Get TJ Ford to the Pistons...

GooseDiddy · Post #1 » by **GooseDiddy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:31 pm

Pistons fan here.. I want TJ Ford.

Legit, what would it take? Assume Stuckey, Monroe, Jerebko, and future first rounders are the only untouchables.

Will take on other Indy players to make the deal work, as long as we end up with

PG Ford
SG Stuckey
SF Jerebko
PF Monroe
C ????

princeofpalace · Post #2 » by **princeofpalace** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:10 pm

I doubt Detroit would have much interest in Ford

God Squad · Post #3 » by **God Squad** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:19 pm

Yeah i doubt it too. But you never know.

GooseDiddy · Post #4 » by **GooseDiddy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:35 pm

princeofpalace wrote:I doubt Detroit would have much interest in Ford

Who cares?
I'm asking what it would take from Indy, not if Detroit is interested. Ford is an expiring deal PG. We don't have a single PG besides Bynum... I think mostly the Pistons are interested in sucking for the next 3 seasons, but I'M interested in Ford.

princeofpalace · Post #5 » by **princeofpalace** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:39 pm

GooseDiddy wrote:
princeofpalace wrote:I doubt Detroit would have much interest in Ford

Who cares?
I'm asking what it would take from Indy, not if Detroit is interested. Ford is an expiring deal PG. We don't have a single PG besides Bynum... I think mostly the Pistons are interested in sucking for the next 3 seasons, but I'M interested in Ford.

Ford is done. He is no longer a productive player his value lies only in his expiring contract. Stuckey makes a better PG than Ford.

Post #6 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 2:45 pm

EVERYONE makes a better PG than Ford.

Grangerous · Post #7 » by **Grangerous** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:00 pm

just to anwser your question i would probably take Charlie V for tj..

GooseDiddy · Post #8 » by **GooseDiddy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:08 pm

Grangerous wrote:just to anwser your question i would probably take Charlie V for tj..

Done. He's all yours, enjoy.

PG Ford/Bynum/White
SG Stuckey/Gordon/Hamilton
SF Prince/Daye
PF Jerebko/Maxiell/Wilcox/Summers
C Wallace/Monroe

Better then what we got now.

Dunthreevy · Post #9 » by **Dunthreevy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:10 pm

Grangerous wrote:just to anwser your question i would probably take Charlie V for tj..

Why, so the Pacers could jump right back into the game of having tremendously overpaid players?

The only thing from Detroit that I would want would be players that most likely wouldn't be available. Tayshaun Prince is the only expiring deal on Detroit that would work salary wise and Detroit wouldn't do that either.

Post #10 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:11 pm

GooseDiddy wrote:
Grangerous wrote:just to anwser your question i would probably take Charlie V for tj..

Done. He's all yours, enjoy.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo..............................

Post #11 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:16 pm

I'll play...

Ford + Solomon Jones for Rip Hamilton (salaries come just close enough to match if Shamsports is accurate)

Maybe Ford + Jones for Maxiell + Wilcox.

Ford for Villanueva would suck for Indiana; that's not a contract the Pacers want to get stuck with.

Looking at the salaries, I don't see any other real possibilities--Indiana probably doesn't want to make a two-for-one trade, since there is not a roster spot available (assuming Magnum Rolle is signed).

Post #12 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:23 pm

mizzoupacers wrote:I'll play...

Ford + Solomon Jones for Rip Hamilton (salaries come just close enough to match if Shamsports is accurate)

Maybe Ford + Jones for Maxiell + Wilcox.

Ford for Villanueva would suck for Indiana; that's not a contract the Pacers want to get stuck with.

Looking at the salaries, I don't see any other real possibilities--Indiana probably doesn't want to make a two-for-one trade, since there is not a roster spot available (assuming Magnum Rolle is signed).

I might be willing to take a gamble on Rip, but I'm not sure why we'd send TJ unless Dunleavy is on the way out.

As for the second deal, I really don't want to use any future cap space on Maxiell.

Dunthreevy · Post #13 » by **Dunthreevy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:41 pm

Gremz wrote:
As for the second deal, I really don't want to use any future cap space on Maxiell.

But you would be willing to use future cap space, and A LOT of it (this season and 2 more at nearly $13 million per), on an aging Rip Hamilton? I'd rather have Maxiell at $5 mill per for this year and next (player option for a 3rd season), than to spend that much money on Rip.

ahartleyvu · Post #14 » by **ahartleyvu** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:54 pm

Sorry, we're not taking on CV. Ignore the poster above.

Post #15 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:58 pm

Dunthreevy wrote:
Gremz wrote:
As for the second deal, I really don't want to use any future cap space on Maxiell.

But you would be willing to use future cap space, and A LOT of it (this season and 2 more at nearly $13 million per), on an aging Rip Hamilton? I'd rather have Maxiell at $5 mill per for this year and next (player option for a 3rd season), than to spend that much money on Rip.

I didn't say I would do it, I said I might. It would depend on what options we have available, perhaps we'd need extra incentive. I'm not in a "let's definitely do that!" mindframe at all. I just see no point in the second deal is all.

Dunthreevy · Post #16 » by **Dunthreevy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:03 pm

Gremz wrote:
Dunthreevy wrote:
Gremz wrote:
As for the second deal, I really don't want to use any future cap space on Maxiell.

But you would be willing to use future cap space, and A LOT of it (this season and 2 more at nearly $13 million per), on an aging Rip Hamilton? I'd rather have Maxiell at $5 mill per for this year and next (player option for a 3rd season), than to spend that much money on Rip.

I didn't say I would do it, I said I might. It would depend on what options we have available, perhaps we'd need extra incentive. I'm not in a "let's definitely do that!" mindframe at all. I just see no point in the second deal is all.

Got ya.

I don't think very highly of the current Rip Hamilton, as you may have gathered :lol:

Post #17 » by **Gremz** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:52 pm

That's fair enough, I doubt many do. One thing I do know is that he can play very well off of others and doesn't need to take over, simply shoot the ball, which off of picks, he's still pretty good at.

That deal is horrible, but I'm a little concerned with the deals I've seen this off season that we could end up with a terrible Drew Gooden like payout to an undervalued player. I'd much rather pay Rip his 37.5m rather than give a 40m contract to someone worth 20m.

Dream scenario we won't have to worry about things like that, but as far as options go, we could do worse than Rip.

Post #18 » by **mizzoupacers** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:59 pm

Not sure why you all are throwing rocks at Rip Hamilton. He's only in his early thirties, still scoring better than 18 per, and has a game built on smarts and skill rather than athleticism...I can't see why he won't be a good player for a few more years, plus he's the kind of veteran winning presence the Pacers could sorely use, plus the Pacers' backcourt stinks on ice right now.

I could see Hamilton being kind of like Byron Scott was for the Pacers in the '90s, only better.

There are other guys around the league I'd like to see the Pacers target first, but if the trade is with the Pistons and can't include Stuckey or Monroe, then Hamilton is the guy I'd want.

Indy2thaWindy · Post #19 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:15 pm

The only problem with gettin Rip is he is not really at a position of need. We need a 1 and a 4. Bird probly wants to see what the core wings of Granger, George, Stephenson, and Rush can do together before tradin for a plyer like Hamilton.

Spider156 · Post #20 » by **Spider156** » Thu Jul 29, 2010 5:37 pm

Would you guys do this?
Rip, Maxiell, Wilcox for Ford, Murphy, Rush, and McRoberts. If not then add in a second round pick.