Would You Do This Deal?

ecuhus1981 · Post #1 » by **ecuhus1981** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 5:35 pm

VC/Najera for Dunleavy/Daniels

We get younger, better fits for Devin and the DDM, and save money now and post-2010.

Indiana gets the true SG they need around Granger, and a backup combo forward who (when healthy) brings toughness and leadership on the floor.

deviljets7 · Post #2 » by **deviljets7** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 6:26 pm

Not a terrible idea by any stretch, but with Dunleavy's current knee issues I'd need more coming back. I'll admit I'm not sure what the extra incentive should be though. If I could get a Hibbert for Boone or Williams (possibly both if needed) swap I'd pull the trigger, but I'd have to think Indy values Hibbert more than we would.

Revolutionistt · Post #3 » by **Revolutionistt** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 6:35 pm

ecuhus1981 wrote:VC/Najera for Dunleavy/Daniels

We get younger, better fits for Devin and the DDM, and save money now and post-2010.

Indiana gets the true SG they need around Granger, and a backup combo forward who (when healthy) brings toughness and leadership on the floor.

which is something nobody has seen since hes signed with new jersey. granted hes been injured all season, but even when he did play he was off..... really really off.

S.I.C. GM · Post #4 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 8:03 pm

Sorry dont see this happening.

Pacers are in the same boat as we are. Need to get younger and draft higher.

Why would they want VC?

SteveNets15 · Post #5 » by **SteveNets15** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 9:34 pm

S.I.C. GM wrote:
Why would they want VC?

because VC is better than both of the players we're getting put together.This trade puts the Pacers in the playoffs next year and puts the Nets in the lottery for a 3rd straight year.

No thank you. RT can do alot better than this.I hope.

Scorpion King · Post #6 » by **Scorpion King** » Wed Apr 1, 2009 9:49 pm

u guys do no that pacers are in cost cutting mode rite. They have been losing money for the past decade and most likely will want to shed salary not add....

S.I.C. GM · Post #7 » by **S.I.C. GM** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 1:41 pm

Scorpion King wrote:u guys do no that pacers are in cost cutting mode rite. They have been losing money for the past decade and most likely will want to shed salary not add....

Exactly. Like I said before, why would they want VC?

There is a difference between Portland needing VC and Indiana needing VC.

Portland are in the playoffs and are a piece away. Indiana is a young team that needs to gel. VC wont help them get into the playoffs. Look at the Nets.

Portland also has too many young guys that they will have to pay or lose for nothing though I dont think Portland is feasible now with LAFA contract coming off their books.

Indiana with the right cheap pieces they can make it to the playoffs in the east.

SteveNets15 · Post #8 » by **SteveNets15** » Thu Apr 2, 2009 7:54 pm

Talent wise Indiana wins,money wise we win.OK fine but VC does put them in the playoffs because they have better coach than us.Jack,VC and Granger would be a serious 123. I would still pass on this trade even though Indiana would'nt do it anyway.Bird would rather have Mat Carrol.

ecuhus1981 · Post #9 » by **ecuhus1981** » Fri Apr 3, 2009 1:30 am

stevieboy wrote:Talent wise Indiana wins,money wise we win.OK fine but VC does put them in the playoffs because they have better coach than us.Jack,VC and Granger would be a serious 123. I would still pass on this trade even though Indiana would'nt do it anyway.Bird would rather have Mat Carrol.

You just got e thinking with that comment.

I'm envisioning a 4-way deal, that looks something like this. We might have to kick the GSW 1st to Indy or something minor, but I think all parties would like it.