So who do we get?

[Starkiller]

So I've been wondering. With all the talk about all the space we will have after next season, who do we spend that money on? I've heard about Tony Parker, I'm on the fence about that currently. But what if we land John Wall this year? Obviously we wouldn't need to pay Parker the king's ransom he will require to come here. So who do we spend the money on?

How nice would it be to throw the money for Tony Parker at Steve Nash instead? Yeah, I know, but we can all dream right? He's got 2 years left.

Being a Hoosier fan, I'd love to see DJ White signed to a deal. He's a FA that year.

Eric Gordon will also be a FA, and I think he'd be perfect to put at SG w/ Danny and a PG, wether it's Wall or Parker. OJ Mayo will be a FA as well, and will probably command a TON of money, but Mayo and Granger? That's evil.

Also, a cheaper option than Parker could be Russel Westbrook. Jaryd Bayless as well. Mike Bibby would be a FA by then, but would he have anything left? In a dream like scenario Chauncy and Derrick Rose will also both be FA's but fat chance of either of those happening.

Mickael Pietrus is a guy I've liked for a long time, good role player and good guy off the bench. He'd be a FA. Jason Terry is another.

Rasheed Wallace will be a FA, but would we want his headache? And will he have anything left?

[RAW]

Answer: Some white dude who can't play defense.

[Starkiller]

Answer: Some white dude who can't play defense.

I am willing to bet this will most likely happen.

[Scoot McGroot]

Keep in mind the difference between a Restricted Free Agent and an Unrestricted Free Agent.

Guys like Gordon, Mayo, Westbrook, etc will all be Restricted, meaning that their current team can, and most likely WILL, match ANY offer that we would make. Thus, there's no chance we could get most solid restricted free agents.

Guys like Bibby, Wallace, Nash, etc will simply be WAY too old for this lineup, and a waste of money for us.

[Starkiller]

Keep in mind the difference between a Restricted Free Agent and an [/i]Unrestricted Free Agent[/i].

Guys like Gordon, Mayo, Westbrook, etc will all be Restricted, meaning that their current team can, and most likely WILL, match ANY offer that we would make. Thus, there's no chance we could get most solid restricted free agents.

Guys like Bibby, Wallace, Nash, etc will simply be WAY too old for this lineup, and a waste of money for us.

I don't think a player like Nash's caliber is ever too old for any team.

[Scoot McGroot]

Some used to say that about guys like Gary Payton, Sam Cassell, Karl Malone, Scottie Pippen, and Charles Barkley.


Fact is, at a certain age, a guy is just 10 years older than everyone else on the team, and is simply unable to produce consistently due to age or health for maybe one season out of a 3 or 4 year contract.

We simply can't afford to make a big money offer to a guy like Nash who would be 38 in his first season in Indy in 2011. Dude's already 36 years old in a month! How much can you expect him to contribute on a contract from age 38-41?

[Dunthreevy]

Definitely agree with Scoot 100%. Signing Nash or any other player from the 1995-96 draft class to a big contract would simply be shooting ourselves in the foot. I'd stage a protest if there was even rumors of us giving Nash a huge contract.

[Miller4ever]

Yup. Even Stockton had low numbers at 40, and he was Mr. Longevity.

As for the restricted free agents, we could throw a LOT of money at one. There's also some FA's this season who, because of the economic climate, may pick up the option for their last year.

[PR07]

I'd just wait for Chris Paul.

[macblank]

Nash would be the one person I wouldn't object to getting at even an advanced age. Dude peaked later in his career and his conditioning is quite remarkable. Signing him at four years would be a bit much, but a two or three year contract would be okay.

[Scoot McGroot]

Nash would be the one person I wouldn't object to getting at even an advanced age. Dude peaked later in his career and his conditioning is quite remarkable. Signing him at four years would be a bit much, but a two or three year contract would be okay.

Age 38 at signing. Age 40 when he expires, if it's only a 2 year deal.

Keep that in mind. If he comes dirt cheap (and I mean DIRT CHEAP) then yeah, sure, why not. But he's not going to be worth "investing" in.

[basketballwacko2]

Keep in mind the difference between a Restricted Free Agent and an [/i]Unrestricted Free Agent[/i].

Guys like Gordon, Mayo, Westbrook, etc will all be Restricted, meaning that their current team can, and most likely WILL, match ANY offer that we would make. Thus, there's no chance we could get most solid restricted free agents.

Guys like Bibby, Wallace, Nash, etc will simply be WAY too old for this lineup, and a waste of money for us.

I don't think a player like Nash's caliber is ever too old for any team.

He might be nice as a "player coach"sorta if you have a young PG you want to bring along slowly but the guy is getting up there, a contract of more than 2 yrs would be a bad idea. No question about how good he is or was but 2 yrs from now??? How old is he 36? And the guy has to start losing a step pretty soon. I wouldn't want to invest a long term deal in Nash.

[Gremz]

Caron Butler?
David West?
(Probably not much chance for those two but I think they'd both look nasty next to Granger)

Ronnie Brewer? Make a decent offer and see if Utah can afford it.
Carl Landry? Same explanation as above.

I'd imagine that's about the calibre to look for, but it's just a wild guess.

Hopefully manage to pick up a cheap veteran or two to help with the rotation. Brad Miller anyone?

[Starkiller]

For the Nash being too old comments. He doesn't seem to be slowing down this year, as he is having one of his best seasons ever. Even if his averages were to cut in half, that's still almost 10 ppg and 5.5 apg. Better than we've had at PG in a long time. He's in good shape. What is there to think he'd break down?

[Dunthreevy]

For the Nash being too old comments. He doesn't seem to be slowing down this year, as he is having one of his best seasons ever. Even if his averages were to cut in half, that's still almost 10 ppg and 5.5 apg. Better than we've had at PG in a long time. He's in good shape. What is there to think he'd break down?

Common sense and the law of probability? It happens to every pro athlete (with the exception of Randy Couture and Lance Armstrong). His body will start to fade very soon.

[Starkiller]

For the Nash being too old comments. He doesn't seem to be slowing down this year, as he is having one of his best seasons ever. Even if his averages were to cut in half, that's still almost 10 ppg and 5.5 apg. Better than we've had at PG in a long time. He's in good shape. What is there to think he'd break down?

Common sense and the law of probability? It happens to every pro athlete (with the exception of Randy Couture and Lance Armstrong). His body will start to fade very soon.

In two years he's gonna drop off the map completely? He's the best PG in the league followed by Paul, then there is a long gap to the rest of them. I don't see how it would be a bad signing at all, yes he will be older, but he won't command a long contract, two years max. Giving him two years would not be a bad deal. He's having one of, if not his best year yet, I just don't see why you think two years from now he's just gonna be so bad where we shouldn't consider it.

Like I said, even if his stats cut in half, which would probably be a worst case scenario, that's still FAR FAR FAR better than any PG play we've had since Tinsley was actually worth a damn.

[Boneman2]

Any Nash talk is inconclusive until we see what he looks like in a couple of seasons. Besides Nash wouldn't choose Indy because at 38 yrs. old he would be looking to go to a contender.

[Starkiller]

Any Nash talk is inconclusive until we see what he looks like in a couple of seasons. Besides Nash wouldn't choose Indy because at 38 yrs. old he would be looking to go to a contender.

Isn't that what we are supposed to be that year?


How about a trade for Devin Harris this year? Wiretap posted no one on NJ is safe. Trade them some expirings perhaps so they can have room to sign Lebron?

[Dunthreevy]

Any Nash talk is inconclusive until we see what he looks like in a couple of seasons. Besides Nash wouldn't choose Indy because at 38 yrs. old he would be looking to go to a contender.

Isn't that what we are supposed to be that year?


How about a trade for Devin Harris this year? Wiretap posted no one on NJ is safe. Trade them some expirings perhaps so they can have room to sign Lebron?

Lebron won't sign with the Nets if they don't have any quality players on the roster. He's not going to leave an Eastern conference powerhouse to go into a rebuilding situation.

And I say no to Nash because as you said, at most it would be a 2 year contract for a guy will likely be ready to retire after the contract. Why would we pigeon hole ourselves by giving going after a guy that we will need to replace in only 2 seasons, and then be right back to needing to find a quality PG again?

[Scoot McGroot]

For the Nash being too old comments. He doesn't seem to be slowing down this year, as he is having one of his best seasons ever. Even if his averages were to cut in half, that's still almost 10 ppg and 5.5 apg. Better than we've had at PG in a long time. He's in good shape. What is there to think he'd break down?

Common sense and the law of probability? It happens to every pro athlete (with the exception of Randy Couture and Lance Armstrong). His body will start to fade very soon.

In two years he's gonna drop off the map completely? He's the best PG in the league followed by Paul, then there is a long gap to the rest of them. I don't see how it would be a bad signing at all, yes he will be older, but he won't command a long contract, two years max. Giving him two years would not be a bad deal. He's having one of, if not his best year yet, I just don't see why you think two years from now he's just gonna be so bad where we shouldn't consider it.

Like I said, even if his stats cut in half, which would probably be a worst case scenario, that's still FAR FAR FAR better than any PG play we've had since Tinsley was actually worth a damn.

If Nash isn't a top PG in the league, and we can't rely on him for 80 games a year at top production, then we're going to have to trade Danny Granger for pieces, as we will have set ourselves up to have to rebuild again.

It's that big of a risk.


Once again, if it's a near league minimum or small contract, than sure. If it's an MLE or more, we're going to be in major trouble as a franchise.