My take on JO and trading him.

[cdash]

He can't veto a trade to Seattle. He can whine all he wants, but if he was really that hell bent on going to a contender, he should have opted out of his damn contract and signed with one.

[ahartleyvu]

Yeah, when did he get a no trade clause?

Their lineup post trade is pretty good. If they could pick up a decent PG or C with the MLE then they are solid.

Durant will only improve IMO, and i think Green breaks out next season. I dunno, maybe not.

[PR07]

In case you guys haven't noticed, players dictate where they go almost more than the teams do these days. Garnett vetoed a trade to Boston initially with no trade clause, Artest got himself out of Indiana and almost botched the Sacramento trade, Cassell whined his way out of Los Angeles, Jerry Stackhouse has held up a few trades, etc. Open your eyes and see that you don't need a no trade clause to block a trade from going through.

Teams don't want to deal for a disgruntled star, period. You can say that their lineup is "pretty good", but pretty good doesn't win in the West or really anything at all. By the time guys like Durant and Jeff Green are fully developed, JO will probably be on his last leg and one of his legs is already balky.

The only type of team that is going to trade for JO is one that thinks they can win now. Teams like Cleveland, maybe Chicago, maybe GS. Why would Seattle even trade for JO? He's already somewhat disgruntled in Indiana and has shown he has no patience for a rebuilding project. Seattle is rebuilding, they don't have the talent to win now.

[count55]

Your point is valid, PR07, but there's only one player in the NBA who actually can contractually veto a trade: Kobe Bryant. Here's the rule:

A "no-trade" clause can be negotiated into an individual contract if the player has been in the NBA for at least eight seasons, and has played for the team with which he is signing for at least four seasons. They don't have to be the immediately prior four seasons -- for example, Horace Grant got a no-trade clause from Orlando when he signed with them in 2001. He had played for Orlando for four seasons, but had played for Seattle and Los Angeles in the interim. Very few players actually have one of these no-trade provisions. Otherwise, individually negotiated contracts may not contain no-trade clauses. The no-trade clause prevents the team from making a trade involving the player without the player's consent.

Garnett, according to reports last year, did not have a no-trade clause. I'm unclear as to the specifics, but it was widely reported that only Kobe had one, and it had to do with the fact that he was actually on the Free Agent market, briefly flirting with the Clippers a few years back.

Garnett could not outright veto the trade for Boston, but big stars can create enough static, enough noise to potentially scare off specific teams. The result is more of a "short-circuiting" of the trade than an outright veto, but the effect is the same.

While JO lacks the clout that Garnett has, he actually may be more capable of blocking a deal to a team he didn't like because that particular team would already have reservations about his contract and his health. The idea of getting an unhappy player as well would, in many cases, be the straw that broke the camel's back.

[IndieRuso420]

-= original quote snipped =-



This is the point I have been trying to make. Indie, why do you want to trade JO when his value is this low? Worst case scenario and he is injured the whole year, he is still a 20mil expiring and has more value than he does right now. I see no harm in just holding onto JO for another year if the best offer we can get right now is a bunch of players that will not help our team at all. I don't want to trade JO for the sake of trading him, I want to help the team out, and trading him for 4 scrubs doesn't do that. I'd rather have JO for 50 games a year than 4 scrubs for 80.

The notion of packing the #11 pick with JO is just the craziest thing I've heard. I can't imagine the Pacers doing that. The #11 pick is so valuable to a rebuilding team, why would we trade it? Even if no one wants to admit it, JO is still valuable to our team, and I the only one who saw the impact he made at the end of the year? Am I the only one who thinks JO is still a good player?

I don't see his value going up. I hope for our teams sake that JO can start hot and stay healthy next year, but I don't think it will happen. I would just like to see this team move on without JO and just start the rebuilding process, because I don't think we are a contender with or without JO. I think we should just move JO, suffer for a few years, get some good young players, probably fire O'Brien after this point, usher in a new head coach that could lead this newly assembled team (w/ Granger, Dunleavy, and young players as core) to the next level. I think that scenario would turn this team into a contender faster, than building around the parts the Pacers already have. If it doesn't happen that way, oh well, but I doubt I'll be going to Conseco to pay to watch that team.

[cdash]

Its a good thing all Pacer fans arent that fickle. I still go to as many games as I can, whether or not the team makes moves that I want to see them make.

[treis]

I think you guys have to consider money a bit more in determining JO's value. No team in the NBA would sign JO to a 2 yr 40+ mil contract, so why would they give up value in order to get him on that sort of deal? The answer is that they simply wouldn't.

[cdash]

The NBA is littered with players who have terrible contracts. How many players in the league (not on their rookie salary) are actually earning their pay? Now, of course no team would sign JO to a 2 year $40 million contract. They would, however, be willing to give up value to get him because he is still a good player when he is on the court. They wont give up equal value for him (who's to say what equal value even is), but there are teams that need a player like JO to perhaps compete for a title or take the next step in doing so. In exchange for him, they would almost certainly get rid of one of their bad contracts as well.