New Jersey Nets - Indiana Pacers

greenway84 · Post #1 » by **greenway84** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 5:47 pm

Trenton Hassell
Keith Van Horn
Stormile Swift
-----------------------
Jamal Tinsley
Marquis Daniels
Shawne Williams
Trade Execption
2010 2nd

Would trhow in McBob if they wanted him. Still works Finacially.

Why for the Pacers: We rid ourselves of our ast three troublemakers. Clear up roster space, and cap space.

Why for the Nets: They get a good young potential in Shawne. They get a exp contract and servicable rotation guy in Marquis. They get argueably one of the better pg when healthy. They get younger with a pick. They save a little money with our Trade exception. And they could possibly get a guy named McBob...Awesome...LOL Who is exp.

LadiesLuvPGs · Post #2 » by **LadiesLuvPGs** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:02 pm

New Jersey is trying to free up cap space (or keep their recently acquired flexibility from the RJ trade) for the "summer of lebron" in 2010. Since tinsley's deal runs one year past that summer, I don't see them touching this trade.

FreeRon · Post #3 » by **FreeRon** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:25 pm

They take on longer contracts than they want, we could get more if we just took Tinsley out and told him to stay home. I'm seriously all for keeping Tinsley and letting him rot if we have to give away assets just to get rid of him. The only alternative I think is that we take back someone else's problem, preferrably someone who plays PF so we can at least use them.

fienX420 · Post #4 » by **fienX420** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:27 pm

agreed - no way they will take on tinsley's contract. but new jersey does look like a potential partner if we're looking to trade our expiring deals. they have a number of players that could be beneficial: stromile swift - good one year rental at a position of need; keith van horn - believe he has a non-fully-guaranteed contract so cutting him could save us some money immediately; trenton hassell - nice stopper reserve, but i wouldn't want to take him on unless we are moving a contract ourselves (to somebody else in a 3-way, etc.); and i personally think that sean williams is a hell of a prospect that could be a great fit for our system. he is a good shot-blocker and rebounder. i know people will bring up character issues, but i think he has been pretty well-behaved since leaving college (the big difference between him and our shawne williams).

greenway84 · Post #5 » by **greenway84** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:24 pm

Question. Doesn't the Cavs have the right to match any offer that NJ offers Lebron. If so wouldnt they be willing to go over cap to do so. I just dont see the Cavs letting him walk away. I think more than likely it would be a sign and trade. I think thats why NJ is loading up with youngsters and cutting back space. Offer up a lot of young high potential players and a butt load of cap space, and i think the Cavs do that. Simply because weather they sign him or not Lebron wants to leave.

Post #6 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 7:42 pm

LeBron will be an unrestricted free agent next time he comes up for free agency. The Cavs will only have the right to offer more money and an extra year that no other team can offer.

As for this original deal, I think when NJ went out and over filled the roster with signings like Dooling, Najera, and Hayes, that effectively ended any chance that guys like Marquis Daniels or Shawne Williams would end up on their roster. As of today, their only cut would be the un-guaranteed deal of KVH. However, if they make this deal, they'd either have to cut one of the incoming guys, or Jarvis Hayes (who they just signed) or Maurice Ager (who's on a rookie scale contract).

Plus, this deal would ultimately put them only $54,502 under the luxury tax. That's not a whole lot of room to breath, and I'm sure they'd like to be a little more under the luxury tax than this.

They'd likely rather just have a future 1st rounder rather than Shawne Williams and a future 2nd rounder in return.

A Tinsley/Daniels/future 1st rounder for Swift/Hassell/KVH would work financially, and NJ would only add about $2 million in salary this year. A Daniels for Swift deal is pretty even financially and value wise. The Tinsley/1st for Hassell/KVH saves Indy almost $13 million over the next 3 years, and we still end up with a semi-usable veteran in Hassell. The 1st is almost necessary to intrigue NJ, but could likely be protected in some ways.

FreeRon · Post #7 » by **FreeRon** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:28 pm

Unless it's top-20 protected for life I wouldn't want any part of that. Hassell, KVH, and Swift are role players. They would be really nice to have, but are older and most top-20 picks turn out to be good role players at least.

Post #8 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:52 pm

But, that's the price we're going to have to pay. Tinsley has essentially NO value around the league. Hassell has tremendously more value around the league. We're going to end up having to pay to move Tinsley for other filler that might somehow be useful.

Wizop · Post #9 » by **Wizop** » Fri Aug 1, 2008 3:37 am

<But, that's the price we're going to have to pay.>

no we aren't. we can leave him at home. we don't have to get worse. and we don't have to do anything now. teams may get needier in January.

CableKC · Post #10 » by **CableKC** » Fri Aug 1, 2008 3:59 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:But, that's the price we're going to have to pay. Tinsley has essentially NO value around the league. Hassell has tremendously more value around the league. We're going to end up having to pay to move Tinsley for other filler that might somehow be useful.

The price is going to end up being Foster while taking back a comprable contract on some Backup Player.

fienX420 · Post #11 » by **fienX420** » Fri Aug 1, 2008 6:40 am

tinsley will probably be injured by january... but i wouldn't give up jeff foster for nothing. if we have to take a hit, it better be an expiring contract or ice williams - and we we better get something decent.

Post #12 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sat Aug 2, 2008 1:16 am

Wizop wrote:<But, that's the price we're going to have to pay.>

no we aren't. we can leave him at home. we don't have to get worse. and we don't have to do anything now. teams may get needier in January.

Tinsley likely will have put on 30 pounds by then, and will have absolutely NO value around the league.

We can't bet that he's going to sit at home in playing shape and that if he has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do all day that he won't get in any more trouble.

And it's much harder to void a contract for criminal violations than we all could imagine. It likely would be tied up in court for longer than Tinsley would be here, and he'd probably be on our salary cap that whole time no matter what.