Pacers dont expect to have 10th

pacersrule08 · Post #1 » by **pacersrule08** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 8:57 pm

http://twitter.com/AlexKennedyNBA/status/15285816318
http://www.hoopsnotes.com/2010/06/pacers-trying-to-move-their-tenth-pick/

Idk, who do u think bird is going after?

Collison?
Stuckey?
Harris?
Parker?

Idk should be intresting, but i really wish if anything happens that the pacers at least have a first round pick. I dont even care if its at the end of the first round. But is Bird finally going to get a deal done? IDK?

fj20 · Post #2 » by **fj20** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 9:09 pm

hopefully harris, yet more likely parker i feel like...i just want to have some kind of pick in the first round...just not #10

pacersrule08 · Post #3 » by **pacersrule08** » Fri Jun 4, 2010 9:11 pm

fj20 wrote:i just want to have some kind of pick in the first round...just not #10

Agreed

Maybe

Parker 20 for Murphy Rush 10

raferfenix · Post #4 » by **raferfenix** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 12:00 am

I don't see the Pacers having the ammo to get Parker unless they are willing to give up Granger.

From our standpoint, it would probably only be possible if it'd be folded into a Troy Murphy for Ersan deal. After Ersan's playoffs, I'm even more against doing that, but a pick swap would make it more enticing...

glasket · Post #5 » by **glasket** » Sat Jun 5, 2010 2:39 am

I'm really weary of getting Parker.
After this year he is a free agent and not sure as to his chance of resigning with us. That would again leave us at square 1 with no PG.

8305 · Post #6 » by **8305** » Sun Jun 6, 2010 3:09 pm

Parker scares me too. Just too many things that can go wrong. If he's not signed I just don't see him being worth that much. Maybe Murphy and Rush but I sure wouldn't put pick 10 into that trade. Or maybe an exchange of 1st round picks and Murphy. Even if you do resign him I see alot of risk in a long term contract with Parker.

Best case scenario would be Collison. Young, capable and cheap. I think he could be better than Harris.

jarrettjackfan · Post #7 » by **jarrettjackfan** » Sun Jun 6, 2010 9:24 pm

raferfenix wrote:I don't see the Pacers having the ammo to get Parker unless they are willing to give up Granger.

From our standpoint, it would probably only be possible if it'd be folded into a Troy Murphy for Ersan deal. After Ersan's playoffs, I'm even more against doing that, but a pick swap would make it more enticing...

Really? Dude San Antonio wants a deal like Murphy, Brandon Rush, and the #10 pick for Parker. It's Larry Bird who's being slow pulling the trigger on it. We definitely have the fire power to make a pick, it's just whether or not Bird will make the deal.

DWCP2 · Post #8 » by **DWCP2** » Mon Jun 7, 2010 12:04 am

jarrettjackfan wrote:
raferfenix wrote:I don't see the Pacers having the ammo to get Parker unless they are willing to give up Granger.

From our standpoint, it would probably only be possible if it'd be folded into a Troy Murphy for Ersan deal. After Ersan's playoffs, I'm even more against doing that, but a pick swap would make it more enticing...

Really? Dude San Antonio wants a deal like Murphy, Brandon Rush, and the #10 pick for Parker. It's Larry Bird who's being slow pulling the trigger on it. We definitely have the fire power to make a pick, it's just whether or not Bird will make the deal.

Larry Bird has always played the game of check, recheck, and check again.

Remember the O'Neal-Ford trade from two years ago. Both sides picked and prodded O'Neal and Ford's health for the better part of a week.

writerman · Post #9 » by **writerman** » Mon Jun 7, 2010 1:18 am

jarrettjackfan wrote:
raferfenix wrote:I don't see the Pacers having the ammo to get Parker unless they are willing to give up Granger.

From our standpoint, it would probably only be possible if it'd be folded into a Troy Murphy for Ersan deal. After Ersan's playoffs, I'm even more against doing that, but a pick swap would make it more enticing...

Really? Dude San Antonio wants a deal like Murphy, Brandon Rush, and the #10 pick for Parker. It's Larry Bird who's being slow pulling the trigger on it. We definitely have the fire power to make a pick, it's just whether or not Bird will make the deal.

Waaaaay too much to give up for Parker, who has had health problems recently and would likkely be a one-year rental anyway.

Starkiller · Post #10 » by **Starkiller** » Mon Jun 7, 2010 3:45 pm

If we give up all that and only come back w/ Tony freaking Parker I'm done w/ this team, seriously.

Post #11 » by **Miller4ever** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 7:08 am

I'd only do this if we get their 1st in the deal. We may be able to parlay the #20 into a slightly higher pick for Bledsoe, or just take Bledsoe at #20 if he falls.

Moooose · Post #12 » by **Moooose** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 9:31 am

I'd like Parker as he would be a major upgrade for the Pacers but i just can't get rid of the idea that there is a big big possibility of him doing another "Peja Stojakovic" on us after his contract expires. And without any guarantee of a winning season, what's the reason for him to re-sign with Indiana other than the money he'd be getting? I'd rather look first into some other long-term options than settle for Parker.

pacersrule08 · Post #13 » by **pacersrule08** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 5:20 pm

on hoopsworld chat today

Tony in Indy, Indy:
Any chance Portland would be willing to deal Fernandez and Bayless for Matching salary and #10 pick?
Alex Kennedy:

What's up everyone, thanks for checking in. I had to bump the start time back one hour, Steve and I were filling in on ESPN 1040 and I just got out of the studio. There's a lot of questions to get to this week so let's just jump right in.

I wanted to touch on this right away. As far as the Indiana Pacers go, I've been told that the number ten pick will be moved. In fact, the team was telling prospects that there's no way they keep the pick during interviews at the Pre-Draft Camp in Chicago. With that said, I'm not sure which teams the Pacers have talked to or how close they are to dealing the pick. I'm hearing that they were very interested in Patrick Patterson but they don't feel he'll be on the board by the time they're up to pick at ten so they feel that moving the pick is the best move for their franchise. Portland has their own issues right now, it appears that Kevin Pritchard is on the way out so who knows how their discussions are going right now. As the draft gets closer, we'll definitely keep everyone up to date on potential trades and moves that could take place on June 24.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Chat.asp?CHAT_TOPICS_ID=983

Starkiller · Post #14 » by **Starkiller** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 6:40 pm

How dumb is that? If we would have just kept Bayless in the first place we wouldn't need to trade for him.

Wizop · Post #15 » by **Wizop** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 7:06 pm

Starkiller wrote:How dumb is that? If we would have just kept Bayless in the first place we wouldn't need to trade for him.

if we had liked Bayless, you are right that we wouldn't have made a deal to trade down which was contingent upon Bayless being available at our pick. my conclusion is not that we were dumb to make the first trade, but that the rumors of us being interested in trading for him now are dumb. we didn't like him on draft night and as far as I'm concerned he has not done anything since then to show that we were wrong.

Starkiller · Post #16 » by **Starkiller** » Tue Jun 8, 2010 7:11 pm

Wizop wrote:
Starkiller wrote:How dumb is that? If we would have just kept Bayless in the first place we wouldn't need to trade for him.

if we had liked Bayless, you are right that we wouldn't have made a deal to trade down which was contingent upon Bayless being available at our pick. my conclusion is not that we were dumb to make the first trade, but that the rumors of us being interested in trading for him now are dumb. we didn't like him on draft night and as far as I'm concerned he has not done anything since then to show that we were wrong.

Exactly. He's shown those flashes of scoring but nothing that you would trade a lotto pick for. That's a stupid deal.

fienX420 · Post #17 » by **fienX420** » Wed Jun 9, 2010 12:32 pm

The number 10 pick sucks. If only we had lost the games we were supposed to we'd be getting Wall or Turner. Cousins & Monroe will be off the board, and I don't really like anybody at 10. We need to lump this pick in with our trading chips in an effort to move Ford and bring in at least one decent guard.

Wizop · Post #18 » by **Wizop** » Wed Jun 9, 2010 4:05 pm

don't forget that Philly and Washington got lucky in the lottery. we could have lost several more games and only moved up a few spots given that the lottery moved the Nets and Wolves down. Monroe is a name that might have slid to us but Wall, Turner, and Cousins were probably always out of reach absent a lucky ping pong ball selection. personally, I think after Wall, Turner, Cousins, and Favors the talent drops off and flattens out. unless you are in love with Johnson who really doesn't fit out needs, I don't see all that much difference between what we're likely to get at 10 and what we might have been able to get in the 5 to 7 range. and if point is the key need, I'd rather pay 10 spot money to anyone other than Wall or Turner anyway. there is no way you could afford to take the next best point guard after them if we were four or five spots higher.