RealGM

Here it is, let's just go for it, screw CoRow F' the cap. Let's go all out for Nellie's last hurrah. I know most of you won't like this trade, but I (now that I realize where we are and where we're likely heading) don't like our situation for next year. If O'Neal can still play, we'd have a real shot at doing something.

O'Neal + Daniels (team option 2009) + Diener + Diogu (yea, let's bring him back, he's pretty cheap) for

Baron, Jack, Al and Perovic.

Believe it or not it works on Trade Checker (for whatever it's worth).

Biedrens/O'Neal/Croshere?
O'Neal/Wright/Ike
#14 Pick?/Barnes/Belinelli
Daniels/Monta/Belinelli
Monta/Diener/#2 Pick?

If we didn't go for a big man (we wouldn't need one after this deal) who could we pick up that potentially could be a starter (say at the wing) with #14?

I wonder if Indiana would deal with us again (now that Walsh is gone).
Would they be willing to take back Jack and Al in order to get Baron and to move O'Neal? Of course, Baron would have to agree to the deal (which he might not without an extension). Would probably depend on what other offers there are for him out there.

edit: After thinking about it a little more, we don't really need Ike (they'll probably need him more with JO gone), I took hom out the trade and reran trade checker and it still works without him. This would save us a few mil on our cap and probably Nellie some heartburn. We could use the pick for a 3/4 swing guy instead?

Biedrens/O'Neal/Croshere?
O'Neal/Wright/Barnes (Nellie could have some occasional smallball, )
#14 Pick?/Barnes/Belinelli
Daniels/Monta/Belinelli
Monta/Diener/#2 Pick?

Independent of cap implications, if I'm playing for next year, I think that makes us a worse team. Potentially much, much worse.

JO's a shell of himself... I caught some games of his, thought he was just injured and slow... turns out he's played that way all season.. no reason to take him.

There definitely would be some risk involved, but there's also a significant risk involved with Baron, Jack and Al and of course, JO would have to pass a physical in order for the deal to be approved. Like I said, it's just a wild idea.

No wilder than wanting to continue building around Baron though

IND would just be in it for the EC though... I'd like to see if we could get Granger somehow instead. Pretty doubtful, but he has a lot of length and grit for a SF.. reminds me of a Shawn Marion type without the ugly shot or belief hes a go to guy.

510Reggae wrote:No wilder than wanting to continue building around Baron though

IND would just be in it for the EC though... I'd like to see if we could get Granger somehow instead. Pretty doubtful, but he has a lot of length and grit for a SF.. reminds me of a Shawn Marion type without the ugly shot or belief hes a go to guy.

Yeah, I thought about Granger, but not sure whether they'd bite on that one. Hey, I'm not even sure they'd bite on this one (Jack and Tinsley reunited, + Baron, ugh ).

I hate it. I'm fine with trading away the Jack/Baron/Al core, as long as we get something I like in return. And I'm not a fan of Jermaine O'Neal, who will never be the same player again.

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:Independent of cap implications, if I'm playing for next year, I think that makes us a worse team. Potentially much, much worse.

We'd be giving up 55 points of our offense. If BEST CASE SCENARIO O'Neal + Ike were 100% healthy and used just right-and Daniels + Diener both played better than ever....we'd almost break even---but the JO expires and we are left with Ike and Diener?

Of course you NEVER give what's PROBABLE and PROVEN for a "Best Case"

JO did not play well and seemed to have nagging injuries. Ike may SOMEDAY stay healthy long enough to get a role and tune up what was very nice talent.
Meanwhile-2 strasight years he's been unable to sieze the opportunities.
Daniels? Might as well keep Pietrus,and Watson may be as useful as Diener,.

Such desperate deals as this are what turns a .500 team into a bottom feeder. How many NBA players topped 20 pt per this past year? not a lot..and all of them are considered valuable trade chips.

Al is 6-9,athletic,plays D and MAKES 3's. Not lots of those around.

Daniels? Plenty of that around. Diener..same. You pretty much need to replace Daniels-Diener with Granger to do this.. Then at least we are trading 3 starters for 1 1/2.

510Reggae wrote:No wilder than wanting to continue building around Baron though

IND would just be in it for the EC though... I'd like to see if we could get Granger somehow instead. Pretty doubtful, but he has a lot of length and grit for a SF.. reminds me of a Shawn Marion type without the ugly shot or belief hes a go to guy.

Wrong....

MUCH "wilder". The Pacers KEEP all the guys who played-add 3 starters who'd been healthy and combined for 55 pts per. EC? It's the EAST folks--they become major contenders -especially as age is a big factor working against Boston and Detroit. Why should they want to become the Griz?

Us? We trade (again) 55 pts of our offense and HOPE that JO and IKE each play 1/2 the games?
JO would not only have to come back healthy-he'd have to come back as Wilt Chamberlain

No, its actually right.

This is a lousy and out there idea, much like staying the course.

Jermaine O'Neal is toast.

No thanks.

510Reggae wrote:No, its actually right.

This is a lousy and out there idea, much like staying the course.

Well in a comparative sense this trade is MUCH worse than staying the course. Thats something that even you cant disagree with.