Image

Z for Murph?

Moderators: pacers33granger, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890, boomershadow

8305
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,486
And1: 632
Joined: Jun 11, 2009
     

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#21 » by 8305 » Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:54 pm

Diogu's biggest issue was his lack of feel for the game. This resulted in him being a bad defender and a liability in a motion offense. The problem with guys like this is without minutes they will never conquer this weakness and the team will likely be making a significant sacrifice if they try to provide the playing time.

If Hickson is the same kind of low bb iq player Diogu was we would probably get the same result Diogu delivered. Diogu and Shawne Williams were similar in that many times their lack of fundamental skills caused them to play their way off the floor. I think this experience might be a part of why the most recent drafts have seen Larry go with more seasoned players.
User avatar
Charcoal Filtered
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,221
And1: 36
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#22 » by Charcoal Filtered » Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:33 am

With the cap space we had this offseason, we picked up Earl Watson and Jones. My point is that only minor cap space is not going to yeild a true franchise player for us. The replacement for Murphy would also cut into our cap space for the 2011 offseason.

I have no problem waiting a year for Murphy's value to be higher or just letting his contract expire.
The NBA: Where convicted tax evader Ken Mauer happens to officiate.
User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 44,770
And1: 14,031
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
     

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#23 » by Scoot McGroot » Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:42 pm

I don't have a problem with waiting for him to expire either. He's certainly useful.

The argument is whether or not you believe Hickson is a solid player, or can be a solid player within a few years. If you think the combo of Hansbrough and Hickson has the potential to be a very solid PF combo (better than Murphy over the next 3 years or so), then you make the deal. Hickson is cheap enough on his rookie contract that his $1.8 million or so in 2011 isn't too much of an issue financially.
User avatar
Charcoal Filtered
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,221
And1: 36
Joined: Jan 12, 2003
Location: Vancouver, WA

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#24 » by Charcoal Filtered » Sat Aug 29, 2009 8:03 pm

Scoot, I have not seen a whole lot out of Hickson. What I have does not impress me.
The NBA: Where convicted tax evader Ken Mauer happens to officiate.
User avatar
MillerTime101
Senior
Posts: 551
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 08, 2008

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#25 » by MillerTime101 » Sat Aug 29, 2009 10:18 pm

If we are out of the playoffs near the deadline I think you would have to look at a deal like this, Hickson is a nice piece and for the 11 million we would be saving next year we could probably land another nice piece via FA.

That being said I doubt we will find ourselves that far out of a playoff spot so I doubt Larry makes a deal like this. Bird appears to be more geared to adding pieces and slowly rebuilding then simply tearing apart the team and getting whatever he can back.
User avatar
count55
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 8,431
And1: 3
Joined: Dec 21, 2005
Location: In Memoriam: pf

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#26 » by count55 » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:37 am

Make no mistake...if we were to do something like this, we would be doing it strictly to stay under the luxury tax for 2010-2011 season. We would not be doing it to try to land some free agent.

My sense is how close we are to the playoffs would have little to do with it. If attendance remains bad next year, we'll do it simply to save money.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and clearly, neither do you.
User avatar
old rem
RealGM
Posts: 50,753
And1: 1,080
Joined: Jun 14, 2005
Location: Witness Protection

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#27 » by old rem » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:14 pm

Scoot McGroot wrote:Hickson's talented enough to be more than just a starting PF in this league.



Maybe I'm a bit biased as I pretty much only get to watch Cav's games all year long living up here in Cleveland, but Hickson is a very interesting player.

I'd be relatively ok with having Hickson and Hansbrough battle it out for the starting PF spot if we're not anywhere close to a playoff team, as currently constructed.


Hansborough is a much better player than Hickson who's athletic but unskilled. Murphy's mix of shooting and rebounding would be hard to replace and Z is now incredibly slow.
CENSORED... No comment.
User avatar
Dunthreevy
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,946
And1: 1,353
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Indianapolis, IN
     

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#28 » by Dunthreevy » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:42 pm

Can I just say no?
Feel the rhythm! Feel the rhyme! Get on up, it's bobsled time!
User avatar
MillerTime101
Senior
Posts: 551
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 08, 2008

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#29 » by MillerTime101 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:54 am

count55 wrote:Make no mistake...if we were to do something like this, we would be doing it strictly to stay under the luxury tax for 2010-2011 season. We would not be doing it to try to land some free agent.

My sense is how close we are to the playoffs would have little to do with it. If attendance remains bad next year, we'll do it simply to save money.



Your right, we wouldnt be doing it to get in the FA frenzy but it would give us abit of room to potentially land a nice young player, you add Hickson to that possibility and it is somewhat intriguing.
basketballwacko2
RealGM
Posts: 22,031
And1: 4,338
Joined: May 11, 2002
Location: Just outside of No where.
     

Re: Z for Murph? 

Post#30 » by basketballwacko2 » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:32 am

No question this kind of deal is a salary dump, adding Hickson would be a small bit of value for the Pacers as Z would be a one yr player if that much. I think I said this before if in Jan 2010 we're stinking and out of it I can see this go down. Murph for Z, Hickson and $3 mill. Pacers us the cash to buy out Z in Feb and he goes right back to the Cavs. We save a bunch of money on the 2010=11 payroll.

Return to Indiana Pacers