Bulls or Cavs Trade

[PR07]

I'd do the Chicago trade if Anthony Randolph is available at #11. Otherwise, I wouldn't.

[L&H_05]

As a Cavs fan, I don't want Jermaine due to health factors, unless we were able to get one other big time player from another team, and then take the gamble..

With that said, I'm seeing all these fans of other boards talking about full value for their players, but I simlply don't understand it... Especially with Jermaine.. I understand the concept of getting value in return, but to what extent ?

We're talking about a player that appears to be in his declining infancy here... What exactly is full value for a 2008 Jermaine O'neal ??

I could understand this type of discussion if we were referring to a 2003 or 2004 Jermaine O'neal, but a 2008 Jermaine O'neal seems to have rapidly declining value across the board...

[count55]

I have no idea what "declining infancy" means.

[L&H_05]

Basically, his skills and/or career are in their first noticeable stages of decline..

I think it's pretty obvious to even the most casual of viewer who doesn't follow the Pacers as much as the diehard Pacers fans, that Jermaine could potentially be on the decline a bit...

[FreeRon]

I guess if 13.6/2.2/6.7 (on .439 shooting) versus (14.1/1.4/9.3) are not worse stats to you. There is nothing I can say to convince you differently. They are at the very worst comparable and considering that Z makes less money and plays in more games I still have to give him the edge on recent play.

By the way, I've never argued that Z was better than O'Neal. My contention is that Z for 70 + games (along with Varejao and the 19th pick) are way better for the Cavs than 40 or so games by O'Neal. Don't try to make up an argument that I haven't made myself.

Wow. You want to compare numbers from just last year? Good thing you don't work in the front office. You'd be all over every bad contract in the business. You didn't come out and say Z was better than JO, but when you say you'd rather have one player than another you are saying that all things considered the first player is the better player in your opinion. If you want to put out JO's stats from last year when he played diminished minutes and was just finished healing at the very end of the season and claim that that's his value, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. Some people just can't look past certain things, and one bad year is evidently one of those things for you.

[FreeRon]

And just by the way, I never even said you said Z was better, I said it confuses me why people would rather have Z, which you DID say. And to be perfectly honest, I expect a lot of people on this board to react like children when statistics disagree with their points. I don't expect it from a moderator.

[cdash]

Numbers are misleading in basketball. The overall effect a Jermaine O'Neal has on the game far outweighs that of Zydrunas Illgauskas. I can tell you right now when guards drive to the lane, they know where JO is, they know hes there to block their shot. His presence alone on defense is great. I know all fans outside of Indiana (and most fans in Indiana) think JO sucks, is a waste of money, and will never be healthy again, but the other players still have massive respect for the guy. I can tell you right now LeBron would sign off on this deal in a heartbeat.

[FreeRon]

I don't know that LeBron would say either way whether or not he wanted the deal done just because if they didn't at least make the Championship again he'd probably be gone anyways. I do agree that numbers can be misleading, but in this case JO's numbers have been better than Z's every year up to this one. They were at least very comparable even this year while JO was recovering. I understand why some people wouldn't want to risk Z, AV, and 19 for JO, but those who say the Cavs would rather have Z than JO are seriously misled.

[Eindar]

Of the two deals, I like the Chicago one a lot, lot better. Hinrich's deal is frontloaded, so even if he doesn't spring back from the slump he had this year, he'll be reasonably priced in a year or two. Gooden is, of course, expiring, but both guys fit very well into Obie's system, because Hinrich can shoot the 3 and defend his position, and Gooden can hit jumpers and run the floor. I'm also not so sure I'd get rid of Tinsley in this scenario. If (and this is a huge "if") you could convince Tinsley to back up both spots to the tune of 25 MPG, he'd probably stay healthy all year, and would be an amazing creator/distributor for the second unit.

As for the Cavs deal, I like the pick, and Sideshow Bob is like a young Jeff Foster, but he's kinda redundant with Foster here, and nothing about Big Z's game says "Early Offense" like Obie wants. The only thing in that trade that "fits" for the Pacers is the draft pick.

[TheOUTLAW]

And just by the way, I never even said you said Z was better, I said it confuses me why people would rather have Z, which you DID say. And to be perfectly honest, I expect a lot of people on this board to react like children when statistics disagree with their points. I don't expect it from a moderator.

Now I think you are just being hardheaded. I said that I don't think that Cleveland would give up Z, Varejao and 19 for O'Neal, not that Z was better but those 3 are definitely better for the Cavs compared to a 54 game a year player in O'Neal. My reaction is to your intentionally misinterpretting what I say. I think my argument is sound from a Cavs perspective. It is you that is being juvenile by changing the discussion into something that is not in fact being stated by me.

[Scoot McGroot]

Basically, his skills and/or career are in their first noticeable stages of decline..

I think it's pretty obvious to even the most casual of viewer who doesn't follow the Pacers as much as the diehard Pacers fans, that Jermaine could potentially be on the decline a bit...

I think you mean "in the infancy of his decline" rather than "declining infancy". One means that he's starting a decline, while the other means that he's a baby in age and only getting younger. I'll let you figure out which one is which.

[count55]

-= original quote snipped =-




I think you mean "in the infancy of his decline" rather than "declining infancy". One means that he's starting a decline, while the other means that he's a baby in age and only getting younger. I'll let you figure out which one is which.

Though, strictly speaking, Scoot, wouldn't a "declining infancy" in fact mean that he's a baby in age and getting older? I mean, if his infancy is declining, that means he's becoming less of a baby (infant), and, for exampler, a toddler would fit that definition.

[fdefore]

I think I'd lean for the Bulls' deal. While having another 1st would be nice, I think Hinrich solves our problem at PG. No, he isn't a pure point or a great PG by any stretch. Be that as it may, O'Brien seems to want three things from a PG: perimeter defense, ability to initiate the offense, shooting. Hinrich has all three of those. I don't think O'Brien's style requires an all-star PG but I think he needs a solid defender first and foremost and someone capable of starting the offense. I mean we started Flip Murray for the last half of the season over Diener and Travis is the purer PG. But it came down to defense with O'Brien.

[FreeRon]

1) As long as we're talking symantics, to interpret is to explain or to understand in a certain way. Since I was responding to your post, you clearly didn't think I was explaining your post, did you? The only thing you could have logically deduced from my response was that I was understanding your post a certain way and responding to it. You thought I misunderstood your post, thus misinterpreting it. However, even if this were the case, you would believe that I had a false understanding. Explain to me, then, how I would INTENTIONALLY have a false understanding of your post.

2) Most of my initial response wasn't even to your post, it was based on what I had heard from other posters in another thread altogether. The only issue I took with you was when you said Z put up equal stats and played more, and that was only because you were basing this statement off of one year, which you would do if you were talking about trading 35+ year old players, but not a 30-year-old guy.

[FreeRon]

And to clarify, it wasn't you that said they would rather keep Z in an earlier thread. That was my mistake, and I'm sorry I misquoted you on that one. I just went back and it was another poster...don't know how I got the two of you mixed up. So the part about Z over JO straight up is to him, not you

[greenway84]

what if with the Cleavland trade we brought in a third team.

IND
Z
Wilcox
CAV 1st rd

Cleavland
JO

Seattle
AV
Ike
IND 2nd

[Niko23]

From a Cavs fan....I think you guys should keep JO one more year to hope he can have a bounce back year to up his value. The risk is too high for the Cavs to offer this. We already had significant injury issues with Larry Hughes and I do not want to go through that again

[count55]

From a Cavs fan....I think you guys should keep JO one more year to hope he can have a bounce back year to up his value. The risk is too high for the Cavs to offer this. We already had significant injury issues with Larry Hughes and I do not want to go through that again

Very sound and reasonable POV.