Simple trade: Indiana/Lakers

[mhd]

Kwame+Sasha for Marquis Daniels + Foster.

Indiana gets expirings, while the Lakers get bench depth.

[loserX]

Foster and Daniels each only have one year after this one (effectively: Daniels has a declinable team option after that)...and they are useful players whom the Pacers have no reason to give away for expiring (worse) players.

The Lakers will have to add value if they want to get this done. Or take Murphy instead, perhaps.

[Scoot McGroot]

loserX speaks the truth.


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


Now, if you want either of them, and are willing to take on a bad contract with one of them, then Kwame for either Daniels + bad contract or Foster + bad contract might be much more of an offer.

[shagadelic45]

what if LAL added their 2008 #1?

[Scoot McGroot]

Nope. That's looking like a late 1st rounder at best. I might do a Foster + Tinsley for Kwame, Vujacic (only if he can give some solid minutes at PG), and the 1st rounder. Or Kwame and either Crittenton or Farmar for Foster and Tinsley.

Those types of deals would work. You could always sub in Daniels for Foster if you'd like.

[hermes]

not enough value coming back for pacers

[dockingsched]

one yr savings on foster/daniels isn't any incentive for the pacers to move them. lakers would never consider throwing in a first/farmar/critt and taking on tinsley though.

[bballpacen]

I think that a smaller deal like this is plausible between these two clubs. Foster and Daniels for Brown, Vujacic and a first is ok value... But I would only do this deal if JO returns this season, to see how Kwame and JO can co-exist. Than is a duo that I would like to see go a few games...

[xxSnEaKyPxx]

The 2 best players in the trade go to the Lakers....what a shocker.

[Lost Angel]

^sometimes teams make trades based on finance, not talent.




but this doesn't make sense. Why would Indy just give players away?

[KB20]

If we didn't have Fisher and Farmar wasn't playing at such a high level I'd do Foster and Tinsley for Kwame, Sasha, and a 1st but I cannot see us paying Tinsley so much money to sit on the bench. I would however do Foster and Rush for Kwame and Crittenton.

[PacerGuy]

Why not this spin:
Incoming Players
Sasha Vujacic
Vladimir Radmanovic
Kwame Brown

Outgoing Players
David Harrison
Marquis Daniels
Troy Murphy

Why?
IN: Gets an expiring post player w/ JO out, for a contract in Murph, plus add a shooter in Rad & a young PG/SG in Sasha.

LA: Gets good talent - a good triangle-type player (Luke Longly) in Murph, & a 1/2/3 player & good defender in Daniels, & a b/u C in Harrison, all while giving up little in value (Rad contract = Murph).

[Scoot McGroot]

Eh, Daniels and Murphy are probably the two best players in the deal, contracts aside.


Adding in contracts is what makes this debatable for LA. Murphy is much more useful than VladRad, and Daniels is a pretty good player. The only problem is they take on salary.

[PacerGuy]

Eh, Daniels and Murphy are probably the two best players in the deal, contracts aside.


Adding in contracts is what makes this debatable for LA. Murphy is much more useful than VladRad, and Daniels is a pretty good player. The only problem is they take on salary.

This was my thought...
Not trying to make LA better (& us weaker), but rather trying to get us some cap space, & hell, Rad's shooting might work here. I agree though we seem to give up more talent (& come'on, LA can afford those contracts).

[dockingsched]

i don't see any realistic trade where the lakers absorb murphy. none.

[incontrol__]

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'.

[Scoot McGroot]

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]

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]

-= 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?

[loserX]

-= 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.