento) to take on Kenny Thomas' contract....

    I'm sure Sac will do everything to resign Beno, but if they don't, they'd be in dire straights for a PG.

    Let's hope someone like Miami makes a run at Beno in FA....
    What is your mindframe on this whole Tinsley Situation?
    1. Get rid of him at all costs
    2. Try to package him a deal
    3. Find another bad salary player (Thomas, Jeffries, Cardinal)
    4. Keep HIM

  15. #15
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,565

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    What is your mindframe on this whole Tinsley Situation?
    1. Get rid of him at all costs
    2. Try to package him a deal
    3. Find another bad salary player (Thomas, Jeffries, Cardinal)

    4. Keep HIM
    I don't want to buy him out nor do I want to get rid of him "at all costs" simply cuz I do not want to sacrifice Salary Cap nor Financial Flexiblity to simply move him.

    I would much rather see what we can get for a Tinsley+Marquis+Ike package ( basically a package that can allow a team to shed some Salary in the 2009-2010 season ) or do a straight-up swap of Bad Contracts for a player that we can actually use.

    The problem with doing both is that given Tinsley's low trade value coupled with the guaranteed $21+mil that he is owed until the 2010-2011 season....we would likely have to find some package that sends us back the same amount of $$.

    I did a quick look through the guaranteed contracts that would be considered "equal in contract length and $$ owed" for players that ( I think ) the other teams wouldn't mind moving are:

    Tinsley for Jared Jeffries ( Knicks )
    Tinsley for Dan Gadzuric ( Bucks )

    Both would net us Frontcourt players with virtually identical contracts. From what I have read on the Bucks ReamGM board.....they do not appear to be too happy with Gadzuric. Not sure if they would want to do this though....the problem is that they would now have 3 PGs.
    Last edited by CableKC; 04-29-2008 at 05:21 PM.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  16. #16
    Banned Jonathan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,833

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Scott Skiles and Jamall Tinsley would work out GREAT. I think our best bet is working something out w/ the Knicks b/c we could sell them JT as being a New Yorker and a change of scenary ecspecially in his home state would work wonders for his career. Do you see Donnie Walsh buying?

  17. #17
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,565

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Scott Skiles and Jamall Tinsley would work out GREAT. I think our best bet is working something out w/ the Knicks b/c we could sell them JT as being a New Yorker and a change of scenary ecspecially in his home state would work wonders for his career. Do you see Donnie Walsh buying?
    If there was any other GM in the league other then DW, then I can see it happening.....but it's not a good idea to try to sell snake oil to the one guy in the league that knows up close what that snake oil is made out of for the last 4 seasons.

    The only hope that I have is that DW has a small glimmer of hope that IF Mark Jackson ends up coaching the Knicks that he could take a player like Tinsley and transform him into the type of PG that he should be.

    But honestly...I think the chances are slim that this happens.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,436

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Scott Skiles and Jamall Tinsley would work out GREAT. I think our best bet is working something out w/ the Knicks b/c we could sell them JT as being a New Yorker and a change of scenary ecspecially in his home state would work wonders for his career. Do you see Donnie Walsh buying?
    Donnie Walsh probably knows Tinsley better than any GM in the league. I'm pretty sure he's no dummy when it comes to evaluating a player he drafted and watched for 7 years.

    And he knows that if Tinsley can't help the Pacers out of their rut, it's a fat chance he's going to help the Knicks get out of theirs'.

  19. #19
    Get well PG! QuickRelease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    4,764

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Looking at our true shooting guard projections, I wouldn't at all be opposed to drafting Chris Douglas-Roberts. I like him more than I like any of the bigs and point guards where we're projected to pick.

  20. #20
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,885
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    In my humble opinion...

    I think we could get a nice deal done if we package dunleavy with ike, harrison and our #1 for a guy like elton brand. That would be the type of move that would make our team competitive again.

    Then to address the Tinsley situation... just buy out the remainder of his contract. It would be better for the organization. The Simons would probably agree to this as opposed to strapping the organization with a worse contract and worse basketball player. Let him go play somewhere else for cheap. At what point does his off the court problems justify voiding his contract? I just don't understand how you can all of a sudden have pissed off a coach, who completely had your back coming in to the season, so much that you have been suspended with a "left knee injury" since january.

    Keep JO, solely because our team defense is 1000% better with him in the lineup. No one else on our team can block shots on the interior.

    Here is what I would hope our lineup next year will look like (with an NBDL guy and favorite FA if we can get them cheap):

    PG- Duhon, Deiner, Earl Calloway (Arroyo, A. Carter)
    SG- Granger, Daniels, Jeremy Richardson (Ellis)
    SF- Williams, Graham, Brent Petway (Barnes)
    PF- Brand, Murphy, Elton Brown (Najera, C. Smith)
    C- O'Neal, Foster, Courtney Sims (Elson)

    I know this might seem a little outlandish with the Brand Trade. I just feel like those guys are valuable assets a team would be willing to take on. We could fill in the last five roster spots with NBDL guys. Hence the Richardson, Calloway, Petway, Brown and Sims picks.

    Duhon is a very smart player. He is terrific defensively, as is Granger and Williams on the wings. Add that to Brand at the four and O'Neal at the five. I think our team will score and defend at a highly competitve level.

    Call me crazy but if Williams gets the minutes he should, he will be a terrific ball player. Don't give up on Williams, remember he just turned 22.

    If this were our lineup, our salary cap number would be (with estimates):

    77,477,248 (5M for Duhon, 1M for each of the six fillers which is a bit overestimated) this puts us just over the estimated luxury tax threshold of 73,000,000 for next year. I think that this team would have to consider that. If by the trade deadline, we aren't competitive in the East, you have to trade Foster and Daniels for lesser salaries and a trade exception or draft picks to make sure we get under the cap.

    Sorry for rambling.
    Last edited by pacergod2; 04-30-2008 at 05:27 PM.

  21. #21
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,565

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Duhon is a very smart player. He is terrific defensively, as is Granger and Williams on the wings. Add that to Brand at the four and O'Neal at the five. I think our team will score and defend at a highly competitve level.
    Grace can probably confirm for us, but doesn't Duhon have some off-the-court incidents that would raise some Flags for TPTB?

    I could be wrong...but I thought that I read somewhere that Duhon likes to go out and party alot.

    Quote Originally Posted by pacergod2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If this were our lineup, our salary cap number would be (with estimates):

    77,477,248 (5M for Duhon, 1M for each of the six fillers which is a bit overestimated) this puts us just over the estimated luxury tax threshold of 73,000,000 for next year. I think that this team would have to consider that. If by the trade deadline, we aren't competitive in the East, you have to trade Foster and Daniels for lesser salaries and a trade exception or draft picks to make sure we get under the cap.

    Sorry for rambling.
    Is the Luxury Tax limit that high ( as in $73 mil )?

    Wasn't this years Luxury Tax limit about $67-68 mil?

    Is it going to be raised about $5 mil next season? That seems rather high.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  22. #22
    Member pacergod2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    2,885
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    I'm not sure about Duhon's partying habits, but I could see that opinion being out there since he did not get along with skiles AT ALL. He didn't show up to practice one day because he flew down to NC to talk to Coach K and Coach K confirmed that with the Bulls. He was suspended for one game because of it. Skiles tries to be a dictator as a coach and it does not go over well. I mean Ben Wallace is one of the good guys of the game and to **** him off you have to be an "jerk". I think this guy could break out once he gets the opportunity to play after sitting behind Hinrich. Duhon has always felt like he deserved more minutes and with the way that Hinrich played for most of this year I can't disagree.

    As for the luxury tax threshold, I heard $73M from a fairly reliable source and thought the exact same thing... its going up $5M (7%)?

    Also, I think they might be raising that threshold a bit higher this year and next so that the free agency period for 2009 will have more significant cap space, due to the amount and significance of the free agents that will be available.

  23. #23

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If there was any other GM in the league other then DW, then I can see it happening.....but it's not a good idea to try to sell snake oil to the one guy in the league that knows up close what that snake oil is made out of for the last 4 seasons.

    The only hope that I have is that DW has a small glimmer of hope that IF Mark Jackson ends up coaching the Knicks that he could take a player like Tinsley and transform him into the type of PG that he should be.

    But honestly...I think the chances are slim that this happens.
    Thank you! Finally, somebody sees reason with all this speculation of trading Tinman or even JO for that matter to the Knicks. It just ain't gonna happen. DW knows the good and the bad w/these players. Why would he want to strap his new franchise down with even more bloated contracts and/or injury-prone players? Makes no sense whatsoever.
    Last edited by NuffSaid; 05-01-2008 at 01:10 PM.

  24. #24
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,565

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by NuffSaid View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thank you! Finally, somebody sees reason with all this speculation of trading Tinman or even JO for that matter to the Knicks. It just ain't gonna happen. DW knows the good and the bad w/these players. Why would he want to strap his new franchise down with even more bloated contracts and/or injury-prone players? Makes no sense whatsoever.
    I agree with this for Tinsley.....but waver on whether DW would be interested in bring in JONeal. If Walsh thinks that he can get JONeal for "cheap", then he may make a run for him.

    I look at it this way....I think that DW ( like any other GM ) would have interest in a player like JONeal ( despite the history that he has ).....the question is how much they are willing to pay to get him on the roster. The key in figuring out what is a good price to negotiate with is knowing not only what the asking price that the Pacers is asking for but ALSO what the offers that the Pacers received when JONeal was shopped before the trade deadline.

    To me, that's one of the reasons why I think it maybe a bad idea to possibly negotiate with Walsh and the Knicks....not because the Knicks don't want to take on an injured and expensive player like JONeal.....but because IMHO, we are working from an disadvantage when it comes to negotiating the "asking price" for JONeal cuz Walsh already knows what the "going rate" is for JONeal.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  25. #25
    You are my Lucifer D-BONE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Nirvana
    Posts
    6,837

    Default Re: Player subtractions for the next season

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Count,
    1. Memphis has a log jam at PG. They are looking to build for the future and do not want long term deals. Tinlsey is due 21 million over three years.
    2. New York has several bad contracts but do you think Donnie Walsh wants a back court of Jamaal Crawford & Jamall Tinsley along w/ Nat Robinson?
    3. Jerome James in a Pacer's uniform only helps our chance of more lottery balls in 2009.
    4. Jared Jeffries would not be bad for Tinsley straight up but The Knick organization is looking to move Starbury (expiring contract) and probably have a team take on the salaries of one of these three (Q Richardson, Jared Jeffries, Jerome James) along with a young player Balkman/Robinson. I fell Jared Jeffries is the most tradeable of the three.
    I don't know the Walsh is going to wan JT back with his organization. If he did, I don't mind Jeffries either. Don't know the math but getting him plus Blakman wouldn't be a bad deal at all to rid us of Tins.
    I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.

    -Emiliano Zapata

Similar Threads

  1. Bball's Season Ending Post Mortem
    By Bball in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-29-2008, 12:35 AM
  2. Bird press conference
    By Smooth_for_Pres. in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 04:17 PM
  3. Early Review of Pacers Season, Outlook on future
    By imawhat in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 12:59 AM
  4. Hollinger's "All Break Out" and "All-Decline" Teams
    By JayRedd in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 02:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •