2012/13 Random Trade Thoughts

[Scoot McGroot]

we'd all love to trade GG but who is the inactive player if we do?

Sloan or whomever we trade Green for. Possibly Plumlee if he can't progress. Possibly Solo if it takes him awhile to adjust to the NBA.

Ultimately, the 14th most important player on the roster (or least important player) on any given night will be inactive, regardless of salary or draft status.

[8305]

we'd all love to trade GG but who is the inactive player if we do?

Probably they' guy you get back for him.

The only reason Gerald Green is consequential in any way is his cap hit. His ability to contribute or his trade match's ability to contribute is meaningless. The position Played by the player coming back in a GG trade doesn't matter either.

[Wizop]

I think you need 3 point guards and 3 centers active every night. if Sloan is inactive, you are counting on Lance to be your emergency point guard and that hasn't gone well in the past. If Plumless is inactive, you are counting on DWest to be your emergency center and that is scary too. now if Granger is still rehabbing in November, the problem goes away for a while although then you are putting a lot of pressure on OJ and Solo if you trade Green for a four. if Granger is healthy though I suppose then Green and Solo are fighting for the 13th active slot and if you sign a 4/5 like Brand, I think it means Plumlee is inactive for another year.

bottom line, if Granger is ready to go, I think if we were then able to trade Green, there is a good chance that whoever we got for him would be inactive unless someone were injured. I've concluded that a Green for a four trade is less valuable than a Green for future considerations deal.

This was posted while I was writing the above portion of this post.

we'd all love to trade GG but who is the inactive player if we do?

Probably they' guy you get back for him.

The only reason Gerald Green is consequential in any way is his cap hit. His ability to contribute or his trade match's ability to contribute is meaningless. The position Played by the player coming back in a GG trade doesn't matter either.

agree completely which I think means that the best trade is Green for a 2nd round pick from a team likely to be picking in the lottery portion of that round.

[8305]

An early second round pick for Gerald would be fantastic. The 2014 draft or the 2024 draft or any place between. But, Gerald Green is a negative value contract. Logic dictates that a trade of him alone will not return value. Early second round draft choices carry a small value. That line of thinking tells me a trade of this nature isn't happening.

As to who's active or inactive for a given game, it really doesn't matter. Players 11-13 aren't going to play anyway. The likelihood they will impact a game is remote. You can't predict the anomaly situation that will make one seldom used player more desirable to have available than another.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think you need 3 point guards and 3 centers active every night. if Sloan is inactive, you are counting on Lance to be your emergency point guard and that hasn't gone well in the past. If Plumless is inactive, you are counting on DWest to be your emergency center and that is scary too. now if Granger is still rehabbing in November, the problem goes away for a while although then you are putting a lot of pressure on OJ and Solo if you trade Green for a four. if Granger is healthy though I suppose then Green and Solo are fighting for the 13th active slot and if you sign a 4/5 like Brand, I think it means Plumlee is inactive for another year.

bottom line, if Granger is ready to go, I think if we were then able to trade Green, there is a good chance that whoever we got for him would be inactive unless someone were injured. I've concluded that a Green for a four trade is less valuable than a Green for future considerations deal.

This was posted while I was writing the above portion of this post.

we'd all love to trade GG but who is the inactive player if we do?

Probably they' guy you get back for him.

The only reason Gerald Green is consequential in any way is his cap hit. His ability to contribute or his trade match's ability to contribute is meaningless. The position Played by the player coming back in a GG trade doesn't matter either.

agree completely which I think means that the best trade is Green for a 2nd round pick from a team likely to be picking in the lottery portion of that round.

I think you really don't need a 3rd PG active every single night unless you're backup is only mildly competent at best, or you have other major PG issues. You could make a similar argument for if a big man is inactive ("who's the emergency center....you'll get destroyed?" kind of argument).

Ultimately, Plumlee will be given every chance to succeed this year. If he doesn't, then it won't matter if he's active or not, as he won't be contributing either way.

[Wizop]

I think you really don't need a 3rd PG active every single night unless you're backup is only mildly competent at best, or you have other major PG issues. You could make a similar argument for if a big man is inactive ("who's the emergency center....you'll get destroyed?" kind of argument).

and I do make that argument. I think you need 3 PG's and 3 C's active every night to cover injuries and foul trouble. however, the 3rd PG can be a combo guard that normally plays 2, and the 3rd C can be someone who normally plays PF. I see Sloan as normally active unless Lance earns minutes at PG which certainly could happen if Danny pushes Paul to SG.

Ultimately, Plumlee will be given every chance to succeed this year. If he doesn't, then it won't matter if he's active or not, as he won't be contributing either way.

agreed. I think Plumlee has to be active most nights as the 3rd C although if he busts DWest could fill that role. I think the fact that we let Pendi go tells you that they feel Plumlee is ready to give it a try if not for the 2nd PF then at least for the 3rd C. if he's going to be the next Jeff Foster, he has to cover both positions.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think you really don't need a 3rd PG active every single night unless you're backup is only mildly competent at best, or you have other major PG issues. You could make a similar argument for if a big man is inactive ("who's the emergency center....you'll get destroyed?" kind of argument).

and I do make that argument. I think you need 3 PG's and 3 C's active every night to cover injuries and foul trouble. however, the 3rd PG can be a combo guard that normally plays 2, and the 3rd C can be someone who normally plays PF. I see Sloan as normally active unless Lance earns minutes at PG which certainly could happen if Danny pushes Paul to SG.

Ultimately, Plumlee will be given every chance to succeed this year. If he doesn't, then it won't matter if he's active or not, as he won't be contributing either way.

agreed. I think Plumlee has to be active most nights as the 3rd C although if he busts DWest could fill that role. I think the fact that we let Pendi go tells you that they feel Plumlee is ready to give it a try if not for the 2nd PF then at least for the 3rd C. if he's going to be the next Jeff Foster, he has to cover both positions.

In the same way you'd like to have 3 guys active at each position a night, I guess, but you just can't.

[Boneman2]

^^^ I think I'd rather have more 2's, 3's, and 4's active.

For instance a third pg is Ben Hansbrough compared to a third sf, Sam Young. One has a higher probability to actually play over the other.

Give each position a b/u and you're at 10 active. My next two choices would be fluid depending on the circumstances, but I would not necessarily say they have to be a 1 & 5. Could be one or the other or neither.

5 bigs, 2 pgs, & 5 wings is balanced.

[23artest23]

we'd all love to trade GG but who is the inactive player if we do?

Probably they' guy you get back for him.

The only reason Gerald Green is consequential in any way is his cap hit. His ability to contribute or his trade match's ability to contribute is meaningless. The position Played by the player coming back in a GG trade doesn't matter either.

Thats how I see it. It would be a plus to get someone back whom could contribute but it is not necessary. The return would likely just be another player that rides the pine collecting DNPs. The objective for the Pacers would be just simply to eliminate a year of salary. As someone mentioned, a second round pick would be even better but I doubt even Milwaukee could be conned into that.

[Wizop]

5 bigs, 2 pgs, & 5 wings is balanced.

they allow 13 to be active now which allows 5 bigs, 5 wings, and 3 pgs. they made that change in the strike year and it stuck.

while Ben Hansbrough hardly ever played last year, he was almost always active with Granger and Plumlee being the inactives. I expect them to dress Sloan this year for the same reason they dressed Ben last year.

B Hansbrough => Sloan
T Hansbrough => Copeland
J Pendergraph => Plumlee
S Young => S Hill
DJ Augustine => CJ Watson

That's five actives and G Hill, P George, Roy, Hibbert, D West, and Ian Mahinmi make 11. If Granger is healthy, that's 12. Orlando Johnson and Gerald Green fill out 14 but someone has to sit. I'd rate the favorites to sit as Green, Johnson, and Hill in that order. I'm starting to talk myself into saying that I'd give up on OJ if including him allowed us to move Green for a backup 4.

[Boneman2]

^^^ When did it increase to 13? I think this wrinkle goes into effect this season.

http://www.sheridanhoops.com/2012/02/24/breaking-news-13-man-nba-rosters-to-become-permanent-waiver-rules-could-be-altered/

3 pg's is similar to dressing an emergency qb in football, great move if the circumstance presents itself to utilize that option, otherwise SHill or OJ could be the ones occupying that 13th spot.

[Scoot McGroot]

For instance a third pg is Ben Hansbrough compared to a third sf, Sam Young. One has a higher probability to actually play over the other.

Yup. Hansbrough played 28 games last year. Of those games, he played in almost nothing but garbage time, 20 point wins or losses. He played meaningful minutes in about 7 games last year (final scores within 10 points). Most of those were in the stretch where Vogel replaced Augustine as the backup PG with Hansbrough.

I think there's a point where conservatism can hold you back from actually having guys dressed on the bench that are likely to help you. If Sloan is dressed every night, I would assume it's solely because Vogel thinks he'll produce more on the court than if he resorted to putting Green, OJ, or Solo out there.

[Wizop]

Ben may have only actually played in 28 games last year but that does not mean he was inactive for the other 54. I think you'll find him dressed but getting a DNP_CD in most if not all of those games. if Sloan is dressed every night, I do not think it will say a thing about the wings - Green, OJ, or Solo. all it says is that you do not have a combo guard at the two, i.e. that neither Lance nor OJ is a suitable 3rd point guard. you need to be three deep at every position but you get there with guys who can play multiple positions. there are lots of guys who can play 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, or 4/5 but the hardest positions to fill are always 1 and 5 so you usually wind up with 3 guys who are clearly 1's and 3 guys who are clearly 5's. our three 1's and G Hill, CJ Watson and Sloan. our three 5's are Hibbert, Mahinmi, and Plumlee. I expect those 6 guys will be active almost always barring injuries. While G Hill and CJ can both play 2, I don't see any of our 2's as candidates to play 1. Lance is more likely to get minutes at the 3 than the 1 which is why I think Sloan will be active.

[Scoot McGroot]

Just because be was dressed doesn't mean it didn't hurt our team. Opportunity cost. What are the odds that Hill or CJ get hurt early enough in a game that the other just can't play it out? Is that more important than just having your best 13 guys ready to play day in and out?

[Wizop]

I won't keep beating a dead horse. we dressed Ben ahead of Miles last year and I'll be shocked if we don't dress Sloan this year. time will tell.

[8305]

If the roster stays as it is today I don't think its a question of Sloan vs Plumlee. In my mind the obvious non dressing player is Green. I think you sit the guy least likely to be productive. I could see having Plumlee sit last year. But, now you have to figure out a way for him to get minutes if you want him to develop. You are five deep on the wings before Green comes into play and Copeland is likely a better option too.

[Wizop]

I agree that Green has to beat out S Hill to dress.

saving a slot, it looks like Camby may hit the free agent market.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nba--raptors-to-buy-out-marcus-camby-s-contract-023120081.html

[Scoot McGroot]

I'd prefer Gooden, honestly, as he's an actual PF, but Camby wouldn't be a bad vet to add, especially if Plumlee is having some issues adjusting.

[8305]

If it's between Camby and Gooden I'd probably pass leave the roster spot open and save the money. Gooden might still have some game but is notorious for being lazy. I wonder I'd Camby has any game left? Bad as things were for New York last year and this got no run?

[Beorn]

too many injuries last year for him