Simple trade: Indiana/Lakers

Post #21 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:35 pm

incontrol__ wrote:Murphy is a definite no for the Lakers, even if you take on Vlad's contract for him as he runs into 2010/11, and has about 12 million on the books for that season (compared to Vlad's 7).

We have a '2010 plan'.

I thought it was the 'master' 2008 plan? Or was that 2007? I forget.

shrink · Post #22 » by **shrink** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:42 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote: Give Indy incentive to dump two very useful players for salary cutting purposes, when they really only have one more year on their deals.

$12 million dollars is not enough incentive?

Personally, I disagree with the majority, and think the original deal (Kwame + Sasha for Foster + Daniels) is fair, as is. Foster is probably worth his $5.5 mil next year, Daniels is probably worth a little less than $6.9. And even if they continue to produce like they are now, what is that $12 million going to get Indiana in the end?

Save the money, look at young FA's, and use the minutes to give to young players.

fdefore · Post #23 » by **fdefore** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:49 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I thought it was the 'master' 2008 plan? Or was that 2007? I forget.

what happened to our "all SF all the time" plan?

Post #24 » by **loserX** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:51 am

shrink wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

$12 million dollars is not enough incentive?

Personally, I disagree with the majority, and think the original deal (Kwame + Sasha for Foster + Daniels) is fair, as is. Foster is probably worth his $5.5 mil next year, Daniels is probably worth a little less than $6.9. And even if they continue to produce like they are now, what is that $12 million going to get Indiana in the end?

Save the money, look at young FA's, and use the minutes to give to young players.

Except that I would say Daniels alone is probably worth at LEAST expirings, especially since he effectively has only one more year on his deal, and Foster alone could get more than expirings as well. If the Pacers put these guys out to market, they could get more than expirings of 2 guys nobody particularly wants. I have no trouble believing the Magic would throw at least a pick, perhaps more, on top of their expirings for this package, especially as starved for rebounds as they are.

Just because you can save money, doesn't mean you forego trying to save money AND get some value.

KB20 · Post #25 » by **KB20** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:07 am

Kwame, Sasha, and Critt for Foster and Daniels

shrink · Post #26 » by **shrink** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:10 am

I guess you value Marcus Daniels more than me. He's good but not great, and at $6.9, wouldn't that be above the MLE. I like Foster, but a guy with no offensive game except putbacks is a struggle too. Yes, I think IND would like to get a pick, and maybe I'm under-valueing here, but I guess I haven't paid close enough attention to see teams that have demand for Daniels.

bballpacen · Post #27 » by **bballpacen** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:11 am

lx, it depends on who you are dealing with... LA fans will not give up more than Kwame(exp) and junk for near allstars and key reserves....

Post #28 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:19 am

KB20 wrote:Kwame, Sasha, and Critt for Foster and Daniels

That would probably get it done.

I think it would still work if you kept Sasha. It'd save us a little bit more money, and you wouldn't lose any depth.

incontrol__ · Post #29 » by **incontrol__** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:30 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:I thought it was the 'master' 2008 plan? Or was that 2007? I forget.

It was 2007. :lol:

I don't necessarily agree with the 2010 plan, but it's pretty clear that we are on a 2010 plan, and we're not gonna ruin it for a player like Troy Murphy.

Kwame, Sasha, and Critt for Foster and Daniels

Definetly wouldn't do it for the Lakers.

Foster > Kwame

but ability to use the MLE, and Critt >> Daniels.