Bulls or Cavs Trade

[IndyDave02]

http://thebiglead.com/?p=5942

The article listed above discusses an Oneal trade to the Bulls and states:

"Trade scenarios are very talk radio, but how about this: the Bulls send Kirk Hinrich ($10 million) and Drew Gooden ($7 million) to Indiana for Jermaine O

[mizzoupacers]

We've talked about both of these rumors a bit in other threads, but haven't compared them side-by-side, so...

The Bulls trade would be the better one for us IMO. Don't see how we could go wrong in getting Hinrich, a clear upgrade for us at pg and probably a much better pg than anyone we can get in this year's draft, plus a good-sized expiring contract in Gooden, plus something like $4 million off the payroll THIS SUMMER, since JO makes more than Hinrich and Gooden combined. However, my best guess is that the Bulls will take Beasley with the #1 pick and hang onto Hinrich.

I think the Cleveland thing has a better chance of happening, and even though it's not the value I would have hoped the Pacers could get for JO, it's still not bad if the Pacers just need to turn the page, which I think maybe they do at this point given JO's strained relationship with the front office. I'd surely kick myself if O'Neal then proceeded to have a monster season for the Cavs...but I'm just not optimistic that he would have that same monster year if he stayed in Indiana.

[FreeRon]

I like the Cavs deal better. However, I'm sure I wouldn't like what Obie would do with it. I would like Ike to get more minutes at PF with Murphy's butt on the bench where it belongs. Unfortunately, though, we'd undoubtedly start Murphy at PF and play AV as his backup even if both of them were a combined 0-72 in a game. I think Tinsley-Dunleavy-Granger-Ike-Z with Diener-Daniels-Williams-AV-Foster off the bench would be better than Hinrich-Dunleavy-Granger-Gooden-Murphy with Tins-Daniels-Williams-Ike-Foster and we also can insert the #11 and #19 picks in there instead of just #11, but like I said we probably won't play it that way. I'm also concerned with having another overpaid PG, as Hinrich's contract runs until '11-'12 and he makes $8-10 milllion over that time. This is the last year on both Z and AV's contracts unless they pick up their options. Z most likely will at $11 million, but even if they both do they're only $17 million for next season which is what Hinrich and Gooden would make only Hinrich's contract is longer. I'd rather not take a chance with a player whose salary is that big considering our current situation with them.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

I hate both of them. Lets just keep JO. I'd rather have him play 40 games a year than either of these crap trades.

[massey1992]

I take the Cavs. A pick means a young player probably Joey Dorsey or DJ White. Z and V would both help us win. Let's do it.

[FreeRon]

DJ White is a second round pick. Some say Detroit is taking him at 29, but that's as high as I've seen him. I don't think we'd be looking at taking him at #19 when it's at least within the realm of possibility that he will be there when we draft in the second round.

[Indydave]

If we have to pick between the 2 trades, for sure I'd take the Cleveland trade over the Chicago trade. Having the #11, and #19 pick in this draft sounds pretty appealing, considering how deep the 1st round is this year.

Another PG that has a contract on the books for 4-5 years @ 10 mil or so does not sound that appealing right now.

[Scoot McGroot]

If I had to choose between either of these trades with a gun pointed at my head, I'd take the Chicago deal, and then simply draft the best player available at the #11 spot that we already own. If we take the Cleveland deal, we're still desperately in need of a PG in this draft, thus taking up one of the two picks, and still allowing us to take the best player available with the other, but probably would end up with Augustin at #11 and then someone like Robin Lopez or so at #19. I think I'd rather take a Hinrich and Speights type combo.

[count55]

I like the Chicago deal because it provides some stability at point and some financial flexibility (as configured here).

I wouldn't describe the 1st round as being deep so much as being flat. That is to say that Rose and Beasley are head and shoulders (and perhaps a large part of the torso) above everyone else. Then you have Mayo and Bayless. After that, I don't see a huge difference between the guys being projected at 5 and the guys being projected in the 20's. It's a huge crapshoot, and I think in general it's a pretty weak draft.

I've heard other things referred to as the "silly season" when lots of trade rumors get floated, but nothing really compares to the approach of the NBA draft. A time when 1st round picks are treated and valued as gold. The problem is that in any given draft, half to two-thirds of the first rounders never really amount to anything.

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

It is a pretty weak draft. But the Chicago trade leaves us with 2 long term expensive PG's.

Lets just keep JO.

[count55]

Well, in my mind, I've already turned Droopy into a long-term expensive other guy contract...

[FreeRon]

I really am not a big fan of Hinrich's game. He's horribly inconsistent from what I've seen, which is a considerable amount because I get WGN and not FSN Indiana. To me we'd be better off taking Speights and getting a PG at 19 than counting on a combo of Hinrich and Tinsley.

[cdash]

I've said many times that I'd just assume keep JO, but out of these two trades, I like the Chicago one a lot more. Hinrich's contract is kinda big, but it decreases in value each year, and Gooden is expiring. I'd like a future first or their second rounder this year paired with that package, but I like it a lot better than that platter of garbage from the Cavs.

[TheOUTLAW]

I don't think there is any way that the Cavs trade their first Z and Varejao for O'Neal. That just completely decimates the front line of the Cavaliers (especially if O'Neal didn't play 82 games) it ages the teams already old front line and it eliminates the ability for them to get a big to develop.

[FreeRon]

There won't be much developing to do if LeBron leaves because he's got no support. When you consider AV is unhappy with his contract and Z's not got much left in the tank, the #19 is the only real value you're giving up and you're not going to get some great player to develop there. It's a slot where you look to get a career role player and hope you get lucky. If JO doesn't turn out to be a force, you lose a couple years of Z and a role player. If he does, you potentially win a title. If you can get a better player without giving up LeBron go for it...then let us know who took it because we've got a lot of money we need to transfer out of Nigeria.

[IndyDave02]

I really am not a big fan of Hinrich's game. He's horribly inconsistent from what I've seen, which is a considerable amount because I get WGN and not FSN Indiana. To me we'd be better off taking Speights and getting a PG at 19 than counting on a combo of Hinrich and Tinsley.

If I recall correctly Dunleavy was described as "horribly inconsistent" when he was with Golden State. I think OB's offense would be a better fit for Hinrich.

GO PACERS! Is it fall yet?

[TheOUTLAW]

Like O'Neal at 40 games/season putting up worse stats than Z at a lower percentage would prevent LeBron from leaving. So Z has little left in the tank but he still played in more games than O'Neal has in at least 5 seasons. I'm not saying that O'Neal is a bad player but his injury risk is so high that you can't even remotely think you'll get full value for him.

[count55]

Like O'Neal at 40 games/season putting up worse stats than Z at a lower percentage would prevent LeBron from leaving. So Z has little left in the tank but he still played in more games than O'Neal has in at least 5 seasons. I'm not saying that O'Neal is a bad player but his injury risk is so high that you can't even remotely think you'll get full value for him.

No, we're not going to get anywhere approaching full value. I suspect you're right that Cleveland wouldn't do this deal, simply because of the risk. I think you're seeing things like this because (A) people are inferring a desperation on the Cavs that may or may not exist regarding LeBron's future and (B) JO's name is going to be linked with everybody and their brother this summer.

We understand the trepidation teams have regarding JO because we suffer the exact same thing. We know that as recently as the 1st half of 2006-2007, he was a 20/10/3 guy. Even hobbled that season (post All-Star), he posted 18/8/2 roughly. Clearly, however, many of us doubt that we can ever count on him for 70+ games again, let alone the double-double guy capable of defending the rim.

As with last summer, we're going to need to continue to judge his value to us on the floor (diminishing though it may be) versus the value people are offering. I like JO as a guy and a player, but I don't think we can wait for him to get healthy any more. Last summer, I knew the risks in not compromising for deals that I didn't like, and was willing to live with them. Unfortunately, the worst case scenario (and injury plagued year) played out for the Pacers. (This seems to be a trend lately, so I don't know why I expected different.)

This year, I've greatly reduced the value that, in my mind, would be reasonable for JO, but it's still well above the "Jamaal-Tinsley-everything-must-go-low-low-price-free-refrigerator-with-purchase" price.

Maybe the thing that Cavs or Bulls fans should recognize is our (the Pacers) recent history of getting the **** end of the stick. Given our "worst case scenario" playouts, perhaps it would be wise for either team to assume that they players they send us will either be hurt, arrested, or both, while JO rebounds to his peak.

[FreeRon]

In 54 games a season over the last 3 years, all of which JO has been recoving from an injury which he only now claims to be back from, he's put up 8.8 RPG, 2.4 BPG, and 18.1 PPG. In 76 games a season over the last 3 years, Z has put up 8.2 RPG, 1.6 BPG, and 13.9 PPG.

1) I want to know how you figure JO is putting up worse stats considering you've already played the 40 game card in the same sentence (least he ever played was 42 by the way, and he played 69 last year).

2) Assuming he played his normal 54 games like you want to assume, the Cavs would need someone to play 22 games a season and average 2.3 RPG, -0.2 BPG, and 1.2 PPG to equal to productivity they got from Z. Add in that JO averaged 20 and 10 for two consecutive seasons before his problems started and that Z has never come close, and the fact that JO is turning 30 and Z 34, I don't see your argument as to how Z is better than JO. When you throw in AV and the 19 I can start to see it, but the people who would rather have Z than JO are just really confusing to me.

[TheOUTLAW]

I guess if 13.6/2.2/6.7 (on .439 shooting) versus (14.1/1.4/9.3) are not worse stats to you. There is nothing I can say to convince you differently. They are at the very worst comparable and considering that Z makes less money and plays in more games I still have to give him the edge on recent play.

By the way, I've never argued that Z was better than O'Neal. My contention is that Z for 70 + games (along with Varejao and the 19th pick) are way better for the Cavs than 40 or so games by O'Neal. Don't try to make up an argument that I haven't made myself.