RealGM

This trade is based on a few assumptions......

*The Lakers (Jim Buss?) want to win now but cut costs. They need PG and bench help.
*The Wolves want to add to their blooming team and have been unhappy with Wes Johnson.
*The Celtics are in blow up mode, but they think they're players in the 2012 FA market.
*The Pacers are in win now mode. They want to have a team that will be able to contend now.

Lakers;

In - Paul Pierce, Darren Collison, Michael Beasley, Brandon Bass, IND 2013 #1
Out - Pau Gasol, Luke Walton, Matt Barnes

Wolves;

In - Paul George, Dante Jones, Luke Walton
Out - Michael Beasley, Wes Johnson, Anthony Randolph, UTH 2012 #1

Celtics;

In - Roy Hibbert, Wes Johnson, Anthony Randolph, Matt Barnes, Louis Amundson, UTH 2012 #1
Out - Paul Pierce, Rajon Rondo, Brandon Bass

Pacers;

In - Pau Gasol, Rajon Rondo
Out - Paul George, Roy Hibbert, Darren Collison, Dante Jones, Louis Amunsdson, 2013 IND #1


Why 4 Boston

The biggest question mark in this proposed deal is Boston. In a best case scenario they lure Deron Williams and Dwight Howard to Boston. KG and Ray Allen get renounced and resign for $2.5 each. With Boston still holding Jeff Greens bird rights, he resigns and gets to play with Hibbert again. Hibbert is the perfect type of big to have a "twin towers" setup with Howard. Hibbert can shot, pass and play the high post. If this scenario doesn't happen then Boston ends up with young talent, future picks and saves a ton of money.

Roy Hibbert (25)
Dwight Howard (26)
Jeff Green (25)
Ray Allen (36)
Deron Williams (27) Bench of KG, Johnson, Bradley, JJJ, few 2012 picks

Why 4 Minny

Simple. They add another young piece without tapping into their core players. Paul George is a stud and would fit in very well with Rubio, Derrick Williams, Love.

Why 4 Pacers

IMO....instant power team in the east. Starting five of;

Rondo
Hill
Granger
West
Gasol

Nuff said.

Why 4 Lakers

Lakers get major scoring help from PP and Beasley. They get a young PG in Collison and instant offense of the bench from Bass. Starting five of;

Collison
Kobe
Pierce
Beasley / Bass
Bynum

Laker fans might not think this is full value for Gasol, but IMO they've played there cards and have decreased Pau's trade value. Added bonuses to this deal for the Lakers would be;

Pierce makes less money then Gasol and the final year of his deal isn't guaranteed.
Future #1 pick
Looking toward the future the Lakers will have some young pieces in Bynum, Collison and Beasley.

Paul George aint going nowhere.

We are 3rd in the East with young players with upside. We would be trading upside to add a few more wins in the near future, but the decline will be too sharp.

I know better than to read any trade that calls itself a blockbuster. they're always non-starters.

The Lakers rob everyone in this deal.

I've still not been sold on Rondo. I'm not saying he's not good, just that he isn't as good as he looks playing with Allen, Pierce, and Garnett. Still, I'll give you that he's an upgrade over DC. I may even say he'd be worth our first rounder, and definitely if there's top 10 protection just to rule out any crazy free fall that lands us a good pick. Throw in Lou, I really don't care. After that, though, I'm completely lost. I wouldn't trade Hibbert straight up for Gasol. Gasol is good, but has always been overrated and is very soft. He plays no defense and has little to no gas left in the tank. Hibbert is a young center who's been improving every year. He may not ever be what Gasol was in his prime, but I would say at this point in his career I'd much rather have Hibbert. To suggest that we throw Paul George in to this trade is borderline insane.

FreeRon wrote:I've still not been sold on Rondo. I'm not saying he's not good, just that he isn't as good as he looks playing with Allen, Pierce, and Garnett.

I'm guessing you don't watch the Celtics much? Because Rondo might be the best passer in the NBA. He makes it easy on the others. There's a reason why he gets monster triple doubles. And it's not because 3 way past their prime players allow him to do it. He's just that good. Is he a good shooter? No. But do we need a good shooter at point? No. We need a lockdown defender at point guard? No, but we need much more than what Collison does. Do we need a great passer at point guard? Yes. A player who can break defenses down and create open looks for others? Yes. We get that with Rondo. Not Collison.

The Collison salt is entertaining...to a point.

Hell no. And this isn't the trade board.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:I'm guessing you don't watch the Celtics much? Because Rondo might be the best passer in the NBA. He makes it easy on the others.

I understand how you can think this. Rondo is fun to watch because he makes the tricky passes and all. There are just a few problems with what you're saying. First, the aging players argument holds little to no weight. Boston is 7th in the NBA in team shooting %. Indiana is 23rd. Rondo's assist per turnover is 2.5:1. Collison's is 2.9:1. I'm still going to give you that I would rather have Rondo just because there's something to be said for a guy that makes big plays. I would be okay with giving up Collison, a 1st, and Admundson for him. I'm not willing to throw in Hibbert or George and quite honestly I think you're out of your mind if you would. I normally agree with your posts, but I think you greatly undervalue Collison. Do you remember the end of Tinsley? That's an honest question btw, not trying to be smart.

Oh and if you're wondering Lance's assist to turnover ratio is 1.1:1

Lol, this guy thinks the Celtics would trade Pierce to the Lakers.

Why would the Pacers throw away their future? No way the Pacers would even consider trading Hibbert and George at the same time.

I love the idea of acquiring Rondo, but not at the price of three starters and a 1st round pick.

Take out Hibbert and Gasol, and make it Collison & George for Rondo, and maybe we can talk.

This has got to be the dumbest thing ive read in here since the season started....

FreeRon wrote:

Indy2thaWindy wrote:I'm guessing you don't watch the Celtics much? Because Rondo might be the best passer in the NBA. He makes it easy on the others.

I understand how you can think this. Rondo is fun to watch because he makes the tricky passes and all. There are just a few problems with what you're saying. First, the aging players argument holds little to no weight. Boston is 7th in the NBA in team shooting %. Indiana is 23rd. Rondo's assist per turnover is 2.5:1. Collison's is 2.9:1. I'm still going to give you that I would rather have Rondo just because there's something to be said for a guy that makes big plays. I would be okay with giving up Collison, a 1st, and Admundson for him. I'm not willing to throw in Hibbert or George and quite honestly I think you're out of your mind if you would. I normally agree with your posts, but I think you greatly undervalue Collison. Do you remember the end of Tinsley? That's an honest question btw, not trying to be smart.

Oh and if you're wondering Lance's assist to turnover ratio is 1.1:1

I wouldn't trade Hibbert or George for him either.

I remember the end of Tinsley. It's sad he never became the point guard he could have been. Collison reminds me of Tinsley...

...minus the amazing playmaking ability had. For all of his flaws he could and did create looks and shots for others. Collison can't.

I don't understand why TJ got so much hate while Collison is so widely accepted, when TJ was the much better player. If we had prime Shaq under JOB, he'd try to turn him into Dirk. He misused TJ and he never had a chance under Vogel, except in the playoffs where he actually did good.

And Lance's assist to turnover ratio would have nothing to do with him playing offball next AJ Price or that pretty much every bench player except Hill and Foster, both who missed a bunch of games, shoots below 40%, would it?

Lance was thrown in for two reasons: 1) I wanted to point out what kind of difference it makes to have better shooters alongside you and 2) I knew it would get you going! I still think you're knocking Collison too hard, though. Tinsley was a better passer when he was sober. That I'll give you. JOB ruined TJ by turning him into a chucker. That I'll give you. And I would rather have TJ or Tinsley in their prime than Collison. Honestly, though, he doesn't turn the ball over and he looks to pass first. He's certainly not making any All-Star games the way he's played, but without actually looking at the other starting PG's in the league I'd say he's in the top half. Glad to hear that you wouldn't give George or Hibbert for Rondo, though. I saw a suggestion of Collison and PG for Rondo earlier today. Purely talent-wise it's not an awful deal, but I can't imagine we need a volatile PG who's a marginal upgrade at the cost of our up-and-coming 2/3 who has the ability to really get the crowd into the game.

This trade is absolutely horrible. There is no way we are going to trade BOTH Hibbert and Paul George unless we get superstars in return and we are not. Rondo is a diva and a slight upgrade over Collison. Gasol is an aging all-star. Both of our guys are on rookie deals and seems this would be just a zero sum game. If ANYONE gets traded it's going to be Granger. So not a well thoughtout and dumb trade.

Wow, bad trade and I can't even believe this was even thought of. George and Hibbert are the only two I see staying here long term. Collison, Granger, Hansbrough etc. I think will either be traded or they will sign elsewhere when their time comes.

I really like our team and I think we will make a deep run in the playoffs but probably next year (I do see us winning our first round series but a deep run to me is conference finals+). I really don't see a reason to trade anyone we have now unless its a bench player or two for another high quality bench player. And why are some posters so hard on Collison? He is only in his third year, really? Give him time just like Hibbert got time and he will improve. I remember Hibberts first two years when everyone was call for his head, and now the consensuses is HE A BEAST. If Collison doesn't then I would like him as a reserve pg.

Indy2thaWindy wrote:And Lance's assist to turnover ratio would have nothing to do with him playing offball next AJ Price or that pretty much every bench player except Hill and Foster, both who missed a bunch of games, shoots below 40%, would it?

It's mostly a consequence of Lance passing mainly to Lou.