Would Pacers Be Interested In...

DrInsanity · Post #1 » by **DrInsanity** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:16 am

Either David Lee or Nate Robinson for the rights to the #13 pick + fillers?

Post #2 » by **Miller4ever** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:33 am

We have enough small guards, and Troy Murphy, but the caliber of players we'd be interested in are about equal.

Kuq_e_Zi91 · Post #3 » by **Kuq_e_Zi91** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:40 am

yeah, murphy and lee are too similar to make that deal. and i'd rather re-sign jack long term than make a move for nate while giving up our lottery pick.

DC2 · Post #4 » by **DC2** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:26 am

I'd trade #13 for Lee without thought. Who would the filler be though?

Post #5 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:36 pm

Interest in David Lee, but not Nate Robinson.

However, the filler would have to be either Tinsley, Dunleavy, or Murphy.

Not even because I'm trying to drive a hard bargain, just because those are the only deals that fiscally make the trade possibly work. Then, I don't see NY having any interest as all those guys hurt their 2010 plan.

Post #6 » by **Grang33r** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:56 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:Interest in David Lee, but not Nate Robinson.

However, the filler would have to be either Tinsley, Dunleavy, or Murphy.

Not even because I'm trying to drive a hard bargain, just because those are the only deals that fiscally make the trade possibly work. Then, I don't see NY having any interest as all those guys hurt their 2010 plan.

QFT

It will be very difficult to get Lee to the Pacers but like i said somewhere else, people have thrown out the word "legend" when talking about Jeff Foster, i can't imagine what people would be saying about David Lee. lol

Post #7 » by **PR07** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Yeah, can't really see our teams matching up.

Boneman2 · Post #8 » by **Boneman2** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:54 pm

David Lee would have to play here for 8 yrs before he'd reach Feistys level.

Regardless, Lee will require a hefty extension in the 10 to 12 m. per season range. Murphy is similar and his deal is a lot closer to ending. I'd gladly trade the 13th but wouldn't commit the 70 million it would take to retain Lee, apparantly DW is on the fence too.

DrInsanity · Post #9 » by **DrInsanity** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:27 pm

I would say Lee for #13 and Daniels works financially but is that asking to much? If Dumbleay is healthy wouldn't that push Daniels to like 7th - 8th man? I think Rush could replace him easily too, but you guys are the real IND fans so you tell me.

cdash · Post #10 » by **cdash** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 11:40 pm

DrInsanity wrote:I would say Lee for #13 and Daniels works financially but is that asking to much? If Dumbleay is healthy wouldn't that push Daniels to like 7th - 8th man? I think Rush could replace him easily too, but you guys are the real IND fans so you tell me.

Daniels has an option for something like 7-8 million that we likely won't pick up. I guess if we agreed to suck a trade, we could pick up the option and send him New York's way. He would expire in time for your precious 2010 free agent class.

Rush is the undisputed starter at the 2 going into next season. Dunleavy likely won't be healthy until January, so right now, we are fairly thin at the swingman position.

Post #11 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:52 am

cdash wrote:
DrInsanity wrote:I would say Lee for #13 and Daniels works financially but is that asking to much? If Dumbleay is healthy wouldn't that push Daniels to like 7th - 8th man? I think Rush could replace him easily too, but you guys are the real IND fans so you tell me.

Daniels has an option for something like 7-8 million that we likely won't pick up. I guess if we agreed to suck a trade, we could pick up the option and send him New York's way. He would expire in time for your precious 2010 free agent class.

Rush is the undisputed starter at the 2 going into next season. Dunleavy likely won't be healthy until January, so right now, we are fairly thin at the swingman position.

Eh, Indy's not in a position where we can do that financially. It would effectively add around $8-10 million in salary immediately to this year and next, meaning Jarrett Jack is gone, and that we need to make other financial moves and dump salary (which isn't likely in this current economy).

We just can't pick up Daniels option just to trade him. That's pretty dangerous for us with a budget.

Post #12 » by **count55** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:55 am

And nobody with a functioning IQ above room temperature is going to play Marquis Daniels $7.4mm.

chatard5 · Post #13 » by **chatard5** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:30 am

I have wanted David Lee since he was in the high school dunk contest. BALLLLLLIIIINNNNNNNNNN! Except for taking off his shirt was kinda weird. Who else was in that? James Flight White?

Post #14 » by **Gremz** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 7:52 am

As I've stated in other threads, I'm not the greatest of David Lee fans, so no from me.

IndieRuso420 · Post #15 » by **IndieRuso420** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:35 pm

I would do it and that's why I made this same exact thread last week in the trade forum.

Problem is money, and as much as I would like to see it happen, it won't.

At this point, the Pacers prob won't invest huge money like that until 2011.

BTW the trade I suggested is Daniels/Diener/#13 for Lee

Knicks get expiring and picks, Pacers get PF for now and the future.

And yes, I think the Knicks would pay Daniels options for a season hell they payed Jerome James for 5 seasons. I think this deal has legs, but in the end it comes down to Simon's spending money which I don't think happens til 2011. The economy will pick up by then and the Pacers will have more cap room.