Ok! I'll fix the Bulls...Stop bugging me!

Shinky · Post #21 » by **Shinky** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:18 pm

Sham wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Ok. But, it does them no good right now. Is Carter injured? And to be honest? I think they could get more for VC than JO.

Cliff Levingston · Post #22 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:20 pm

Cliff Levingston would do Wallace + Nocioni for O'Neal, and at least that's a little more realistic in that the Pacers get some value back in the form of Nocioni.

The salary difference between Nocioni + Wallace and O'Neal then is:

'08-'09: -$1.2 million
'09-'10: +$1.5 million

Then we REALLY give our young guys plenty of burn for the rest of the season with a rotation looking something like this:

1. Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon
2. Sefolosha, Gordon, Hinrich
3. Deng, Sefolosha, Khryapa
4. Smith, Thomas, Noah
5. Noah, Gray

Then next season, after we use our high pick on big slashing SG (like Chris Douglas-Roberts for example), we run in '08-'09 with this:

1. Hinrich, Gordon
2. Sefolosha, Douglas-Roberts, Gordon
3. Deng, Sefolosha
4. O'Neal, Thomas, Smith
5. Noah, Gray

Post #23 » by **BrooklynBulls** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:21 pm

Sham wrote:I don't get what you're saying here. O'Neal and Carter are both much better than Wallace. Much, much, much better. If they're going to trade O'Neal, I'm pretty sure they'd like to get as good of a player back as is possible.

I would never even think of trading Vince Carter for JO. Would you?

As Indiana? Not really. But everything about trading for Carter is more desirable than it would be if you traded for Ben Wallace.

What I was saying is that you've already mentioned he's the better player. However, that doesn't make his contract better. The contract itself, talent aside, is awful. If they're fed up with O'Neal's injuries, and don't think he'll ever be right again, they'll trade him for the shortest contracts they can find. Except that no one wants that damn contract, and won't trade short contracts for it. Enter Ben Wallace.

If I was NJ, I'd never consider trading Carter for JO. Carter is having himself a poor season due to pretty much nothing. Jefferson's stepped up, so Carter's shooting less. This guy can turn it on when he feels like it, and isn't nearly as injury-prone as JO.

sco · Post #24 » by **sco** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:23 pm

Can't see how Wallace gives Indy anything that actually helps them. JO not playing > Wallace. JO next year >> Wallace.

If Skiles is able to get a better contract back for Wallace before the deadline, I say go for it. Personally, I don't see Wallace behaving too badly of late. Based on his latest comments, he sounds willing to let the young guys have their minutes. He is certainly smart enough to know when the season is over and why tax himself unnecessarily this year. He would probably be willing to take a bench role next year without much fuss. His value will start to grow again into and after the trade deadline next year.

Post #25 » by **Three34** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:27 pm

There's a reason that they've talked about it with Indiana in the past. The Nets know that they aren't going anywhere in this current incarnation. And while there's been this recent "news" regarding O'Neal, it's not really news. It's been common knowledge for a while that his knee was up the duff, and it's all a matter of record that he's into his twelfth year and starting to start a steady decline. Yet New Jersey wanted him anyway.

If they're fed up with O'Neal's injuries, and don't think he'll ever be right again, they'll trade him for the shortest contracts they can find. Except that no one wants that damn contract, and won't trade short contracts for it. Enter Ben Wallace.

Or, if they can't get a good deal, they could just keep that contract, and either get as much out of their investment in O'Neal as they can, or have themselves the biggest usable expiring contract in the history of salaries. They trade for Ben Wallace, and they have a declining player whose already far worse, and whose contract's main value is that it's going to expire relatively soon, yet whose expiring would be smaller than O'Neals.

It's a one year financial saving and that's all they're getting out of it. Therefore, they shouldn't bother.

Some of you are giving the impression that you view O'Neal as a dead weight contract, and little else besides. Don't. He's obviously overpaid, but that doesn't mean that his team wants to deal him when his value is at its lowest ebb for someone whose performance to contract ratio is even worse.

Mr. Tibbs · Post #26 » by **Mr. Tibbs** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:08 pm

sco wrote:Can't see how Wallace gives Indy anything that actually helps them. JO not playing > Wallace. JO next year >> Wallace.

If Skiles is able to get a better contract back for Wallace before the deadline, I say go for it. Personally, I don't see Wallace behaving too badly of late. Based on his latest comments, he sounds willing to let the young guys have their minutes. He is certainly smart enough to know when the season is over and why tax himself unnecessarily this year. He would probably be willing to take a bench role next year without much fuss. His value will start to grow again into and after the trade deadline next year.

Agreed. Of course Skiles getting fired sorta puts a wrench in the power he has with the team. That and he wasn't a gm. :wink:

BuLLzDoMaIn · Post #27 » by **BuLLzDoMaIn** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:21 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston would do Wallace + Nocioni for O'Neal, and at least that's a little more realistic in that the Pacers get some value back in the form of Nocioni.

The salary difference between Nocioni + Wallace and O'Neal then is:

'08-'09: -$1.2 million
'09-'10: +$1.5 million

Then we REALLY give our young guys plenty of burn for the rest of the season with a rotation looking something like this:

1. Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon
2. Sefolosha, Gordon, Hinrich
3. Deng, Sefolosha, Khryapa
4. Smith, Thomas, Noah
5. Noah, Gray

Then next season, after we use our high pick on big slashing SG (like Chris Douglas-Roberts for example), we run in '08-'09 with this:

1. Hinrich, Gordon
2. Sefolosha, Douglas-Roberts, Gordon
3. Deng, Sefolosha
4. O'Neal, Thomas, Smith
5. Noah, Gray

Im sure if we did this trade and by nextseason kirk would get traded.. cause with kirk gordon deng and oneal.. thats alot of money there.

and gordon wont get alot of min being a backup PG and a 3rd string sg

Cliff Levingston · Post #28 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:36 pm

BuLLzDoMaIn wrote:Im sure if we did this trade and by nextseason kirk would get traded.. cause with kirk gordon deng and oneal.. thats alot of money there.

and gordon wont get alot of min being a backup PG and a 3rd string sg

He would get plenty of minutes. Cliff Levingston would actually prefer playing him at the starting PG spot along with Thabo in the back court, then bringing Hinrich and our rookie guard off the bench.

But it's all moot, cause there's no way that trade happens.

Mr. Tibbs · Post #29 » by **Mr. Tibbs** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:38 pm

its not certain that JO is out for season is it? I heard it was just no timetable given.

bullzman23 · Post #30 » by **bullzman23** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:30 pm

I actually like this idea.

There's a chance that O'Neal will rebound next year. Just a few seasons ago few people would have taken a chance on Boozer. Now he's unavailable.

Getting rid of Wallace without bringing in will allow our young bigs to develop. If they're busts, we potentially have a former All-Star waiting on the bench for 2009.

At the very least, it's going to be a big expiring contract that could be used to dangle in a trade. If this trade wouldn't prevent us from signing Deng or Gordon, then it'd be a good idea.

Mr. Tibbs · Post #31 » by **Mr. Tibbs** » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:24 pm

one thing to consider though..Isn't indiana's record with him this season much worse than without him? I'm not saying this means he's got a zach randolph effect..but maybe he's not a positive factor unless he's healthy, which is something I doubt he'll ever be. However..a stat like that also may make Indy more receptive to making such a deal.

I'll try to find the stat..if anyone knows it that'd help. I just remember hearing it on Inside the NBA last night.

JackFinn · Post #32 » by **JackFinn** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:44 am

Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston would do Wallace

Post #33 » by **Three34** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 1:50 am

DanTown8587 · Post #34 » by **DanTown8587** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:01 am

JO-Tinsley-Foster-IND #1 10 for Kirk-Noce-AG-Wallace?

Jujuba69 · Post #35 » by **Jujuba69** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 2:05 am

i would acept JO for Big Ben + Noci...

C,mon, we re talking about friggin Ben Wallace, is not a good player or something!

its a robbery!

Shinky · Post #36 » by **Shinky** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:05 am

Jujuba69 wrote:i would acept JO for Big Ben + Noci...

C,mon, we re talking about friggin Ben Wallace, is not a good player or something!

its a robbery!

For a player that is done for the season. And the team is playing well without him! IMO, the risk factor for both teams, is low. While the potential reward factor is high.

It's a smart move for both teams.