Would you if you could?

8305 · Post #1 » by **8305** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 5:53 pm

If Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy and Jeff Foster could be moved for expiring contracts would you make the move/moves?

We would actually be under the cap this summer and would likely be drafting in the top 7. Young guys Rush, Hibbert and Hansbrough would have to get more minutes likely speeding their development.

In the end probably just a small step back that might facilitate a bigger step forward next season. Any chance it could be done?

It sounds like the Murphy to Cleveland deal sounds possible. Foster needs to get back on the court and Dunleavy's got to start playing better quickly.

Post #2 » by **PR07** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 6:29 pm

Absolutely. I'd drive them to the airport. I don't really how anyone could say that they wouldn't, unless in Foster's case (just for what he's done with this franchise).

Dunthreevy · Post #3 » by **Dunthreevy** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 6:42 pm

I'd probably be fine with it, but I'd be content keeping them and waiting until they come off the books next summer too. I think that if we don't trade Murphy or Dunleavy that we'll definitely make an effort to re-sign at least 1 of them (likely Dunleavy) at a much cheaper rate.

basketballwacko2 · Post #4 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 6:45 pm

Yeah I'd trade them all, I think the Cavs deal is possible and I'd think that Portland would want a big so Foster to the Blazers might be a posible move. I'm not sure where you're gonna send Dunleavy but I'd be willing to keep him if the other two could be dealt and if we could somehow trade TJ I'd be very happy! $8.5 million for a 3rd string pg is pretty pricey, but unless some contender loses their starter I am not seeing a trade anywhere for TJ.

TSC25 · Post #5 » by **TSC25** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 7:59 pm

Id say it wouldnt hurt to trade them at this point

Post #6 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Jan 3, 2010 10:22 pm

I think it's assumed that we'd essentially move Murphy or Foster for any expirings right now, incentive being negotiated of course.

However, I think the Pacers would like to hold onto Dunleavy and let him expire here, and then possibly re-sign as well. He's such a useful guy essentially between the 1 and 3 spots. Put him next to Granger and possibly a John Wall, a guy who isn't exactly a pure point guard, and you have the ability to shield a young PG and take over some of the ball handling/moving duties on court.

But yeah, if you could shorten the last year off Murphy, Foster, or Ford, you do it. Even with Dunleavy, it'd have to be considered.

Kuq_e_Zi91 · Post #7 » by **Kuq_e_Zi91** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 12:06 am

I wouldn't even think twice about it. I'd sign whatever deal and run away laughing before they could change their mind.

The faster we can get through this waiting process with these contracts coming off the books, the faster we can start to really rebuild and form the roster we're going to contend with.

8305 · Post #8 » by **8305** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 1:39 am

If you could move all three the Pacer's total salary going into next year would be 38 mil. For this franchise that would be almost unprecedented salary flexibility.

I've moved to the place where Z for Murphy straight up would be ok. Portland would seem like a logical destination for Forster but he's got to get healthy. Say Blake and Outlaw with a buyout of Blake. The only possible destination I can see for Dunleavy would be the Lakers. Their bench appears to need help and Dunleavy would probably be very effective in their system. Morrison and Vujacic doesn't eliminate all of Dunleavy's salary but would knock 5 mil off next year's cap.

Argueably the biggest dividend of this strategy would be making the team bad enough this year to qualify for a top six pick. The next question, are there six potential entrants in this draft that make the sacrifice of this season worthwhile?

Post #9 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 3:49 am

I'd be happy to do a Foster/Diener for Blake/Outlaw. That way, Indy wouldn't have to waive anybody to do the deal (which I assume would be Diener anyway), and Portland gets the emergency PG in Diener (who is expiring anyway). Plus, the expenses come out almost even this way.

OR....Indy could make it worthwhile for Portland by waiving Diener and eating that money, allow Portland to clear another $2 million or so off the cap immediately, which would put them around $3.5 million under the cap. They could then shop that space to somebody like New Orleans and take on a player's contract for something like a 1st round pick to help a team alleviate luxury tax issues. Essentially, they could take a flier on a Hilton Armstrong while probably getting a 2nd rounder as well for their troubles.

I'm sure by the deadline we could get Ilgauskas for Murphy straight up. We'd probably be willing to do a buyout as well, and Bird might only want a 2nd rounder as something for him to "sell" the fanbase on (in addition to the financial flexibility). But, a 2nd rounder likely won't be haggled by Bird, nor Ferry.

Ford is a tough bird. I can't see anyone taking him on right now with his performance struggles, and his large money he's owed (granted it's only for one more season). We're probably stuck with him unless he can tremendously raise his performance and value before the deadline.

Dunleavy is probably not able to be traded as well as he still seems to be working off signs of rust from the injury. Teams would likely want to see him perform healthy for a bit before taking on his contract, and even then, I'm not sure which team would be willing to give up expirings for him, if any team would.

Post #10 » by **Gremz** » Mon Jan 4, 2010 9:05 am

I think if the lot could be moved for expirings then it would be pretty logical to do so.

If only one can be moved however, it makes little sense due to the restrictions in terms of capspace available.

RAW · Post #11 » by **RAW** » Thu Jan 7, 2010 9:33 am

Without question.

Post #12 » by **count55** » Thu Jan 7, 2010 1:52 pm

Gremz wrote:I think if the lot could be moved for expirings then it would be pretty logical to do so.

If only one can be moved however, it makes little sense due to the restrictions in terms of capspace available.

One would help immensely to avoid the luxury tax, which is far more important than cap space at this point.

Post #13 » by **Gremz** » Fri Jan 8, 2010 3:13 am

count55 wrote:
Gremz wrote:I think if the lot could be moved for expirings then it would be pretty logical to do so.

If only one can be moved however, it makes little sense due to the restrictions in terms of capspace available.

One would help immensely to avoid the luxury tax, which is far more important than cap space at this point.

Wouldn't it be a fair assumption that either Foster or Murphy should be able to fetch expirings alone?

Perhaps the market situation is more of a concern than I thought, but both seem to be at least in that range.