Chris Paul Sweepstakes

blueandgold · Post #1 » by **blueandgold** » Sat Jul 24, 2010 9:38 pm

What is the BEST offer the Pacers can or should make NO to get the PG of our future? Would/ Should Granger be in the mix?

Indy2thaWindy · Post #2 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:21 pm

Indiana or New Jersey could make the best offer. Neither will probly give up what New Orleans wants tho.

Hibbert
Hansbrough
Murphy
Dunleavy
Foster
Rush
George
2011 1st
2013 1st

for

Paul, Okafor, Posey, and Songaila

I wouldn't do it, but it would probly be the best offer.

Murphy
Dunleavy
Hansbrough
Rush
2011 1st
(2013 1st if it meant to get the deal done)

for

Paul and Okafor

I would do this.

Indy4Life · Post #3 » by **Indy4Life** » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:43 pm

If we could get Paul without trading Granger and Hibbert. Paul is the kind of player that not only makes your team better, but helps you attract future players as well.

I would offer:
Murphy-Hans-Ford-Dunleavy-Rush-and 2 picks for Paul-Posey-and Okefor...

It hurts our salary, but improves our team dramatically.

Val Holliday · Post #4 » by **Val Holliday** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:10 am

No offense Windy but that first trade listed is truly awful, the 2nd is something more likely.

I would try Rush/Psycho T/Murphy/Ford/Dunleavy/Two 1sts for Paul/Posey/Okafor, which is a position for position exchange with our expirings and gets rid of both contracts New Orleans wants to shed. If Hibbert or George were involved that would change the shape of the deal quite a bit and I'd probably want to keep Dunleavy and not take back Posey.

The Pacers are absolutely capable of putting together the best offer given that cap relief is a priority for New Orleans and they have a good stock of young talent to send.

fyi if the Pacers did take back all three of Paul/Okafor/Posey they should still have 6-8 mil in cap space next year I believe, plus the MLE and Posey would become an expiring as well so we'd still be in good financial shape with a much improved (possibly top 5) team. If we have to send Hibbert though that could impede our immediate chances to contend, and thus impede our chances to keep Paul long term so hopefully he is labeled off limits.

Indy2thaWindy · Post #5 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:17 am

I know that is a terrible trade. That's why i said i wouldn't do it. It was just an example of what we could offer and no team could match. New Jersey could come close but our expirings would put it over the top. My 2nd trade would make the Pacers the 3rd or 4th best team in the East. Possibly 2nd and would match up well with the Heat.

Paul - Chalmers
George - Wade
Granger - James
Okafor - Bosh
Hibbert - Ilgauskas

We could beat them in a 7 game series.

Post #6 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 3:21 am

You can't have cap space AND the MLE. One or the other.

aquatic92 · Post #7 » by **aquatic92** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:10 am

anyone but granger, roy, or paul. Hell even Lance would be tough to give up. But hell, if our expirings get Chris Paul, thats far and beyond what we're realistically looking at getting for them at the deadline or next summer.

Post #8 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:22 pm

aquatic92 wrote:anyone but granger, roy, or paul. Hell even Lance would be tough to give up. But hell, if our expirings get Chris Paul, thats far and beyond what we're realistically looking at getting for them at the deadline or next summer.

Come on. You have to give up something useful to get a top of the line PG in the NBA. Yeah, he requested a trade, but he did it quietly, and he's under contract for 2 more years with the Hornets, so they don't HAVE to move him.

It's more insulting to make an offer that excludes Granger, Roy, Paul George, and Lance Stephenson as it is to receive all those crappy offers for Granger every day. We really don't have anything else that's valuable. It's not like Hansbrough or Rush are can't miss prospects, or that if we have Granger and Paul, as well as Hibbert that our 1st round picks will be valuable.

Solid · Post #9 » by **Solid** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:22 pm

There is no point in getting him if you cant contend.
If we lose Granger or more than one of the young core guys then we likely can't.
I'd do the second Windy deal with one pick, but they're gonna want at least one of George or Hibb if not both..
My guess is we may be better off picking up pieces after the Paul deal, or as a third party.
If we can pick up one good piece then draft another we'll be fine.

aquatic92 · Post #10 » by **aquatic92** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:30 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
aquatic92 wrote:anyone but granger, roy, or paul. Hell even Lance would be tough to give up. But hell, if our expirings get Chris Paul, thats far and beyond what we're realistically looking at getting for them at the deadline or next summer.

Come on. You have to give up something useful to get a top of the line PG in the NBA. Yeah, he requested a trade, but he did it quietly, and he's under contract for 2 more years with the Hornets, so they don't HAVE to move him.

It's more insulting to make an offer that excludes Granger, Roy, Paul George, and Lance Stephenson as it is to receive all those crappy offers for Granger every day. We really don't have anything else that's valuable. It's not like Hansbrough or Rush are can't miss prospects, or that if we have Granger and Paul, as well as Hibbert that our 1st round picks will be valuable.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Why give up any of our young talent for a guy that would only stay 2 years and then be long gone? Hell, noone even knows if he will be the same when he comes back from injury. Especially when you have to take on Okafor's contract.

and all of our expirings are more insulting than Aaron Brooks and fillers for Danny Granger? :lol:

Post #11 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:54 pm

aquatic92 wrote:Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Why give up any of our young talent for a guy that would only stay 2 years and then be long gone? Hell, noone even knows if he will be the same when he comes back from injury. Especially when you have to take on Okafor's contract.

and all of our expirings are more insulting than Aaron Brooks and fillers for Danny Granger?

You didn't sound like it was obvious. You acted like it was obvious that New Orleans would give us Paul and Okafor for Murphy and Dunleavy.

And yes, all of our expirings straight up are more insulting than expirings and at least one valuable young player at a position of need in Aaron Brooks for Danny Granger. Much more. If you're not even willing to give up a prospect on par with Brooks for a player that is better than Danny, yes, it's insulting.

aquatic92 · Post #12 » by **aquatic92** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:06 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:
aquatic92 wrote:Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Why give up any of our young talent for a guy that would only stay 2 years and then be long gone? Hell, noone even knows if he will be the same when he comes back from injury. Especially when you have to take on Okafor's contract.

and all of our expirings are more insulting than Aaron Brooks and fillers for Danny Granger?

You didn't sound like it was obvious. You acted like it was obvious that New Orleans would give us Paul and Okafor for Murphy and Dunleavy.

And yes, all of our expirings straight up are more insulting than expirings and at least one valuable young player at a position of need in Aaron Brooks for Danny Granger. Much more. If you're not even willing to give up a prospect on par with Brooks for a player that is better than Danny, yes, it's insulting.

read my post again, i never mentioned any of that. lmfao

colts2004 · Post #13 » by **colts2004** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:19 pm

The day we even have a chance at CP3 is the day Bird fires JOB and brings in a real coach.

It aint gonna happen! We arent even on Paul's list of teams he wants to go to so why would NO even trade him here?

God Squad · Post #14 » by **God Squad** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 8:54 pm

No way CP goes to Indy. Not enough good talent. I'm thinking NY or ORL are the only real players.

Post #15 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:42 pm

aquatic92 wrote:anyone but granger, roy, or paul. Hell even Lance would be tough to give up. But hell, if our expirings get Chris Paul, thats far and beyond what we're realistically looking at getting for them at the deadline or next summer.

I'm reading it. You think we should offer anyone but Granger, Roy, Paul, and even Lance.

So, that leaves...

Murphy
Dunleavy
Ford
Foster
Dahntay
Rush
Hansbrough
Solo
McRoberts
Price
Rolle
rights to Barac
rights to Lorbek

What about that entire package even combined would be worth Chris Paul?

But then you think we should even offer straight up expirings for Chris Paul and go for it? You think that wouldn't be an embarrassment and get GM's to ignore Larry Bird completely?

Indy2thaWindy · Post #16 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:15 pm

This was on the Trades & Transactions board

OKC sends: Westbrook, Green, Collison

OKC gets: Paul

IND sends: George, Hibbert, TJ Ford

IND gets: Westbrook, Okafor

NO sends: Paul, Okafor

NO gets: Green, George, Hibbert, TJ Ford, Collison

Is that too much to give up to get Westbrook but also have to take on Okafor.

colts2004 · Post #17 » by **colts2004** » Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:54 pm

Giving up Hibbert for Okafor would suck! Hibbert has a chance to be an All Star center but again, we need a good PG. Unless you can do it, sign Westbrook to a long term extension and ship Okafor for expiring contracts to sign a center next off season

laydo · Post #18 » by **laydo** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 1:40 am

Indy2thaWindy wrote:This was on the Trades & Transactions board

OKC sends: Westbrook, Green, Collison
OKC gets: Paul
IND sends: George, Hibbert, TJ Ford
IND gets: Westbrook, Okafor
NO sends: Paul, Okafor
NO gets: Green, George, Hibbert, TJ Ford, Collison

Is that too much to give up to get Westbrook but also have to take on Okafor.

Absolutely way too much.

aquatic92 · Post #19 » by **aquatic92** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:27 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
aquatic92 wrote:anyone but granger, roy, or paul. Hell even Lance would be tough to give up. But hell, if our expirings get Chris Paul, thats far and beyond what we're realistically looking at getting for them at the deadline or next summer.

I'm reading it. You think we should offer anyone but Granger, Roy, Paul, and even Lance.

So, that leaves...

Murphy
Dunleavy
Ford
Foster
Dahntay
Rush
Hansbrough
Solo
McRoberts
Price
Rolle
rights to Barac
rights to Lorbek

What about that entire package even combined would be worth Chris Paul?

But then you think we should even offer straight up expirings for Chris Paul and go for it? You think that wouldn't be an embarrassment and get GM's to ignore Larry Bird completely?

Because I said the Hornets would do a deal not involving those 4 and all. I said i would offer anyone but those guys correct. I never said that a deal without those guys was likely to happen or anything of that sort, just that i wouldnt do a deal with 1 or more of those guys included. It never occurred to you that i might not be overly interested in a point guard who was one of the best in the league before he got injured and missed serious time last year, not to mention he'll be gone after 2 years, while giving up guys who were looking to use for the future.

You might have read it, but you obviously could not comprehend it.

Post #20 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Jul 26, 2010 11:48 pm

Obviously, yes. I must have comprehension issues. That's the ticket.