Image

If you were a GM

Moderators: pacers33granger, boomershadow, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890

User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 41,737
And1: 11,027
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

 

Post#21 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:22 am

Well, if we're looking that we're not going to try and compete until Detroit, Boston, and Orlando fade out a bit, that means we've got a few years and our salary situation will clear itself up as we continue, so long as we make a commitment to be wiser financially from here on out. We don't need to trade JO for nothing, if we can let him go for nothing in the future, or trade him later for some future value.


2nd, ideally, Murphy is the first piece to go, and JO is the coup de gras type move that allows us to completely rebuild.



I completely agree that we need to rebuild wisely, but essentially dumping JO for nothing but having to deal with a hunk o' Battie for just as long as JO would be on the books, is not the type of deal I'd at all look for. If Orlando had some better incentive than two very late 1st round picks, I'd really consider it. But it's just not there.
sanddude909
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,296
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 06, 2005

 

Post#22 » by sanddude909 » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:39 am

Fair enough.

I'd rather trade O'Neal, stockpile picks, and use the next 3-4 years to set myself up to be competitive for more than just a plaoff spot when Detroit, Boston, and Orlando begin their downward spiral. But there are many ways to build a team and I respect your right to disagree.

(especially since you're a moderator, rofl).


Scoot McGroot wrote:Well, if we're looking that we're not going to try and compete until Detroit, Boston, and Orlando fade out a bit, that means we've got a few years and our salary situation will clear itself up as we continue, so long as we make a commitment to be wiser financially from here on out. We don't need to trade JO for nothing, if we can let him go for nothing in the future, or trade him later for some future value.


2nd, ideally, Murphy is the first piece to go, and JO is the coup de gras type move that allows us to completely rebuild.



I completely agree that we need to rebuild wisely, but essentially dumping JO for nothing but having to deal with a hunk o' Battie for just as long as JO would be on the books, is not the type of deal I'd at all look for. If Orlando had some better incentive than two very late 1st round picks, I'd really consider it. But it's just not there.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 41,737
And1: 11,027
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

 

Post#23 » by Scoot McGroot » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:48 am

sanddude909 wrote:Fair enough.

I'd rather trade O'Neal, stockpile picks, and use the next 3-4 years to set myself up to be competitive for more than just a plaoff spot when Detroit, Boston, and Orlando begin their downward spiral. But there are many ways to build a team and I respect your right to disagree.

(especially since you're a moderator, rofl).


-= original quote snipped =-



Forget that I'm a moderator.


As for stockpiling picks, I agree wholeheartedly. But, I think that the quality of picks should be weighed as well, and the picks from Orlando are very low as they'd be late in the 1st round, borderline 2nd round picks, yet guaranteed for longer than 2nd round picks.


I would also look to trade JO, but hopefully getting a more useful player in return as salary filler (than a hunk o' Battie), and picks or young players that actually will be useful.


We're talking a matter of semantics here, as we're essentially talking the same type of rebuild, but I guess I'm just a little more cautious about the picks we'd be getting, while you're a bit more of a "move JO at all costs even if you get nothing of value and have to deal with a medium sized contract in return for 3 years, and still not be under the cap enough to utilize the money before you re-sign your own young guys", but to each their own!
User avatar
Charcoal Filtered
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,221
And1: 36
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA

 

Post#24 » by Charcoal Filtered » Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:51 am

bballpacen wrote: I would move Granger, b/c his value is as good as it will ever be, to PDX for Jack & Webster.


Every Blazer fan will buy you a beer for this deal.
The NBA: Where convicted tax evader Ken Mauer happens to officiate.
sanddude909
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,296
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 06, 2005

 

Post#25 » by sanddude909 » Sat Feb 2, 2008 4:05 pm

How weird is it that just a few days after I proposed that Indy trade Jermaine to Orlando for what amounted to $15 million in expirings and 08 + 10 first round picks that the Lakers pull off something eerily similar to that by getting Gasol for a rookie contract, three expirings, and 08 + 10 first round picks??

I had no inside knowledge, honest!!

Of course, everyone seems to think that Memphis got hosed, and probably the same reaction would be applied to Indy. Interestingly, the Magic board seems to this that 08 + 10 late first round picks are too much to give up for O'neal, which is a view I can almost not believe they have.

Scoot McGroot wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Forget that I'm a moderator.


As for stockpiling picks, I agree wholeheartedly. But, I think that the quality of picks should be weighed as well, and the picks from Orlando are very low as they'd be late in the 1st round, borderline 2nd round picks, yet guaranteed for longer than 2nd round picks.


I would also look to trade JO, but hopefully getting a more useful player in return as salary filler (than a hunk o' Battie), and picks or young players that actually will be useful.


We're talking a matter of semantics here, as we're essentially talking the same type of rebuild, but I guess I'm just a little more cautious about the picks we'd be getting, while you're a bit more of a "move JO at all costs even if you get nothing of value and have to deal with a medium sized contract in return for 3 years, and still not be under the cap enough to utilize the money before you re-sign your own young guys", but to each their own!
User avatar
PR07
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 14,180
And1: 2
Joined: Jul 25, 2003
Location: PacersRule07

 

Post#26 » by PR07 » Sat Feb 2, 2008 6:51 pm

I still probably wouldn't do the Orlando deal, but I'd certainly at least ask for J.J. Redick and the draft rights to Fran Vazquez to be included as well.
sanddude909
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,296
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 06, 2005

 

Post#27 » by sanddude909 » Sun Feb 3, 2008 3:56 am

PacersRule07 wrote:I still probably wouldn't do the Orlando deal, but I'd certainly at least ask for J.J. Redick and the draft rights to Fran Vazquez to be included as well.


If I were Orlando, I wouldn't consider either of those to be deal breakers. Still, since Redick and Vasquez were first round picks, you would probably have to choose between picks in 08 and 10 and Redick/Vazquez.

I'm not sure which I'd rather have, to be honest.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 41,737
And1: 11,027
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

 

Post#28 » by Scoot McGroot » Sun Feb 3, 2008 5:09 pm

sanddude909 wrote:How weird is it that just a few days after I proposed that Indy trade Jermaine to Orlando for what amounted to $15 million in expirings and 08 + 10 first round picks that the Lakers pull off something eerily similar to that by getting Gasol for a rookie contract, three expirings, and 08 + 10 first round picks??

I had no inside knowledge, honest!!

Of course, everyone seems to think that Memphis got hosed, and probably the same reaction would be applied to Indy. Interestingly, the Magic board seems to this that 08 + 10 late first round picks are too much to give up for O'neal, which is a view I can almost not believe they have.

-= original quote snipped =-




The big difference though, is that LA included a solid young prospect in Crittenton instead a hunk of a man in Tony Battie who still has a MLE sized contract for another 2-3 years.


That's a huge difference. Memphis got a better package for Gasol than what you're proposing for JO here. I view Memphis as having given up in that trade offer (especially since Gasol has been on the trade block much longer than JO has), and think that Memphis got hosed a bit. Make the offer worse, for a player that we view as better than Gasol, and the offer is even worse and not in the neighborhood.



But thanks for bringing up a thread you hadn't posted in for a little bit just to try and "prove your point" against me. Better luck next time though...:thumbsup:
User avatar
Bucky O'Hare
Banned User
Posts: 1,000
And1: 3
Joined: Jan 23, 2008
Location: Blazer Fans Love Me!

 

Post#29 » by Bucky O'Hare » Sun Feb 3, 2008 5:18 pm

Our best option is to just sit J.O. for the rest of the year and hope his knee injury finally heals up completely (or as close to completely as possible). Then go with him next year, where we'll have our current team, with likely a top-10 pick and maybe some other (positive) changes. A team that could conceivably have the talent to make some noise int he East. And if not, then a healthy J.O. will at least fetch more on the market than the broken down bum he is right now.
sanddude909
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,296
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 06, 2005

 

Post#30 » by sanddude909 » Sun Feb 3, 2008 10:18 pm

From this one learns the following:

first, one never wins an argument against a moderator.

second, there is a difference of opinion about o'neal versus gasol. I consider jermaine to be a far better defensive player (which big man is worse than gasol defensively? maybe curry and randolph, but that's about it), but by the same token i think gasol is a much better offensive player who will flourish in the triangle offense in the high post when bynum comes back. even in the low post, he's a very good scorer with a much better field goal percentage than o'neal.

so i don't think that the gap in value is quite as large as you guys see it (understandable snce he's your guy).

third, while i agree that the battie contract is a legitimate issue, the grizzlies had just drafted their alleged starting point guard of the future in conley junior. having crittendon is redundant in that sense, and i suspect that he was thrown in simply because he was their best player on a rookie contract.

i suspect you guys are keeping jermaine, and i agree that you could do a lot worse than keeping him. i do think that whatever rebuilding you will need to do won't get underway until his contract is off the books or with some other team.

thanks for the gentle razz, and for the civil discourse.

[quote="Scoot McGroot"][/quote]
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 41,737
And1: 11,027
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

 

Post#31 » by Scoot McGroot » Mon Feb 4, 2008 3:34 pm

No prob man. And, I was not arguing as a "moderator" as that would've been in red. I am also a poster here, and would really appreciate the opportunity to post as a normal poster here without people giving up and just saying "He's a mod so I'll claim that's why I gave up".


However, I simply saw that you were trying to compare apples to oranges in a deal where the similarities were that you were trading for a somewhat similar talent, with expirings and 2 very low picks as incentive, but that you offered a large, bad contract to us, instead of the very palatable rookie contract that Memphis got that is a very valuable trading piece as well.


That simply is a huge difference, and even if you view JO and Gasol equal, the trade offer should reflect that as well.


That's all I was trying to say.

Return to Indiana Pacers