PHX and IND and NOP

[jredsaz]

PHX gets: Paul George
IND gets: Booker, Asik, 2016 1st (4), 2016 1st (6), 2018 1st (MIA), 2018 1st (PHX)
NOP gets: Knight, 2016 1st (13), 2016 2nd (34)

Phoenix adds the star they have coveted since the departure of Nash. PG is the same age as Bledsoe and establishes a top tier perimeter defense along with Tucker. They can add further talent in FA. They give a lot to get a lot.

Indiana realizes that as long as they have PG on the roster they will never be bad enough to tank and therefore never have the opportunity to generate the kind of assets to bring in championship talent to pair with PG. FAs of that caliber aren't coming to NapTown. Booker, Turner, and some combination of Murray, Dunn, Hield, Brown, Bender, Ellison, and Chriss would allow them to reset and build a similar aged core they can retain for the next 6+ years.

New Orleans moves down 6 picks in a relatively weak draft but picks up Knight, a needed scoring option who can excel in Gentry's system and will fit well with Holliday, Evans, and Davis. They replace Asik's dead salry with a productive Knight and still have the opportunity to grab a future rotation player at #13. Knight only makes $2.5 million more than Asik next season and an average of $3.5 million per season over the course of their contracts.

[basketballwacko2]

The Pacers don't tank! NEXT!

[jredsaz]

The Pacers don't tank! NEXT!

I would not consider this a tank. This is a rebuild.

[Pacersike]

We are not tanking but if the Pacers get Hornacek, we might be going shopping in Phoenix.

Tucker is not a bad player, plays hard and can defend multiple positions, perhaps even some power forwards.

Would you consider a second?

[basketballwacko2]

I'm getting sick of these trade your best player, a top 10 player so you can get better!

[basketballwacko2]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

[jredsaz]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

[jredsaz]

We are not tanking but if the Pacers get Hornacek, we might be going shopping in Phoenix.

Tucker is not a bad player, plays hard and can defend multiple positions, perhaps even some power forwards.

Would you consider a second?

Horny would be a great fit for that squad. But again, tanking is the act of losing games in order to gain assets that translate to franchise caliber players. This trade provides Indiana with those assets. The Pacers can continue the process of playing to win.

Granted, you won't be good next year but the organization never has to risk what is ultimately the down side of tanking - the cultivation of a losing culture.

[basketballwacko2]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

I'm sure fans of Philly thought the same thing 4 yrs ago. You trade a known quantity in PG for a chance one of those guys ever gets to 1/2 as good as him and you take one of the worst players in the NBA, Asik on a long term deal. No I don't think so.

[Scoot McGroot]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

By definition, that's a tank.

But, no the Pacers don't tank. We can't afford to. We're just now building back the lines to the fans from the Murphy/Dunleavy tank days. And trading Paul George after seeing what he did while only at 80% from recovery? It would be a hard line to the fans.

I do appreciate that it's a solid offer. Booker/4/6 and a couple future 1sts is a very solid offer. Booker looks like he could be a true long-term player in the league as he develops. However, it's really tough to break Paul George up into 3 smaller pieces when you just hope that those 3 pieces, and the 2 future 1sts, maybe one day combine to equal close to what Paul George does in less playing time. It's rough. Ultimately, it's a no. And sticking Indy with Asik isn't attractive either. With Myles Turner's long-term spot being at the 5, and us wanting to keep Mahinmi, it's really hard to stomach Asik as the 3rd string center, being inactive many nights, on his contract. That's certainly a major negative.

[jredsaz]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

I'm sure fans of Philly thought the same thing 4 yrs ago. You trade a known quantity in PG for a chance one of those guys ever gets to 1/2 as good as him and you take one of the worst players in the NBA, Asik on a long term deal. No I don't think so.

The Philly situation is very different. They actively tried to lose games for three straight seasons. I would never suggest, nor do I in this trade, that Indiana should pursue the same course.

Agreed that it is hard to find players as good as PG. But how else are the Pacers going to add championship caliber talent to the team?

In this scenario, Asik's contract is inconsequential to the Pacers.

[jredsaz]

The OP makes the Indiana Pacers one of the worst teams in the NBA.

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

By definition, that's a tank.

But, no the Pacers don't tank. We can't afford to. We're just now building back the lines to the fans from the Murphy/Dunleavy tank days. And trading Paul George after seeing what he did while only at 80% from recovery? It would be a hard line to the fans.

I do appreciate that it's a solid offer. Booker/4/6 and a couple future 1sts is a very solid offer. Booker looks like he could be a true long-term player in the league as he develops. However, it's really tough to break Paul George up into 3 smaller pieces when you just hope that those 3 pieces, and the 2 future 1sts, maybe one day combine to equal close to what Paul George does in less playing time. It's rough. Ultimately, it's a no. And sticking Indy with Asik isn't attractive either. With Myles Turner's long-term spot being at the 5, and us wanting to keep Mahinmi, it's really hard to stomach Asik as the 3rd string center, being inactive many nights, on his contract. That's certainly a major negative.

Thanks for actually addressing the merits of the trade.

I can agree that trading PG isn't going to bring back that same caliber of player. But, as I stated in the scenario, it is hard for Indiana to improve significantly with mid to late first picks and a non-free-agent-friendly market. How can you build a championship team around PG given your teams lack of assets?

[basketballwacko2]

I agree with Scoot, trading PG would be a slap in the face to all the pacers fans who stuck by this team when we went through the dark years after the brawl and Reggie retired, when we had Murphy and Dunleavy and JO getting hurt constantly. The offer of #4 and #6 looks good on the surface, Booker looks like an OK player and a couple of future picks is ok. Indiana wins 22 games in 2016-17. The stands are 1/2 empty and team gets sold and moved to God knows where!

[Pacersike]

We are not tanking but if the Pacers get Hornacek, we might be going shopping in Phoenix.

Tucker is not a bad player, plays hard and can defend multiple positions, perhaps even some power forwards.

Would you consider a second?

Horny would be a great fit for that squad. But again, tanking is the act of losing games in order to gain assets that translate to franchise caliber players. This trade provides Indiana with those assets. The Pacers can continue the process of playing to win.

Granted, you won't be good next year but the organization never has to risk what is ultimately the down side of tanking - the cultivation of a losing culture.

So trading your star player for unproven players makes a winning culture?

It's a pitty Phoenix doesn't have any star players coz I would love to do deals with you then year after year :p

[jredsaz]

We are not tanking but if the Pacers get Hornacek, we might be going shopping in Phoenix.

Tucker is not a bad player, plays hard and can defend multiple positions, perhaps even some power forwards.

Would you consider a second?

Horny would be a great fit for that squad. But again, tanking is the act of losing games in order to gain assets that translate to franchise caliber players. This trade provides Indiana with those assets. The Pacers can continue the process of playing to win.

Granted, you won't be good next year but the organization never has to risk what is ultimately the down side of tanking - the cultivation of a losing culture.

So trading your star player for unproven players makes a winning culture?

It's a pitty Phoenix doesn't have any star players coz I would love to do deals with you then year after year :p

That's a massive mischaracterization of my position but this is the internet and you're a fan.

The act of trading you star player does not create a winning culture OR a losing culture. A winning culture is created and implemented from the top down and Bird has proven adept at fostering such a culture.

I think Booker proved some things this year as did Turner. Adding two top six picks to that duo creates significant value.

[Scoot McGroot]

For the short term, sure. But in three years Bird could build a top three core of young talent. That is the premise of the trade.

By definition, that's a tank.

But, no the Pacers don't tank. We can't afford to. We're just now building back the lines to the fans from the Murphy/Dunleavy tank days. And trading Paul George after seeing what he did while only at 80% from recovery? It would be a hard line to the fans.

I do appreciate that it's a solid offer. Booker/4/6 and a couple future 1sts is a very solid offer. Booker looks like he could be a true long-term player in the league as he develops. However, it's really tough to break Paul George up into 3 smaller pieces when you just hope that those 3 pieces, and the 2 future 1sts, maybe one day combine to equal close to what Paul George does in less playing time. It's rough. Ultimately, it's a no. And sticking Indy with Asik isn't attractive either. With Myles Turner's long-term spot being at the 5, and us wanting to keep Mahinmi, it's really hard to stomach Asik as the 3rd string center, being inactive many nights, on his contract. That's certainly a major negative.

Thanks for actually addressing the merits of the trade.

I can agree that trading PG isn't going to bring back that same caliber of player. But, as I stated in the scenario, it is hard for Indiana to improve significantly with mid to late first picks and a non-free-agent-friendly market. How can you build a championship team around PG given your teams lack of assets?

By signing solid players, and drafting efficiently? We've added Myles Turner when we "didn't have assets". Let's see what other moves we make too.

But I don't think that turning Paul George at age 25 into 3 lesser assets that kind of add up to Paul George means we have better assets. Just "more" of them. And quantity doesn't always equal quality. In fact, it rarely does.

[basketballwacko2]

Some teams gut their team every 2-3 yrs, the Pacers are not one of them.

[jredsaz]

By definition, that's a tank.

But, no the Pacers don't tank. We can't afford to. We're just now building back the lines to the fans from the Murphy/Dunleavy tank days. And trading Paul George after seeing what he did while only at 80% from recovery? It would be a hard line to the fans.

I do appreciate that it's a solid offer. Booker/4/6 and a couple future 1sts is a very solid offer. Booker looks like he could be a true long-term player in the league as he develops. However, it's really tough to break Paul George up into 3 smaller pieces when you just hope that those 3 pieces, and the 2 future 1sts, maybe one day combine to equal close to what Paul George does in less playing time. It's rough. Ultimately, it's a no. And sticking Indy with Asik isn't attractive either. With Myles Turner's long-term spot being at the 5, and us wanting to keep Mahinmi, it's really hard to stomach Asik as the 3rd string center, being inactive many nights, on his contract. That's certainly a major negative.

Thanks for actually addressing the merits of the trade.

I can agree that trading PG isn't going to bring back that same caliber of player. But, as I stated in the scenario, it is hard for Indiana to improve significantly with mid to late first picks and a non-free-agent-friendly market. How can you build a championship team around PG given your teams lack of assets?

By signing solid players, and drafting efficiently? We've added Myles Turner when we "didn't have assets". Let's see what other moves we make too.

But I don't think that turning Paul George at age 25 into 3 lesser assets that kind of add up to Paul George means we have better assets. Just "more" of them. And quantity doesn't always equal quality. In fact, it rarely does.

You got Turner in a particularly deep draft following a season without George on the floor. It was a very good pick but I don't think those opportunities are nearly as likely drafting in the late teens and early 20's. Further, by the time those players mature into legitimate contributors on a championship team, George is deep into his prime and nearing the end of his current deal.

[Scoot McGroot]

Thanks for actually addressing the merits of the trade.

I can agree that trading PG isn't going to bring back that same caliber of player. But, as I stated in the scenario, it is hard for Indiana to improve significantly with mid to late first picks and a non-free-agent-friendly market. How can you build a championship team around PG given your teams lack of assets?

By signing solid players, and drafting efficiently? We've added Myles Turner when we "didn't have assets". Let's see what other moves we make too.

But I don't think that turning Paul George at age 25 into 3 lesser assets that kind of add up to Paul George means we have better assets. Just "more" of them. And quantity doesn't always equal quality. In fact, it rarely does.

You got Turner in a particularly deep draft following a season without George on the floor. It was a very good pick but I don't think those opportunities are nearly as likely drafting in the late teens and early 20's. Further, by the time those players mature into legitimate contributors on a championship team, George is deep into his prime and nearing the end of his current deal.

Ok. And Booker would only have, what, 3, 4 more years? Or should we just re-trade him in 2 years to "re-focus" our age.


Say what you want, but we're not a "tear 'em down to the rafters and rebuild" kind of team. But, since 1990-91, we've won 55% of our games. We've played for one championship. We've played in the ECF 7 times. I think our style works for our limitations. Giving up on a guy at age 26 who just had a monumental season, while only playing at around 80-90% of his endurance, lift, and abilities seems crazy, when we were a game 5 collapse away from upsetting the 2 seed. And we have youth. And, we have solid role playing vets. And we have max cap space (and a guy in Paul George that other guys have said they would love to play with).

[Pacersike]

Horny would be a great fit for that squad. But again, tanking is the act of losing games in order to gain assets that translate to franchise caliber players. This trade provides Indiana with those assets. The Pacers can continue the process of playing to win.

Granted, you won't be good next year but the organization never has to risk what is ultimately the down side of tanking - the cultivation of a losing culture.

So trading your star player for unproven players makes a winning culture?

It's a pitty Phoenix doesn't have any star players coz I would love to do deals with you then year after year :p

That's a massive mischaracterization of my position but this is the internet and you're a fan.

The act of trading you star player does not create a winning culture OR a losing culture. A winning culture is created and implemented from the top down and Bird has proven adept at fostering such a culture.

I think Booker proved some things this year as did Turner. Adding two top six picks to that duo creates significant value.

And what culture are you implementing in Phoenix when you decided to start building a team from the middle up without having a solid foundation?