Does CLE have any interest in JO?

IndieRuso420 · Post #1 » by **IndieRuso420** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 6:50 pm

I think CLE has one of the best deals for JO. I just don't know CLE fans feelings about aquiring him. JO for Wally, Joe Smith or V (Indy would rather have V) Eric Snow's contract (Snow would retire and become a CLE coach), and the #19. If that's hard to read:

JO

FOR

Wally
V (would be willing to take Joe Smith)
Snow's contract
#19

Hydroponic3385 · Post #2 » by **Hydroponic3385** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 7:27 pm

If we didn't include the #19, I think the Cavs would definitely get it done. It's definitely a big risk for the Cavs to take on JO cuz of his injury problems, but expirings and Andy would be fine by me. I really think the Cavs DESPERATELY need a first rounder this year, so if we did include the #19, we'd better buy/trade our way to a 1st round pick as well.

eyejayem · Post #3 » by **eyejayem** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 7:36 pm

I would definately do this, if we can then go after:

Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, and #28

or add a future pick and get Darko

Memphis will be rid of all their cap issues for next season.

Hydroponic3385 · Post #4 » by **Hydroponic3385** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 8:10 pm

How would we be able to land Miller & company though? Sasha, Smith, Damon, and future picks are about what we have to offer. So let's say those for Miller and Cardinal. If we somehow pull that off would look pretty damn nice, though I can't see it being realistic at all.

Ilgauskas / Wallace
O'Neal / Cardinal
James
Miller / D. Brown
West / Gibson

We could definitely lure some vets with that roster (i.e. a couple of Posey, PJ, Barnes, etc.) for the MLE. And Gilbert & Ferry should just try to flat out buy a 2nd rounder or 2. Try to get one to be early 2nd for a shot at a White/Walker/Hickson, and then a mid-2nd rounder for some to just have develop in the D-League or whatever.

Post #5 » by **Rise Against** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:12 pm

Even though it is somewhat of a risk.. We have to pull the trigger on that one. We have nothing significant to lose. Just gamble with JO like we did with Mr. Glass and hopefully, we come out with the pot.

Benedict_Boozer · Post #6 » by **Benedict_Boozer** » Wed Jun 4, 2008 11:54 pm

I pass unless the #19 is taken out of the deal

gflem · Post #7 » by **gflem** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 12:46 am

Agreed, I think with the injuries and big contract JO isnt worth the risk and the first. Make it a couple 2nds and I'm there.

SportsBoy · Post #8 » by **SportsBoy** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 7:12 pm

Wally, Joe, Snow(retirement 3.7Mil exception) and both 2009 2nds

for

JO and 11

eyejayem · Post #9 » by **eyejayem** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:20 pm

Wally, Joe, Snow,#19, 2009 Bulls pick

for

Jermaine Oneal, #11, #41

IndieRuso420 · Post #10 » by **IndieRuso420** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 8:27 pm

eyejayem wrote:Wally, Joe, Snow,#19, 2009 Bulls pick

for

Jermaine Oneal, #11, #41

This is pretty simple, Pacers would never give CLE JO & #11 unless CLE takes Tinsley and gives up V.

rjgraca · Post #11 » by **rjgraca** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:02 pm

I read the report from Draft Express and It doesn't say that JO will be traded for just expiring. IMO, it would happen after July 1st when Varejao's and PAVs BYC tags come off which are the two guys I expect the CAVs to trade for JO as part of a package (one or both). The Pacers are rebuilding which means younger players which is what Pavs and Varejao would represent to the Pacers and how that would sell it to their fans.

IMO, we don't take back Tinsley since JO's contract is bad enough and Tinsley is a sure fire character risk. I would prefer to move Ben Wallace in a package for JO rather than Wally's expiring which could be used in another transaction. If the Pacers want Wally's expiring contract in addition to Varejao and Pavs -- then the Pacers would be making the 11th pick for the CAVs with the transaction completing for JO and the pick after July 1st.

Benedict_Boozer · Post #12 » by **Benedict_Boozer** » Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:22 pm

I might deal with Tinsley if we get the #11 back. He has some personal issues though, and dominates the ball.

We'd be taking on ALL of the risk in that deal, Ferry prob wouldn't pull the trigger for that reason.

JDaWg1000 · Post #13 » by **JDaWg1000** » Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:42 am

well according to the wiretap the pacers gm said o'neal will not be moved to cleveland for a rumored deal of O'neal, 11th pick for eric and wally.

if we did get jermaine, i would prefer sending them big ben instead of wally, i mean there really is no reason to have ben, o'neal and big Z on our team and i really don;t see the cavs being able to trade ben for anything else, wally however would be easier to move on another trade

DariusRickyMilesDavis · Post #14 » by **DariusRickyMilesDavis** » Fri Jun 6, 2008 2:59 am

The contract is the issue--if we could swap Ben for Wally it would be done yesterday I'm sure.

I don't think that Wallace and O'Neal are redundant players, however. O'Neal can swap between the 4/5 and if anything gives us great match ups defensively. The key is his health.

L&H_05 · Post #15 » by **L&H_05** » Fri Jun 6, 2008 3:03 am

Indy is not going to get talent for JO... JO is too much of a risk, so their best bet is to cut salary, because they're going nowhere...

The Genius · Post #16 » by **The Genius** » Fri Jun 6, 2008 6:29 am

JDaWg1000 wrote:well according to the wiretap the pacers gm said o'neal will not be moved to cleveland for a rumored deal of O'neal, 11th pick for eric and wally.

if we did get jermaine, i would prefer sending them big ben instead of wally, i mean there really is no reason to have ben, o'neal and big Z on our team and i really don;t see the cavs being able to trade ben for anything else, wally however would be easier to move on another trade

well, considering both draft express and espn heard rumors solid enough to print about the JO/cavs dealings, we can assume where's there's smoke, there is fire, no?

FreeRon · Post #17 » by **FreeRon** » Sat Jun 7, 2008 4:43 pm

The Pacers didn't pull the trigger on a deal last year incluing Lamar Odom and the Lakers 1st because they wanted Bynum back. If they were willing to hold out for what they wanted then, why would they give away JO and the 11th pick now? I don't think we'll get equal talent back, either, but we can get closer than that. JO only has 2 years left. We'd rather keep him and trade him as an expiring next year than set ourselves back 2-3 years.

rjgraca · Post #18 » by **rjgraca** » Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:50 pm

^ And how much time did JO spend on the IR combined with a very ordinary stats at super max money -- he's almost played less than Larry Hughes did in the last three seasons. Just like Bibby last season -- you don't value those past and gone glory days especially when a player is fast approaching 30 years of age like JO.

FreeRon · Post #19 » by **FreeRon** » Sun Jun 8, 2008 1:19 am

That's why we'd rather keep him...

Post #20 » by **TheOUTLAW** » Mon Jun 9, 2008 1:18 pm

I'm not even an O'Neal fan and I thought this was kinda harsh.

O'Neal is available, but not for the expiring contracts of the Cavs' Wally Szczerbiak and Eric Snow, a league source confirmed last week.
However, not everyone thinks it's a great idea bringing O'Neal to the Cavs.
"He's not the guy that's advertised," said one league source.
O'Neal is billed as an athletic 7-footer who can run the floor. There's only one drawback: He doesn't run.
"He'd be the worst guy for LeBron (James)," the source said. "He's a black hole. He never passes out of double teams. It would limit what LeBron can do. It would be a disaster."
O'Neal hasn't played as many as 70 games since the 2003-04 season. He's been injury-prone. He'll be 30 in October and has much wear and tear on his body. He has $44 million remaining on his contract and has no plans of opting out.