Troy Muphy

[Crossova21]

Everyone keeps talking about trading TJ but I don't see why we couldn't trade Murph. Don't get me wrong I like Murph's game but we've found ourselves with a bunch of big men and are kinda thin at point guard.

With Foster, Hibbert, Hansbrough, and McRoberts we do have a decent frontline. Outside of Granger, Murph is our best trade chip to grab another starting caliber point guard. I haven't been to the trade checker yet but think of who we could get with a Murph and Ford package. Then again that would still leave us thin at point guard. I was just wondering what kind of market there was for Murph

BTW why not bring back Daniels. Last time I checked he did run the point a few times when he was with us and he already knows the system. He couldn't cost more than Jack.

[Scoot McGroot]

With Foster, Hibbert, Hansbrough, and McRoberts we do have a decent frontline. Outside of Granger, Murph is our best trade chip to grab another starting caliber point guard. I haven't been to the trade checker yet but think of who we could get with a Murph and Ford package. Then again that would still leave us thin at point guard. I was just wondering what kind of market there was for Murph

I highly disagree. With just Foster, Hibbert, Hansbrough, and McRoberts, I see one starting quality player right now, and 3 other guys that are going to have to fight to just get on the court. Hansbrough and Hibbert could be solid starters or minute chewers in another year or two, and McRoberts possibly could be in 3 years or so, but nobody else right now.


That's a paper thin front line, especially when Foster misses 15 games with a hip injury again this year, and Hibbert gets in foul trouble.

[Crossova21]

I think the question is: would we rather have a better point guard or keep our current frontline and sign a 5th point guard?

[count55]

Nobody wants to pay Murphy $23mm over the next two years, and if they did, they for sure wouldn't be willing to give us a starting calibre point guard for that pleasure.

[cdash]

I think the question is: would we rather have a better point guard or keep our current frontline and sign a 5th point guard?

Keep our current frontline and sign a cheap 5th point guard.

[Crossova21]

Nobody wants to pay Murphy $23mm over the next two years, and if they did, they for sure wouldn't be willing to give us a starting calibre point guard for that pleasure.

No better time to trade him IMO. Not saying trading him gets us an all-star point guard but someone "like" Jack or Sessions along with a 1st rd pick would be cool with me.

[Dunthreevy]

Nobody wants to pay Murphy $23mm over the next two years, and if they did, they for sure wouldn't be willing to give us a starting calibre point guard for that pleasure.

Pretty much the end of the discussion there. No one will take on Murph's salary AND give up a quality player in return.

[Crossova21]

Pretty much the end of the discussion there. No one will take on Murph's salary AND give up a quality player in return.

Kinda of how we gave up Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson right. Pretty sure GS fans thought the same thing especially since Murph was comin off the bench.

[Scoot McGroot]

Nobody wants to pay Murphy $23mm over the next two years, and if they did, they for sure wouldn't be willing to give us a starting calibre point guard for that pleasure.

No better time to trade him IMO. Not saying trading him gets us an all-star point guard but someone "like" Jack or Sessions along with a 1st rd pick would be cool with me.

See, that's the problem. You're not getting a starting quality young PG, AND A 1st round pick in return without taking on some seriously bad 3-5 year contracts in return as filler in exchange for Murphy.

[Dunthreevy]

Pretty much the end of the discussion there. No one will take on Murph's salary AND give up a quality player in return.

Kinda of how we gave up Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson right. Pretty sure GS fans thought the same thing especially since Murph was comin off the bench.

I hate when people bring up the GS trade because there were circumstances other than just basketball talent that were in play in that trade. We HAD TO trade Jackson at that time. The fact that we got got players with bad contracts was something we were going to HAVE to get back. There were no 2 ways around it. If Jackson was a model citizen, the trade would've never been made.

And as for us having a solid frontline, that's just not true. We have several frontline players, but that doesn't mean that it's a solid frontline. Like Scoot said, at least 3 of those guys are a couple years away from producing even semi-meaningful numbers, and that's IF they turn out to be best case scenarios. Murphy is the only frontline player that we have that is A) consistent B)a quality starter C) proven & dependable

[IndyPacers67]

I hate when people bring up the GS trade because there were circumstances other than just basketball talent that were in play in that trade. We HAD TO trade Jackson at that time. The fact that we got got players with bad contracts was something we were going to HAVE to get back. There were no 2 ways around it. If Jackson was a model citizen, the trade would've never been made

Actually that trade was made because we had to get rid of Al Harrington. The chemistry between him and JO that year was terrible and he had to be moved ASAP. The original deal was centered around Al for Ike Diogu. It just made sense for Golden State to move the guys that weren't fitting in there and for us to get rid of Jackson too. We won that trade anyways, Golden State got some excitement out of it and had that great playoff run, but the trade has definitely benefited the Pacers more in the long run.

[Dunthreevy]

I hate when people bring up the GS trade because there were circumstances other than just basketball talent that were in play in that trade. We HAD TO trade Jackson at that time. The fact that we got got players with bad contracts was something we were going to HAVE to get back. There were no 2 ways around it. If Jackson was a model citizen, the trade would've never been made

Actually that trade was made because we had to get rid of Al Harrington. The chemistry between him and JO that year was terrible and he had to be moved ASAP. The original deal was centered around Al for Ike Diogu. It just made sense for Golden State to move the guys that weren't fitting in there and for us to get rid of Jackson too. We won that trade anyways, Golden State got some excitement out of it and had that great playoff run, but the trade has definitely benefited the Pacers more in the long run.

Jackson was gone and we were not going to get what was perceived to the better end of any deal involving him (much like we won't get anyone to give us even close to a fair deal on Tinsley because of his off court issues). I do think we ended up with the better end of things as far as pieces to help our team.

Even if we would've kept Jackson, we would've had to give him a contract just as bad if not worse than Dunleavy's (or just let him walk), and then we'd all be complaining about that contract.

[count55]

I hate when people bring up the GS trade because there were circumstances other than just basketball talent that were in play in that trade. We HAD TO trade Jackson at that time. The fact that we got got players with bad contracts was something we were going to HAVE to get back. There were no 2 ways around it. If Jackson was a model citizen, the trade would've never been made

Actually that trade was made because we had to get rid of Al Harrington. The chemistry between him and JO that year was terrible and he had to be moved ASAP. The original deal was centered around Al for Ike Diogu. It just made sense for Golden State to move the guys that weren't fitting in there and for us to get rid of Jackson too. We won that trade anyways, Golden State got some excitement out of it and had that great playoff run, but the trade has definitely benefited the Pacers more in the long run.

Nope...the original deal was Jackson for Dunleavy...we were unloading Dunleavy, but then we got enamored of Diogu, and it expanded into the cap killer it became.

[Crossova21]

All that's beside the fact...we traded two starters for two bench players. Al Harrington was a beast in NY last year and Jackson became team captain in GS. Now we're stuck with an overpaid PF that cant play defense and a wing who won't be back till January.

Everybody keeps talking about us needing another PG, when we have Ford who, if memory serves correctly, was the #8 pick. So the guy has talent and if Al Horford hadn't injured him we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Let Ford run point and tell Diener to man up and play defense...problem solved. Should've taken Holiday if the point guard position was in question.

[Dunthreevy]

Everybody keeps talking about us needing another PG, when we have Ford who, if memory serves correctly, was the #8 pick.

Jamal Crawford
DeSagana Diop
Chris Wilcox
TJ Ford
Rafael Araujo
Channing Frye
Rudy Gay
Brandan Wright
Joe Alexander

all picked 8th in their draft class, more have failed than have succeeded. Being picked 8th doesn't really mean squat if you don't live up to it.

[IndyPacers67]

I hate when people bring up the GS trade because there were circumstances other than just basketball talent that were in play in that trade. We HAD TO trade Jackson at that time. The fact that we got got players with bad contracts was something we were going to HAVE to get back. There were no 2 ways around it. If Jackson was a model citizen, the trade would've never been made

Actually that trade was made because we had to get rid of Al Harrington. The chemistry between him and JO that year was terrible and he had to be moved ASAP. The original deal was centered around Al for Ike Diogu. It just made sense for Golden State to move the guys that weren't fitting in there and for us to get rid of Jackson too. We won that trade anyways, Golden State got some excitement out of it and had that great playoff run, but the trade has definitely benefited the Pacers more in the long run.

Nope...the original deal was Jackson for Dunleavy...we were unloading Dunleavy, but then we got enamored of Diogu, and it expanded into the cap killer it became.

No we decided we were going to unload Al, he was going to sign with Golden State before he signed with us the previous summer so discussion regarding Al, not Jack. We wanted to get a young PF out of the deal (Diogu.)

[cdash]

^No, it was to get rid of Jackson. I'm not sure what count says is legit (although it sounds reasonable enough), but I do know the deal was to get rid of Jackson.

[Scoot McGroot]

Actually that trade was made because we had to get rid of Al Harrington. The chemistry between him and JO that year was terrible and he had to be moved ASAP. The original deal was centered around Al for Ike Diogu. It just made sense for Golden State to move the guys that weren't fitting in there and for us to get rid of Jackson too. We won that trade anyways, Golden State got some excitement out of it and had that great playoff run, but the trade has definitely benefited the Pacers more in the long run.

Nope...the original deal was Jackson for Dunleavy...we were unloading Dunleavy, but then we got enamored of Diogu, and it expanded into the cap killer it became.

No we decided we were going to unload Al, he was going to sign with Golden State before he signed with us the previous summer so discussion regarding Al, not Jack. We wanted to get a young PF out of the deal (Diogu.)[/quote]


Nope, it was when we had to move Jackson. GS wanted a Jackson/Dunleavy swap. We liked Diogu, and in order to get him, we had to take on Murphy for Harrington, whom GS had made moves for the previous off-season. At that point, we wanted to move Tinsley's contract, but GS wanted Harrington, whom they coveted, and whom we had fallen out of favor with after realizing that he was not going to be able to coexist with Granger and JO.

[Scoot McGroot]

All that's beside the fact...we traded two starters for two bench players. Al Harrington was a beast in NY last year and Jackson became team captain in GS. Now we're stuck with an overpaid PF that cant play defense and a wing who won't be back till January.

Everybody keeps talking about us needing another PG, when we have Ford who, if memory serves correctly, was the #8 pick. So the guy has talent and if Al Horford hadn't injured him we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Let Ford run point and tell Diener to man up and play defense...problem solved. Should've taken Holiday if the point guard position was in question.

Dunleavy and Murphy were starters for 3-4 years in GS, and fell out of favor with Don Nelson, the new coach, as hundreds of other solid starters have in Don Nelson's years in the NBA.

Yes, Ford is starting caliber. I like Ford. I'm just feeding the beast of guys that want to see a younger PG long-term. However, yes, Horford had injured Ford, but Ford already had the spinal stenosis discovered LONG BEFORE Horford made the NBA. That's the issue. Horford's hit didn't do anything. Toronto had already decided that they liked Calderon and he was a bit younger, so they decided that Ford was the one to be moved.


And Holiday won't do anything for anybody's point guard issues for 4 years or more in all likelihood, so that's not the issue at all.

[Crossova21]

I don't kno wat the argument is...Murph is gonna be in a Pacers uniform next season as will TJ...Bird isn't making any major moves till 2011...until then we will continue to be a mediocre team.

Sign Marquis back and call it a wrap. Hopefully Hibbert will produce and we'll get in the playoffs. Murph will begin to decline and we won't have a championship to show for it. We won't get one as long as we have a "soft" power foward. I'm pretty sure players like Bosh and Garnett will look at our starting lineup and laugh.

Murph: slow
Hibbert: slow
Foster: no offense
Hansbrough: rookie
*McRoberts: He's the only one who's a banger

Don't get me wrong I like Murph and his game but in all seriousness he shouldn't be our starting power foward. He doesn't strike fear into anybody. Oh well, he won't be the first player to get overpaid on the Pacers.

I'm sick of us playing "Indiana" basketball. We've always been the punks of the NBA. You know the guy when you're playing that always congratulates the other team's players when they dunk the ball. "Hey man, that was a great move. You're too good." The guy who agrees with every call the refs make. Not saying we should bring back the thug image but that we should be the team that everyone else looks up to. Instead of laying the ball up, quit being soft and dunk it with power. We're ALWAYS the team on ESPN's highlights getting embarassed.

Bottom Line: It's time for the Pacers to man up and play some ball! Since when does a team win when their starting PF is scared to bang down low and would rather spot up behind the three point line. (And don't throw Rasheed's name out there cuz he was a beast down low and he wasn't a punk on the court.)