I call BS. I thought we traded our pick last season. So, unless it's no longer part of the newest CBA, I didn't think a team is allowed to trade its pick 2 years in a row.
So, whatever the trade might be, it doesn't involve our #11 pick.
But even if we do trade our 2008 pick now, when next year rolls around we can still trade our 2009 pick separately.
The longer I think about this, I have to admit it's pretty stupid. Even without the #11 included. At least if Wally is the best part of the deal. Wally + #19 makes it a little better (if we keep #11), but even still......
I'd rather see a package where we somehow keep our #11 and get their #19 instead. I could pallate that rather than giving up JO+our #11 for Cleveland doo doo.
if we trade away our first rounder and don't get another back, i will shoot someone.
but if we could keep our pick and get theirs too, that would be great [even though it won't happen]. we could take a big guy with the 11 and maybe someone like ty lawson with the 19.
Last edited by Will Galen; 06-05-2008 at 01:13 PM.
With JO's end of contract coming up I wouldn't be opposed to keeping him this year. Maybe he could play like someone who is playing for a contract - not with us but someone else.
That said I have really gotten tired of virtually everything being handed to him. "This is JO's team now", playing him when it was obvious the team played better without him, "trade him for nothing". It's time he finally played for something and something that helps THIS team for a year.
The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.
Don't fret guys, we'd still have #41!
Anyway, Dick Vitale had been a sometimes color commentator for the P's back then, and he was on the dais as one of the hosts of the activity.
After the Reggie pick, he started promising that there was a huge treat for Pacer fans that would be announced at the start of the second round. A trade that would make us all happy.
Then, they announced that we'd acquired Scott Skiles, and the place, full of a lot of IU/Purdue fans who largely reviled Skiles, erupted in even more booing.
I'm pretty sure that's as close as we could get to projecting what would happen if they dealt the pick for something the crowd didn't like.
Something puzzles me, though. Why are some of you suggesting that the Pacers trade down to get the #19 pick? I thought the idea was to get as high up in the draft you could to have the best chance at getting the best talent out there or at least have the better odds of getting the guy you want. Am I missing something?
Daniels + Ike expires in time. That frees up close to 10 million. Granger is not a concern unless we trade one of these two.
This deal is retarded. I would not trade with cleveland for anything less than JO for big Z, Varejo, and the #19... as proposed before... and I didn't even really like that deal.
Is that too much? well who cares. If JO can't even fetch that than we are WAY better off seeing what he can do this season. He could come back playing really well and could be worth a good trade at the deadline... or just let him expire if we want cap room. If he has negative trade value, and we have to GIVE UP our pick... that is insane. There is no reason to do that. Just eat it for one more year and let him expire.
The other deal idea has grown on me though... if we could turn varejo into another pick, maybe send him to utah for the #23. Than we would have #11, #19, #23, and #41. I like it.
Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 06-05-2008 at 02:12 PM.
"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."
Well, it depends on what you think of picks 6 through 20. I happen to think there's not much, if any, difference in those players. If you can get a good player or something else of decent value and still be in a position to get a guy you think is just as good later, then you do it.
For example, if, after the workouts, you decide that Lawson and CDR are at the top of your list, you might look to move back a few picks if you think you can get them later, thus getting the guy you want, plus something else. Otherwise, you can just take that guy at 11, though there will be the added pressure of people thinking you're reaching.
To me, you look to get the most value you can out of the pick, and that could be through (a) using it to pick the best player your can, (b) using with other assets to go higher in the draft, or (c) using it to move back in the draft and address other concerns as well.
I don't know what the right answer will be, but it's looking to me that the guy we take at 11 isn't going to be all that much more impressive than the guy we might be able to get at, say, 19.
I just don't see it happening. so I wouldn't worry about it. The important part is the pacers are looking to trade JO
All of our other big contracts will be increasing by roughly $1M each that year, too, plus you have to factor in the contracts for any other players acquired over the next year (since this would leave only 7 players on the roster with contracts through 09/10). Given that, the $10M gained from the Daniels/Ike contracts coming off the books would be just enough to cover the increase of these contracts, and not enough to cover Granger's new contract. If we don't re-sign Foster, that would help, but surely there would be some other player(s) acquired that will fill that salary amount.
Therefore, we need to drop the contract of either JO, Murphy, Tinsley or Dunleavy before the 09/10 season if we want to retain Granger.
"I'll always be a part of Donnie Walsh."
-Ron Artest, Denver Post, 12.28.05