IN/ NJ/ Por: all help each other

Moderators: MoneyTalks41890, HartfordWhalers, Texas Chuck, BullyKing, Andre Roberstan, loserX, Trader_Joe, Mamba4Goat, pacers33granger

PacerGuy
Analyst
Posts: 3,126
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Location: Indy

IN/ NJ/ Por: all help each other 

Post#1 » by PacerGuy » Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:49 am

Indiana Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players
Sean Williams
Jamaal Magloire
Jarrett Jack
Martell Webster
Raef LaFrentz

Outgoing Players
Andre Owens
Stephen Graham
David Harrison
Jermaine O'Neal

New Jersey Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players
Stephen Graham
Jermaine O'Neal
Channing Frye

Outgoing Players
Sean Williams
Jamaal Magloire
Richard Jefferson

Portland Trade Breakdown
Incoming Players
Andre Owens
David Harrison
Richard Jefferson

Outgoing Players
Jarrett Jack
Martell Webster
Raef LaFrentz
Channing Frye

Why:
NJ: Ger JO to pair w/ Kidd/ Carter/ & Krstic

IN: gets youth & cap help

Por: Gets a needed SF, & clears contracts for n/y
Larry Bird, You are now on the Clock! ( 3/24/08 )
xxSnEaKyPxx
RealGM
Posts: 18,432
And1: 19,060
Joined: Jun 02, 2007

 

Post#2 » by xxSnEaKyPxx » Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:51 am

Makes sense. I like it.
User avatar
Pugsley_2491
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,253
And1: 3
Joined: Aug 29, 2007

 

Post#3 » by Pugsley_2491 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:54 am

i'd rather not deal sean williams in that deal
User avatar
J~Rush
Head Coach
Posts: 6,997
And1: 28
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Location: Portland

 

Post#4 » by J~Rush » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:08 am

No thanks from Portland. 3 rotation players for 1 isn't usually a good idea.
e
Boneman2
General Manager
Posts: 8,312
And1: 1,661
Joined: Jul 07, 2003
Location: Indy
       

 

Post#5 » by Boneman2 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:12 am

Nice Pacerguy.

Potland loses depth to an extent, but they more than make up for it by adding Jefferson to the mix.
"A man who fears suffering is already suffering from what he fears." -Michel de Montaigne
User avatar
SchruteFarms
Ballboy
Posts: 28
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 16, 2008
Location: SE

 

Post#6 » by SchruteFarms » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:17 am

Portland says yes. I like it.
The dictionary defines "wedding" as the fusion of two hot metals with a torch. -Michael Scott
jeremy1215
Banned User
Posts: 3,434
And1: 4
Joined: May 31, 2007

 

Post#7 » by jeremy1215 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:18 am

I don't like it for the Pacers.. Any deal we do needs to have Tinsley on the outs.
PacerGuy
Analyst
Posts: 3,126
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 05, 2006
Location: Indy

 

Post#8 » by PacerGuy » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:18 am

J~Rush wrote:No thanks from Portland. 3 rotation players for 1 isn't usually a good idea.


The thought is...
Portland will have as many as 22 players n/y (w/ current players, draft choices, & over-seas talent). They seem to like them all, but they can not keep them all. Adding a top-tier SF to that team w/ 2 back end rotation players & 1 starter while moving LeFrentz is a good move (IMO). Harrison & Owens are expiring, so you clear some cap too
Besides, the 1 you add out-produces the 3 you lose.

That said, I respect your opinion...
Larry Bird, You are now on the Clock! ( 3/24/08 )
User avatar
SchruteFarms
Ballboy
Posts: 28
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 16, 2008
Location: SE

 

Post#9 » by SchruteFarms » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:27 am

For Portland you're losing probably the 4 most expendable players on the team in Jack, Webster, Frye and Raef, and setting yourself up for a 4 year stretch of Roy/Aldridge/Oden/Jefferson, AND the flexibility so spend a moderate amount on a decent point guard.
The dictionary defines "wedding" as the fusion of two hot metals with a torch. -Michael Scott
ecuhus1981
RealGM
Posts: 16,897
And1: 1,572
Joined: Jun 19, 2007
       

 

Post#10 » by ecuhus1981 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 4:46 am

Nice name, SchruteFarms (gotta love the Office!), and welcome.

The Nets would like JO and Frye, but they are redundant together (especially with Krstic still in our plans). And not at the expense of RJ. Not anymore.
Some people really have a way with words. Other people... not... have... way.
-- Steve Martin
Wizenheimer
RealGM
Posts: 36,226
And1: 7,983
Joined: May 28, 2007

 

Post#11 » by Wizenheimer » Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:07 am

pretty bad for portland, they'd never consider it
User avatar
PhilipNelsonFan
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 17,246
And1: 6
Joined: Oct 11, 2004

 

Post#12 » by PhilipNelsonFan » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:06 am

SchruteFarms wrote:For Portland you're losing probably the 4 most expendable players on the team in Jack, Webster, Frye and Raef, and setting yourself up for a 4 year stretch of Roy/Aldridge/Oden/Jefferson, AND the flexibility so spend a moderate amount on a decent point guard.


More or less. Can we agree that Jefferson's better than Webster? Because I can. And I'm sure most would because it's just common sense.
Tim Lehrbach wrote:I will break the Rose Garden.
DeezXXnutZ
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,881
And1: 0
Joined: Nov 13, 2006
Location: Courtside at the Rose Garden with Jessica Simpson

 

Post#13 » by DeezXXnutZ » Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:50 am

PhilipNelsonFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



More or less. Can we agree that Jefferson's better than Webster? Because I can. And I'm sure most would because it's just common sense.


Yeah but we're trading a lot of talent for Jefferson..Maybe I just wasn't impressed from him the other night when we played Jersey but he isn't that much better then Webster from what I could see..I'll keep the youth and wait for a better player to get then Jefferson....
UGotThrilled
Pro Prospect
Posts: 852
And1: 6
Joined: Aug 08, 2007

 

Post#14 » by UGotThrilled » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:51 am

For Portland I kind of like the Martell/Jones rotation we have at small forward. It is good to have the shooters to complement Roy.
HotSpurs21
Analyst
Posts: 3,116
And1: 0
Joined: Dec 30, 2005

 

Post#15 » by HotSpurs21 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:36 pm

POR don't need a star SF like RJ. He'll be old by the time their young core grow into their prime. Webster is their future at SF
Billy
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 12,623
And1: 161
Joined: Aug 14, 2001
 

 

Post#16 » by Billy » Thu Jan 17, 2008 3:54 pm

SchruteFarms wrote:For Portland you're losing probably the 4 most expendable players on the team in Jack, Webster, Frye and Raef, and setting yourself up for a 4 year stretch of Roy/Aldridge/Oden/Jefferson, AND the flexibility so spend a moderate amount on a decent point guard.


But Portland's clear goal from the get-go has not been a 4 year stretch it has been a 10 year window.

Webster isn't perfect but I think he's getting overlooked here. Sure Jefferson is much better than him and probably always will be, but if 4 years from now when Portland should be in the championship window I doubt they want to be looking around for another starting SF. But that's just me.
SLIMM07
Rookie
Posts: 1,095
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 11, 2005

 

Post#17 » by SLIMM07 » Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:30 pm

As a Nets fan I want no part of JO he has bad knees
Village Idiot
General Manager
Posts: 9,474
And1: 2,174
Joined: Jan 23, 2005
Location: Madrid, Spain
   

 

Post#18 » by Village Idiot » Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:00 pm

PhilipNelsonFan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



More or less. Can we agree that Jefferson's better than Webster? Because I can. And I'm sure most would because it's just common sense.
In Richard Jefferson's 3rd year out of high-school he averaged 11.3 points, 5.4 rebounds, and 2.7 assists in 27.5 minutes while shooting 47.9 fg%, 34.4 3pt% and 65.5 FT%. At the University of Arizona!

In Martell Webster's 3rd year out of high-school he's averaging 11 points, 4 rebounds and 1.5 assists in 29.2 minutes while shooting 43.1 FG%, 38.5 3pt% and 75.9 ft%. In the NBA! While starting for a team with a 23-15 record.

While Jefferson is certainly the better player right now he's also 6.5 years older than Webster. Given how much Martell has improved over the past season it would be daft to trade him for an older player with a history of injuries when we may indeed have the long-term answer at SF already starting at the position.
"There are no right answers to wrong questions." - Ursula K. Le Guin
User avatar
b_roy7
Veteran
Posts: 2,908
And1: 0
Joined: May 11, 2007
Contact:

 

Post#19 » by b_roy7 » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:23 pm

No thanks from Portland. At the beginning of the year, we probably would've taken it, but Webster's broken through, Channing's a solid center off the bench. Good trade, but at this point, I don't think the Blazers do it.
User avatar
Milkdud
RealGM
Posts: 12,095
And1: 137
Joined: May 21, 2001
Location: Dreaming of Australia

 

Post#20 » by Milkdud » Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:36 pm

Im not crazy about it for portland, its not a bad deal but Id rather stand pat with what we got. I really dont like if from NJ's angle. Flat out id rather have RJ and his 24PPG then whatever you get from O'Neal when his knees are not killing him. Not to mention they took the risk drafting Williams and so far I think he has been giving them some pretty good production.

Return to Trades and Transactions