RealGM

http://mvn.com/cavalierattitude/2009/08/troy-murphy-the-perfect-power-forward-for-the-cleveland-cavaliers.html

But Z is also five years older than Murphy and offers no young potential, something the Pacers would probably want for a guy like Murphy.

Although the Cavs are high on J.J. Hickson, they really can't afford to keep waiting around for him to develop with the stakes as high as they are. If including Hickson in a package with Z is what it would take to get Murphy to Cleveland, then the Cavs should -- by all means -- pull the trigger. Hickson isn't a guarantee at this point. Murphy, however, is. And he is also a much better fit for the Cavs right now than Hickson.

For the Pacers, getting Z would save them $11.9 million for next summer and get them under the new salary cap by about $7 million. It also gives them a young piece in Hickson to help begin a rebuilding project, another thing that a team treading water would be looking for in trading a star like Murphy.

Of course, it's all speculation at this point. But an expiring contract begins to accumulate more and more value the closer we get to the trading deadline. And if the Pacers are looking at another season of being 10 games under .500 (or making the playoffs as an eighth seed only to be dusted off unceremoniously by one of the East's top dogs), then this trade begins to make more and more sense for both clubs.

Murph's contract off the books...saving money...Hickson has potential...sounds good to me

Only downside is that we would be extremely young at the PF position.

If we're more than just a few games out of the 8 spot at the trade deadline, I'd move Murphy for Z and Hickson in a second.

The Cavaliers likely won't include Hickson in that deal though without the Pacers including something else of some value, which we won't. Otherwise, the Pacers won't do a just Murphy for Z deal, unless we're REALLY worried about the heat of a lowered salary cap in 2010/11.

Scoot McGroot wrote:If we're more than just a few games out of the 8 spot at the trade deadline, I'd move Murphy for Z and Hickson in a second.

The Cavaliers likely won't include Hickson in that deal though without the Pacers including something else of some value, which we won't. Otherwise, the Pacers won't do a just Murphy for Z deal, unless we're REALLY worried about the heat of a lowered salary cap in 2010/11.

I was thinking along the same lines. Would be great to submit them into including Hickson. A very unlikely probability, but I do believe Murphy would do wonders for Cleveland.

It'd probably be countered with Murph/2nd Round Pick for Z + Hickson. It does benefit both teams, though, although the road to the playoffs would be even more difficult without Murphy for this season. I agree with Scoot there.

i agree, financial-wise, we could benefit from this trade. But that's the only benefit i can see, IMO. Nothing more. Yes, Hickson is very intriguing but that would leave us with a very young (not in a good way) rotation at the 4. And i don't really see Z playing close to 70 games, so that could translate into him being more of a liability.
I personally don't like the idea. The Cavs would get better, but that looks more of a setback for the Pacers. I'd rather keep Murphy til his contract expires and decide from there whether we'll offer him a new contract or let him walk.
Hansbrough's just not ready to start YET.
And another thing, should Hibbert evolves into a post-player capable of isolation plays, Murphy would be a perfect complement to him.
I think the idea would be quite unlikely, considering that we have a plan and we don't really need a major shake-up just to spoil everything.

Scoot McGroot wrote:If we're more than just a few games out of the 8 spot at the trade deadline, I'd move Murphy for Z and Hickson in a second.

The Cavaliers likely won't include Hickson in that deal though without the Pacers including something else of some value, which we won't. Otherwise, the Pacers won't do a just Murphy for Z deal, unless we're REALLY worried about the heat of a lowered salary cap in 2010/11.

Before you make this trade I think you need to be convinced the Pacers as constructed are not a playoff team. Or, one of Hansbrough, McBob, or S. Jones would need to have busted out to the point you feel like one of them is ready to be a starting 4.

The team is just starting to win back fan base. A "surrender" move anytime this year would be a tough messaage for your fans and paying customers to swallow particularly when the upside (a little capspace and JJ Hickson) isn't really that great.

Hickson's talented enough to be more than just a starting PF in this league.



Maybe I'm a bit biased as I pretty much only get to watch Cav's games all year long living up here in Cleveland, but Hickson is a very interesting player.

I'd be relatively ok with having Hickson and Hansbrough battle it out for the starting PF spot if we're not anywhere close to a playoff team, as currently constructed.

Hickson and Hans would be decent...but in desperate need of experience.

We may also be looking at playing small more frequently if Dunleavy is healthy. Rush-Dun-Granger running the floor could buy us time to the all teh young bigs start to develop.

I make the trade in a second...

Scoot McGroot wrote:Hickson's talented enough to be more than just a starting PF in this league.



Maybe I'm a bit biased as I pretty much only get to watch Cav's games all year long living up here in Cleveland, but Hickson is a very interesting player.

I'd be relatively ok with having Hickson and Hansbrough battle it out for the starting PF spot if we're not anywhere close to a playoff team, as currently constructed.

You've no doubt seen Hickson more than me. On the occasions I've seen him, he looked athletic enough but generally lost. I wonder if he really has standard power forward size?

Just goes to show how hard it is to build a good team and the problem with bringing guys in so young. What you've got with Hickson one year into his career I think is still a crap shoot.

Hickson has a good potential, and would be a decent acquisition.. but not for this offseason.
That would be a big big gamble if we're gonna make one of those cubs (Hansbrough or Hickson) a starter.
Keeping Murphy is clearly the safer choice.
We don't need another major shuffling, we only need a decent back-up sf.

Since the Pacers were only few games to clinch the playoffs, it's rather risky to trade Murphy, who had a career year and broke the frachise record on double-doubles last season.

Hickson is sure talented, but he is also young and rough. The Pacers already got Hansbrough and McRoberts, two young players to reserve Murphy from the bench, and it doesn't make sence we do this trade and make 7 big guys in the paint.

Worried about the salary cap next summer? I don't think that could be the reason to make this trade work, either. In fact, if Bird simply wants to get an expiring contract and saves the money, he still have other choices. Chances are small that he will deal Murphy to CLE, same divison with IND.

Cavs fans have been kicking ideas like this around for weeks now. They want Murph but don't want to give anything up, they keep tallking about us buying Z. out so he can go back to them. I could see the deal working but we would need to keep Z. he might get bought out at the trade deadline but no sooner, and depending on whether we think TH or Hickson would be ready to start.

8305 wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:Hickson's talented enough to be more than just a starting PF in this league.



Maybe I'm a bit biased as I pretty much only get to watch Cav's games all year long living up here in Cleveland, but Hickson is a very interesting player.

I'd be relatively ok with having Hickson and Hansbrough battle it out for the starting PF spot if we're not anywhere close to a playoff team, as currently constructed.

You've no doubt seen Hickson more than me. On the occasions I've seen him, he looked athletic enough but generally lost. I wonder if he really has standard power forward size?

Just goes to show how hard it is to build a good team and the problem with bringing guys in so young. What you've got with Hickson one year into his career I think is still a crap shoot.

Yeah, he's by no means a sure thing, and his stress fracture he had in his back at the end of last year through the playoffs could continue to hamper him if it's not completely healed. However, he has a ton of potential, and unlike some of the teases we've had over the years, he actually has shown some solid games, and not just a few minutes of potential here and there.

Wouldn't Z give the Pacers almost the as much as Murphy anyhow, he was even shooting 3's last season? Why not just use Foster at the 4 spot if the young guys struggle? If it doesn't work out you can always deal Z to a contender at the deadline for a draft pick.

sully00 wrote:Wouldn't Z give the Pacers almost the as much as Murphy anyhow, he was even shooting 3's last season? Why not just use Foster at the 4 spot if the young guys struggle? If it doesn't work out you can always deal Z to a contender at the deadline for a draft pick.

No. Z's down to only being effective around 20 minutes a night. He can play more, but he's not exactly effective in those minutes. Murphy's a 30-33 minutes a night effective type guy. There's a pretty big difference at this point, and age is the biggest issue. A prime Z gives more than a prime Murphy, but Murphy's in his prime now, and Z's getting to be way past his prime quickly.

Sure Murphy is in his prime but he is also really expensive, my point was if you could get out of his contract and still remain competitive with Z for this season you could likely find a better use of Murphy's 11 mil dollars next offseason.

No, absolutely. The financial savings are helpful, but we won't be under the cap next season with Murphy gone, and won't be until the following summer when Murphy would've been gone anyways.

Moving Murphy for Z is a negative in most ways. Getting a guy like Hickson makes it interesting.

Scoot McGroot wrote:No, absolutely. The financial savings are helpful, but we won't be under the cap next season with Murphy gone, and won't be until the following summer when Murphy would've been gone anyways.

Moving Murphy for Z is a negative in most ways. Getting a guy like Hickson makes it interesting.

Yea we'd need an incentive to do it. We could live w/o Murphy offensively if Dunleavy is healthy, it is the banging we'd miss the most. Hickson, Jones, Hansbrough & McBob would suffice I suppose, while Z gives us one season of expensive tutoring for Roy.

Possibly a dreaded deadline deal, if we're not playing well.

http://www.cavstheblog.com/?p=544

"But what keeps Hickson off the court more than anything else is his Gooden-like tendency to completely blow defensive rotations." pass.

The more I think about it, the more I think he's a bit like Diogu in the sense that he could easily turn out to be a nothing player. His athleticism is what tends to set him apart for me though, as I viewed Diogu as not athletic enough to play the PF spot as undersized as he was.