Pacers/Kings/Warriors

Crossova21 · Post #1 » by **Crossova21** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 4:18 pm

Indiana
Incoming: Al Harrington
Outgoing: Jamaal Tinsley
Shawne Williams
Stephen Graham

Sacremento
Incoming: Jamaal Tinsley
Shawne Williams
Stephen Graham
Outgoing: Ron Artest
Francisco Garcia

Golden State
Incoming: Ron Artest
Francisco Garcia
Outgoing: Al Harrington

We get a much-needed PF (also fan favorite) and free up room at the wing positions. Ron Artest wants out of Sacremento and seemed to work well with Jackson. Sacremento also gets a point guard to fill the void of Mike Bibby.

Post #2 » by **count55** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 4:22 pm

Well, you're stretching it to say that Al is a fan favorite, though I'd be OK with him if it meant Tinsley gets out of town.

I'd do this trade just to see the reaction by David Stern to the news that Stephen Jackson and Ron Artest were back together again.

It makes some degree of sense, but I'd say it ranks pretty low on the "realistic chance" scale.

Post #3 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 6:19 pm

I can't see Sacramento trading both Artest and Garcia in the same deal, even if they're getting Shawne Williams back. If Artest is gone, Salmons and Garcia are the SF replacements.

I also don't think that Harrington has nearly that much value to get back Artest, let alone Artest and Garcia in the same deal.

CableKC · Post #4 » by **CableKC** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 6:40 pm

Even if you take out Garcia....the Kings get shafted...big time. On paper...this is a trade that makes sense IF you only look at need for teams....but if you look at this from a Financial POV....then it sucks for the Kings. They take on about $24 mil in contracts while sending out only $9.4 mil in contracts.

If anything...the only trade that makes sense is to remove the Kings from this entirely and just make it a straight up Tinsley+Shawne for Harrington trade. Although most of us cringe at a 3rd Harrington stint....I would much rather have him on the roster where he can actually be somewhat useful at a position of need ( altough he's not really a true PF that we are looking for )...moving Tinsley and his contract is worth it.

Post #5 » by **APerna** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 6:44 pm

In a word, no.

I don't want Harrington again.

CableKC · Post #6 » by **CableKC** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:01 pm

PacerPerspective wrote:In a word, no.

I don't want Harrington again.

Although he is no real answer to our PF needs....I would begrudingly consider it if it meant moving Tinsley.

As far as I am concerned.....Tinsley is going to be bought out.....one way or another...the Pacers are going to be paying about $18-21 mil for the roster spot that he inhabit over the next 3 seasons.

If we could get a player for him in return...ANY player....that does not have a contract that is any worse or any longer...then I am okay with that...even if it meant taking back Harrington.

Harrington returning to the Pacers for a 3rd stint >>> Buying Tinsley out and having his contract on the books for 3 seasons

I would much rather have a player that "sort of fills our needs" that is paid $19.5 over the next 2 seasons that counts towards the cap ( and then is off the books BEFORE the 2010-2011 sesaon ) then buyout a player at a cost of $16-17 mil a year and stil lhave his contract on the books for the next 3 seasons ( when he comes off the books AFTER the 2010-2011 season ).

Post #7 » by **count55** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:10 pm

PacerPerspective wrote:In a word, no.

I don't want Harrington again.

Andrew, it is foolish to turn down any deal that both gets rid of Tinsley and shortens our contracts and reduces our salary commitment by $4.7mm. Hell, even if you despise Harrington, you could buy him out for less than Tinsley with a shorter cap penalty. There is nothing about this deal that doesn't leave the Pacers in a much better position.

Truth be told...I would trade Tinsley for Artest, if I could. As shocking as that would be to many, it would still leave you in light years better position than the buyout that we are likely contemplating.
(BTW...neither Golden State, nor Sacramento are going to come anywhere near these deals). Hell, you trade Artest, meet him at the airport with a check for $7.4 million dollars, and get him to sign the buyout papers, and be at least $10 million better cash out of pocket, as well as $7mm better capwise in each of the years from 2009 to 2011.

Only two things would make me balk at a deal for Tinsley: (1) having to include one of our value assets (picks, Granger, Dunleavy, Rush, Ford, all off limits in this context) or (2) something that makes us substantially worse off financially. This second one is really hard to do...the only deals I saw that might do that were for Diaw or a package deal (with an expiring) for Ben Wallace, and even with those guys you might be able to argue benefit on the floor.

There simply is no more room for pride or likes/dislikes when it comes to moving Tinsley.

If this deal as proposed were agreed to by Sac/GS (no **** way), then we should take and get the hell out of Dodge before somebody realizes what just happened.

cdash · Post #8 » by **cdash** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:24 pm

I dont think its a very realistic deal at all. Golden State does backflips if it happened though. They get Artest and Garcia (underrated player imo) for Harrington? Sacramento laughs and looks for the Punk'd cameras when this offer is presented to them. They give up Artest and Garcia for a Tinsley, Graham, and Williams? Not a chance.

Post #9 » by **count55** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 7:34 pm

Sorry, Andrew...Tinsley's a sore spot.

joew8302 · Post #10 » by **joew8302** » Wed Jul 2, 2008 11:25 pm

PacerPerspective wrote:In a word, no.

I don't want Harrington again.

Care to elaborate? I was not the biggest Harrington fan, but when we went small (aka no JO) he was very effective. Without O'Neal on the team I think he could be an asset. From Indiana's perspective I like this trade a lot. Positive 1- we get rid of Jamal. Positive 2- We get Al back and he is a very serviceable player who is not the cause of trouble. We could do a lot worse.

jarrettjackfan · Post #11 » by **jarrettjackfan** » Thu Jul 3, 2008 12:12 am

Pacers say no i think. Giving up to much young talent in Williams and Graham.

basketballwacko2 · Post #12 » by **basketballwacko2** » Thu Jul 3, 2008 6:22 am

I'd cut out the kings and just do a GSWII deal, JT and Shawne for Al, like count55 said, we save a yr off JTs contract and save money now, plus we get a guy who can play pf even if he isn't quite what we'd like.

or

I'd offer JT and Shawne the kings for RonRon and buy him out.

CableKC · Post #13 » by **CableKC** » Thu Jul 3, 2008 4:03 pm

jarrettjackfan wrote:Pacers say no i think. Giving up to much young talent in Williams and Graham.

I concur with count55 on this....if we could move Tinsley and all it cost us is Shawne ( who, as Bird puts it, is on "thin ice" ) and Graham ( a end of the bench guy that can be replaced ), then I would do it without a thought.

Although I would regret possibly losing Shawne....he is sweetner in any deal to improve this team or get rid of Tinsley.