# How to fix the pacers.



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

1. Draft DJ Augustin
2. Go back to the Vince Carter for Jermaine O'Neal trade idea
3. Trade Dunleavy for Haslem if one these two things happen
a. Heat pass on Beasley, so Marion plays PF not SF
b. Marion opts out.

so that gives you
5- Foster
4- Haslem
3- Granger
2- Carter
1- Augustin


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

1. I like him. I would love to have him on the team.

2. HELL NO to Vince Carter. He is starting to decline and his knees (like this year) are starting to become weaker. Btw, don't forget about that contract! Actually, he'd fit in well with the rest of the long-term overpaid Pacers. Vince has 4 years left earning 67M.

3. Eh, I wouldn't mind that. Haslem is a pretty good player, but I'd like to get a little more in return than just Haslem...maybe Wayne Simien. 

a. If Chicago picks rose and Miami passes on Beasely with the #2 pick, then they are idiots. At least trade the pick if you don't plan on taking Beasely and get some value in return.

b. No one is going to turn away 17.8M next season...Marion wouldnn't be able to make that money anywhere else unless he wants to go play for Memphis.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Haslem is not enough, or even close, to what i'd expect in return for Dunleavy. I think DJ will be our pick, if Love isn't there. By the way, Wayne Simien is not on the HEAT's roster or even on an NBA roster PacersorBust.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Does Carter really have anything left? It's tough to tell with his suspect motivation, but the guy doesn't seem like the answer.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

Vince Carter and Udonis Haslem aren't going to fix the Pacers... 

The Pacers need dependable players who can come out and play night in and night out... That means Tinsley needs to be gone and probably Jermaine as well.

It has been along time since the Pacers have had a solid starting PG.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

I wasn't implying that Vince and Haslem are going to make the Pacers into true contenders, but they would fix a number of problems. I'm not an original Pacer fan, but school has led me to indiana so now there my "local" team. One major thing i notice during one of those cheap *** college nights was that everyone is playing out of position. Granted O'Neal was injured so explains part of it but, the line-up included a back-up 2 guard (flip) starting at the point. A SF (Dunleavy) starting at SG. and a combo forward starting at the 4 and then Jeff Foster at Center. We need players who actually fit the positions.

I really like Dunleavy, but he's not a SG. I also don't think you can choose him over Granger, so that leaves him as the odd man out. Here's an idea, what if we moved Dunleavy for Jose Calderon? or maybe if Deng leaves the Bulls, we could move Dunleavy for Hinrich. Thats an everybody wins move. And then we could take Love and not worry about the PG problem, or we could with Westbrook and let him play the 2.

Its time for O'neal to go. I only mentioned Vince, because we're going to be limited on what O'Neal can bring. You have to be have reasonable expectations. At least Vince brings a true SG who will score no less than about 18ppg. possibly as high as 22ppg. Its a short term fix, but maybe it buys us enough time for a late lotto pick to develop. For example, say we trade for a point and draft westbrook. Westbrook gets minutes as a back up at both guard spots, but he has much less pressure on him while he's developing. Then when Vince is on his way out we have a starting two guard ready to go.

There has to be something we could move for haslem. I don't know the roster well enough to figure it out, but i think he could come somewhat cheap.

1-Calderon or Hinrich
2-Carter
3-Granger
4-Haslem
5-Foster
6th man- Westbrook or Love

I like that line-up. Sure its not a true champion contender, but i think it could get the 5th or 6th spot in the playoffs.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

no way do the Nets trade their leader for a broken down player with a huge contract.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

i really don't see a need to trade jo now. his value is as low as it's going to get.it really can't get any lower. i'd rather hold onto him this year see what he's got left and after this upcoming season teams WILL be interested no matter what because he only has one more year left after this upcoming one.
getting vince would lock us down with another big contract for a guy who is also on the decline but his contract lasts longer than jo's. that is moving backwards, not forwards. no way do they go after the nj deal.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

Vuchato said:


> no way do the Nets trade their *leader* for a broken down player with a huge contract.


No way VC is a leader anymore...it's definatley becoming RJ. And Carter is starting to break down too. And VC has just as big of a contract as JO does and you know it. VC (66M 4 years) vs. JO (44M 2 years).


----------



## Hail Yinka (Jul 3, 2006)

damage has already been done thanks to larry bird

i doubt theres a fix..........its gonna be a long while before the pacers are a winner again and as long as guys like bumleavy/murphy are starting they wont make the playoffs. 

seems like just yesterday they won 61 games and were in the ECF. then the brawl happened the season after and everything went downhill. that year they were legit title contenders

maybe move the team to a bigger market and get a ballhog criminal 

unless a deal makes them contenders it wont excite me. i dont care about making the playoffs, making the eastern conference finals....i want the pacers to win a championship and nothing less. haslem is a decent player but hes not gonna take them to the finals. if it were a deal for marion without giving up granger id say yes. VC is my boy but he's well past his prime and wont help.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

PacersorBust said:


> No way VC is a leader anymore...it's definatley becoming RJ. And Carter is starting to break down too. And VC has just as big of a contract as JO does and you know it. VC (66M 4 years) vs. JO (44M 2 years).


Thron, Kiki, and Frank all praised Carter for his leadership abilities since Kidd was traded. And the Nets are looking to trade RJ, not VC. Vince has played more the past few seasons than anyone else really, he had surgery this offseason, but he's already back practicing. He may have a big contract like JO, but he stays on the court and produces at the level of a top 3 SG, O'Neal does neither.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

It's going to be very difficult to fix the Pacers. The plan is quite simple, it's just very painful to carry it out.

Heres some random plan:
1. Trade Jermaine O'neal to Cleveland for Eric Snow and Wally-Z

2. Find any takers for Murphy/Dunleevy/Daniels/Tinsley on the condition the the Pacers shed salary. The Pacers will take any player back as long as his salary is shorter than the Pacers player that he's getting traded for. Might even include Danny Granger just to make a trade happen.

3. Lose for 2-3 years (hopefully 2) and stack up on talent.

4. Find a rookie coach and strategically tank. Replace the rookie coach once the Pacers are back on track.

There really isn't any short cut because of how messed up the team roster is. The main thing is that the Pacers must get rid of Jermaine O'neal in order for the team to lose big rather on dwelling in mediocrity. Because it's unlikely the team will go anywhere in the next 2-3 years, it might not be a bad idea to get rid of Danny Granger as well because he will likely be close to 30 by the time the Pacers are ready to make a serious push in the playoffs again.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

seifer0406 said:


> It's going to be very difficult to fix the Pacers. The plan is quite simple, it's just very painful to carry it out.
> 
> Heres some random plan:
> 1. Trade Jermaine O'neal to Cleveland for Eric Snow and Wally-Z
> ...



As horrible as that sounds, that is the most realistic thing out of everyones ideas. Sure we will be brutal for a couple years but I am sure we would get lucky and be able to draft a great player to go along with Granger. I seriously wouldn't care at all if anyone on our team got traded other than Danny Granger. Blow it all up Larry.


----------



## TheTruth34 (Jul 22, 2006)

hire a alquaida pilot to wreck the team plane :lol:
start fresh...tons of cap room. expansion draft. you'd get the first pick in the draft. followed by 2 to 3 crappy seasons. while you continue to win the lottery and sign older vets to compliment the young stars.

best plan BY FAR.:clap:


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

TheTruth34 said:


> hire a alquaida pilot to wreck the team plane :lol:
> start fresh...tons of cap room. expansion draft. you'd get the first pick in the draft. followed by 2 to 3 crappy seasons. while you continue to win the lottery and sign older vets to compliment the young stars.
> 
> best plan BY FAR.:clap:


We can't get the first pick in the draft. We're not allowed. It's why we've always had to build teams through trading, not the draft or free agency. No one wants to come here, and the NBA doesn't want anyone good to come here.


----------



## The Answ3r 3 (May 28, 2008)

trade jermain o'neal for almost anyone..and maybe another draft pick

get tinsley's *** out of indiana cuz he has way to many injuries and off the court issues

draft Augustin from Texas

fire Jim O'Brien cuz he does not know how to coach/rebuild a team...he is used to getting great teams handed to him.

lastly, try to pick up Gerald Green off the free agents this summer...he could be like the old Fred Jones for the Pacers.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

The Answ3r 3 said:


> lastly, try to pick up Gerald Green off the free agents this summer...he could be like the old Fred Jones for the Pacers.


By not attacking the basket even though he has the ability?
By shooting way too many 3-pointers?

Sure on those two, but what separates Freddie from Green is that Jones actually plays defense well. Green has no room to play here.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

I honestly don't think we have to scrap everything. We have two decent size expirings next year and then Jermaine O'Neal in two years. There has to be teams that want to dump salary and will give a solid prospect in the process.

I mean Chicago is almost guaranteed to be giving up two players, out of Hinrich (likely due to his salary), Deng, and Gordon. Maybe we'd have to take Hughes also, but it would be worth it for a 26 year old starter. Hinrich 's contract actually drops a million a year, making him more affordable as time goes on.

Memphis is looking to move Mike Miller. I'm fairly sure that New York would part with David Lee if they could shed Fatty and his big money several years faster. Obvisiously, Toronto needs to move a point guard. Haslem is going to be moved if Beasley is drafted.

We're not going to land a big all-star but there's options out there to fill some quality depth. We could put together a very solid 8 man rotation.

THE FOLLOWING WILL NEVER HAPPEN, BUT CONSIDER THIS.

Marquis Daniels, David Harrison, and a protected #1 for Mike Miller

Jermaine O'Neal and this years pick for Hinrich and Hughes

Hughes for David Lee and Eddie Curry. New York drops alot of salary two years sooner. and hughes is just plain a better fit. We get David Lee. 

Dunleavy for a signed and trade Calderon

Diogu and next years pick for Haslem

That gives us 8 decent players. 

5- Curry, Haslem
4- Lee/Haslem , Murphy
3- Granger, Miller, Murphy
2- Hinrich, Miller
1- Calderon, Hinrich


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> THE FOLLOWING WILL NEVER HAPPEN, BUT CONSIDER THIS.
> 
> Marquis Daniels, David Harrison, and a protected #1 for Mike Miller
> 
> ...


I don't know why you're proposing these moves if it has no chance in hell of happening. Might as well trade Jamaal Tinsley for Chris Paul while you're at it.

New York will not trade David Lee and Curry for Hughes. If they were going to do something like that, then the Cavs would've made that trade last year and it would've been the Pau Gasol deal of the East. Isiah Thomas hated Curry more than anyone else in the league. If even Isiah wouldn't trade Curry for Hughes, theres no hope for Walsh to do something like that.

The only way the Raptors would trade Calderon for Dunleevy (sign and trade) is if Colangelo loses his mind, and then you stick him up at gunpoint. If he's sane, you would have to kill him to make that deal happen. I mean, if you rank the possible results the Raptors can get by not keeping Calderon, at the top you would have trading him for some useful pieces, and the next would be letting him walk for nothing, and about 20 floors below you would have getting Dunleevy and his monstrous contract in return. Not only did you misjudge the value of the 2 players, you absolutely have no clue in the business of handling restricted FAs.

Haslem deal I don't understand why you would do that for the Pacers.

I can see the Bulls do Hinrich and Hughes for O'neal, but then again the Pacers are not going anywhere with Hinrich and Hughes and it's going to be more .400 ball for the next 2-3 years.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> I don't know why you're proposing these moves if it has no chance in hell of happening. Might as well trade Jamaal Tinsley for Chris Paul while you're at it.
> 
> you absolutely have no clue in the business of handling restricted FAs.


Dude this is just a message board. Nothing anyone proposes here is actually going to happen. Unless your larry bird posting under this name, nothing anyone has to say is more than chit chat. and it was more of a statement of whats available to improve the team without tanking on purpose. I'm not a fan of just giving up. i was just ball parking things so to speak.

I think you greatly over value Curry. Hes an overpaid underachieving fat boy. David Lee doesn't fit Dantoni and his contract demands are unrealistic at this point. I have no idea how you can compare it to Pau. Not even in the same ball park. Don't kid yourself the knicks would love to be rid of Curry and Randolph.

And yes i concede that i know very little about handling RFAs.


----------



## Pacers Fan Forever (May 31, 2008)

obviously there's a lot of argument about how it has to happen but there is no arguing what has to happen:

1) trade JO before next summer
2) get rid of Tinsley
3) get rid of Harrison and Daniels
4) acquire a new PG
5) get a center


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> Dude this is just a message board. Nothing anyone proposes here is actually going to happen. Unless your larry bird posting under this name, nothing anyone has to say is more than chit chat. and it was more of a statement of whats available to improve the team without tanking on purpose. I'm not a fan of just giving up. i was just ball parking things so to speak.
> 
> I think you greatly over value Curry. Hes an overpaid underachieving fat boy. David Lee doesn't fit Dantoni and his contract demands are unrealistic at this point. I have no idea how you can compare it to Pau. Not even in the same ball park. Don't kid yourself the knicks would love to be rid of Curry and Randolph.
> 
> And yes i concede that i know very little about handling RFAs.


Of course it's just a message board. But theres a big difference in purposing trades that are somewhat realistic rather than trades that have no chance of happening. Or else what's the point of talking about it? Why not trade Jermaine O'neal for Alex Rodriguez? Why not trade Larry Bird for Iron Man?

I'm not overvaluing Curry, you're overvaluing Larry Hughes.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> Of course it's just a message board. But theres a big difference in purposing trades that are somewhat realistic rather than trades that have no chance of happening. Or else what's the point of talking about it? Why not trade Jermaine O'neal for Alex Rodriguez? Why not trade Larry Bird for Iron Man?
> 
> I'm not overvaluing Curry, you're overvaluing Larry Hughes.




I honestly don't think my trades were that far off of reality. The point of the Knicks deal was that Curry is signed for 4 more years. Hughes only 2. Hughes is actually able to run in the dantoni system and curry not so much. So, yes the knicks would still be currently stuck in cap hell, but they at least one big piece is out two years sooner. And yes he's ungodly over paid, but at least he fits the system. And if you've taken any looks at the Knicks forum they consensus has been they are willing to trade Randolph or Curry with either Lee or Robinson to get cap relief. That was pre-Dantoni. Now Dantoni has made comments that he really likes Robinson so that part of the scenario is out. I didn't read the comments myself, but i've heard that he made comments saying David Lee doesn't match his style. So Lee with either of the overpaid bigs for cap relief is VERY likely. Granted, expiring in two years isn't as good as expiring in one, but just plain being a better fit has to count for something.

Maybe, just maybe a few of the things i wrote are more well thought out than you think.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

DienerTime said:


> Haslem is not enough, or even close, to what i'd expect in return for Dunleavy. I think DJ will be our pick, if Love isn't there. By the way, Wayne Simien is not on the HEAT's roster or even on an NBA roster PacersorBust.


I disagree. From the perspective of outside Indiana, why would I want Mike Dunleavy? He has put on decent stats on an atrocious team but that's not hard to do. I don't think that Miami would part with Udonis Haslem, a player who has shown the ability to rebound and defend on the biggest stage for an overpaid jump shooter like Dunleavy.


----------



## silverpaw1786 (Mar 11, 2004)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> THE FOLLOWING WILL NEVER HAPPEN, BUT CONSIDER THIS.
> 
> Marquis Daniels, David Harrison, and a protected #1 for Mike Miller
> 
> ...


Of those trades:
Daniels, Harrison, and a protected 1 for miller wouldn't happen like you say. Replace Harrison with Diogu or Shawne Williams and unprotect the #1 and Memphis would at least consider it.

Jermaine O'Neal and 2008 1st rounder for Hinrich and Hughes. I think this is the best deal you mention and I think Chicago would do it. 

Hughes for Curry and Lee. Hehe. No. ny is not giving up their best player/prospect for Larry ****ing Hughes.

Dunleavy for Calderon :lol:. Nope. Calderon has the best ast/to ratio in the league. You should focus on trading for TJ Ford. Calderon is untouchable unless you're offering CP3 or Deron Williams.

Diogu and next years pick for Haslem. Maybe... I really don't know what Diogu's value is, but next year's pick will probably be top ten so I don't see why Miami would say no. Do Diogu and Haslem match salary-wise?


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> I honestly don't think my trades were that far off of reality. The point of the Knicks deal was that Curry is signed for 4 more years. Hughes only 2. Hughes is actually able to run in the dantoni system and curry not so much. So, yes the knicks would still be currently stuck in cap hell, but they at least one big piece is out two years sooner. And yes he's ungodly over paid, but at least he fits the system. And if you've taken any looks at the Knicks forum they consensus has been they are willing to trade Randolph or Curry with either Lee or Robinson to get cap relief. That was pre-Dantoni. Now Dantoni has made comments that he really likes Robinson so that part of the scenario is out. I didn't read the comments myself, but i've heard that he made comments saying David Lee doesn't match his style. So Lee with either of the overpaid bigs for cap relief is VERY likely. Granted, expiring in two years isn't as good as expiring in one, but just plain being a better fit has to count for something.
> 
> Maybe, just maybe a few of the things i wrote are more well thought out than you think.


Not all of them are totally out of reality. In fact, 3 out of those 5 trade scenarios would all likely to be accepted if the Pacers offered it because of its one sidedness. To cover for that, your other 2 trades were more one-sided in favor of the Pacers. Let's break down each of your trade proposals.

1. Marquis Daniels, David Harrison, and a protected #1 for Mike Miller

I don't even know if David Harrison has a contract for next year and I don't think anyone would want him as a salary filler if he is a free agent next season. It's basically Daniels and "protected #1" (top 3 or lottery?) for Mike Miller. This isn't a good trade for the Pacers because Daniels's contract is actually a year shorter than Miller not to mention around 3 mil cheaper. To give up an extra pick just to help the Grizzlies dump salary(when you are trying to dump salary as well) just isn't that smart for the Pacers, not to mention Mike Miller isn't going to help the Pacers get out of .400 hell.

2. Jermaine O'neal and this year's pick for Hinrich+Hughes

Again, a move that the Bulls would take because it gets rid of Hughes and Hinrich for them. The Pacers actually add on salary because Hughes's contract is the same length as O'neal and Hinrich has 2 years more and 17 mil left by the time O'neal comes off the books. It would be a lateral move record wise because you're not getting any upgrade or downgrade talent wise with this trade. To add on this years pick just makes this trade too onesided for the Bulls. Not a smart trade for the Pacers because it accomplishes absolutely nothing unless you follow it up with this unrealistic trade.

3. Hughes for Eddy Curry and David Lee.

Now, I don't think salary wise it will work because David Lee is a restricted FA this year and will likely demand more than the MLE. Combined with Curry that will be a lot more than what Hughes is making. Hughes's contract is a whooping 1 year shorter than Curry and is generally considered way overpaid than Curry. 8-10 mil a year for a starting caliber center is considered to be normal whereas Hughes has been rated in the top 10 overpaid player list by ESPN for the 2nd year running. David Lee is perhaps the biggest trade asset the Knicks have other than their pick this year. To include him along with Curry for Larry freaking Hughes would be ranked amongst one of the worst trades in the past decade.

And as I said, if the Cavs could get Curry and Lee for Hughes last year they would have ran with it and left Ben Wallace's bum *** back in Chicago. The fact is as much as Isiah Thomas hated Curry (he benched him for like half a season for no reason), he knew better than to pick up a bigger bum in Larry Hughes. The bottom line is that Hughes can't shoot and because of his injuries he can no longer finish at the rim. The only thing he has going for him these days is his defense, and we know D'Antoni values defense. Even D'Antoni's offensive system cannot help out a bum like him. He's done, stick a fork in him.

4. Dunleevy for Calderon

This is the most retarded trade out of the 5 and I already mentioned why. The only way for this to happen is if Colangelo suffers a brain injury and then you threaten him with either a gun or a blunt object.

5. Diogu and next years pick for Haslem

Haslem is a good Joe Smith type role player. But if the Pacers are back in the lottery, I don't see why you would give up a lottery pick for someone like him. Either way, it's at least a lateral move for the Pacers.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

silverpaw1786 said:


> Of those trades:
> Daniels, Harrison, and a protected 1 for miller wouldn't happen like you say. Replace Harrison with Diogu or Shawne Williams and unprotect the #1 and Memphis would at least consider it.
> 
> Hughes for Curry and Lee. Hehe. No. ny is not giving up their best player/prospect for Larry ****ing Hughes.
> ...


Just a few points as to the rationale behind parts of what i said.

Daniels and Harrison both expire next year. So memphis would have a complete salary dump of Mike Miller to go with an eventual pick. If they wanted Diogu i'd be fine with that.

As far as Dunleavy, he's young (like 26 or 27) he can score (19 on a bad team, but expect maybe 15 on a good one), passes the ball well, and shots around 40% on threes. Pair that with the fact that Toronto has to trade a point guard and theres a complete lack of talent at SF and SG. I do think Dunleavy's style would complement Bosh nicely. your right that was sort of a low-ball offer, but like i said before i was just "ball parking" things as to whats out there. If doctors were to say that TJ Ford's back is healthy i'd do the trade. But i really doubt it.

Regarding Hughes, thats a salary move also. NY is going nowhere until they rid themselves of that financial nightmare. Read my previous post.

Haslem- I just know he's going to be available if they draft beasley. I didn't put too much thought into that one, other than the buyer would have the advantage and Diogu is at least a decent prospect.

The major point was that we have options and don't need to completely tank. We have two decent expirings this coming year, and O'Neal's massive contract the year after. There's plenty of teams looking to move half way decent young players. Our payroll is 16th right now and if we trade expiring to teams looking to move good players we can be back into the playoff hunt in no time. Remember that in the past year, teams cutting payroll moved Bibby, Pau, and JRich. If we're smart with the expirings something good will come around and Dunleavy can bring something decent in return also.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

seifer0406 said:


> 1. Marquis Daniels, David Harrison, and a protected #1 for Mike Miller
> 
> To give up an extra pick just to help the Grizzlies dump salary(when you are trying to dump salary as well) just isn't that smart for the Pacers, not to mention Mike Miller isn't going to help the Pacers get out of .400 hell.
> 
> ...


I never said the pacers should cut salary. They are ranked 16th in salary right now and if they were able to put a team together that could get say the 5th seed in the east, i say stay 16th in salary.

I just realized i goofed looking at the contracts of Curry and Hughes. I honestly thought that Curry has two more years than Hughes. That changes alot. However, if they were able to dump 12 mil. in two years instead of 4 you can't deny that is very significant. That said, i admit i was wrong. Also i meant to write Jeff Foster in with hughes. Thats why the math was so far off.

Here is my startegy. Cut and Dry.
1. Use the expirings to get two quality players and a prospect or roleplayer along the way.
- jeff Foster and Marquis Daniels give us 13mil in expiring this year.
- O'Neal gives us almost 23mil the next year.

If you look at the quality of players that were dumped this year(JRich, Pau, Bibby) we could probably get two guys around that level of player and a prospect out those contracts.

2. Dunleavy is not a SG, he's a SF. He's not beating out Granger. Try to get equal value in a position that compliments Granger and they players from my first point. I do think he's better than you give him credit for.

Thats it. Granger, 2 high end guys from the expirings, something equal value and complimentary for Dunleavy, and a few roleplayers (maybe an MLE guy along the way) or prospects. If the pieces fit together correctly that can be a playoff team in the east.

If you get three guys who can really ball (granger counts here), two decent starters, a solid 6th man, and two more decent reserves (Murphy's going now where so he fits here) we can be in the playoffs as high as 5th.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

NorthSideHatrik said:


> I never said the pacers should cut salary. They are ranked 16th in salary right now and if they were able to put a team together that could get say the 5th seed in the east, i say stay 16th in salary.


If the Pacers are not trying to cut salary then they should be aiming to improve the team talent wise. Mike Miller for Daniels+first rounder could be considered an upgrade in talent (would depend on the pick), but the upgrade is not significant enough to justify the amount of extra salary that you would be picking up not to mention the potential you lose from the likely lottery draft pick.

The same thing goes with trading Jermaine O'neal *and lottery pick* for Hinrich and Hughes. O'neal for Hinrich and Hughes is lateral at best talent wise, adding the lottery pick would mean that you are giving up talent and losing out on the salary end. Just doesn't make sense.

The other 2 trades just don't make any sense for the other team so I'm not going to elaborate any more on them. As I said, these trades are ridiculous, and that's why they are the equivalent of trading Larry Bird for Iron Man. If you have Iron Man standing on the sidelines, the fear factor of getting hit by his repulsor rays would at least yield you more wins than these trades you're proposing.


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

Lots of dumb trade ideas going on here. Lots of them. 



seifer0406 said:


> It's going to be very difficult to fix the Pacers. The plan is quite simple, it's just very painful to carry it out.
> 
> Heres some random plan:
> 1. Trade Jermaine O'neal to Cleveland for Eric Snow and Wally-Z
> ...


It may just be that I'm in a bad mood tonight, but this is a horrible post. About 99% of this post is dumb dumb dumb. First...Jermaine O'Neal is worth SO much more than Zerbs and Snow. Honestly, the trade looks more like O'Neal for Zerbiak since Snow really isnt much of a player anymore. Zerbs/Snow are both expirings which equal about 20M in value, but if we were trading O'Neal, we have to get at least some value in return. Wally is a nice 6th man to have off the bench, but we lose this trade so bad value-wise. 

Even though this is probably dumb for me saying it, but Bird isn't a dumb***. He will try to get as much value in return for those players you mentioned as possible. Bird is trying to put this team back on the map and actually contend for the playoffs again. Don't trade everybody away for expirings while losing the trade value-wise at the same time. Get some value in return, damnit. 

You say to get a rookie coach and have him bring this team back up then fire him and get a new coach? That would destroy the team's chemistry almost instantly. That rookie coach will have built the team up to contend for the playoffs/title then Bird comes in says thanks for creating this team, now get the hell outta here so we can get some old *** fart to coach this team. No way in hell that would happen...like i said, it would really bring down the team's chemistry/structure. 

Believe it or not, we can actually go on a path this off-season where we can build up the team to contend for the playoffs. There are some teams that may be as dumb as Memphis and accept a trade for some scrubs/young players for their stars. I know Milwaukee is going to be shopping Redd this off-season for some young players and we should go after him if Bird really wants to win next season. 



NorthSideHatrik said:


> I honestly don't think we have to scrap everything. *1.)We have two decent size expirings next year and then Jermaine O'Neal in two years. There has to be teams that want to dump salary and will give a solid prospect in the process*.
> 
> *2.)I mean Chicago is almost guaranteed to be giving up two players, out of Hinrich (likely due to his salary), Deng, and Gordon. Maybe we'd have to take Hughes also, but it would be worth it for a 26 year old starter. Hinrich 's contract actually drops a million a year, making him more affordable as time goes on.*
> 
> ...


Ok, I #'d different points in your original message that I'd like to discuss with you here about what you posted. 

1 - Our 2 main expirings are Foster and Daniels, who equal around 12M. Daniels has a team option and Foster is a URFA (unrestricted free agent). I think we will keep Daniels this year and not pick up his option at the end of the year, freeing up about 7M in cap space. Foster is about 5.5M and actually has some trade value on this team, so I wouldn't be surprised to hear him in some trade rumors during this season/current off-season. 

2 - I really want Hinrich or Gordon on this team. The best way to get them is by trading a combo of JO/Dunleavy to them for a package of players. Drew Gooden is an expiring (7.5Mish) and he actually puts up decent numbers. I'd love for him to join the team from Chi-Town.

3 - You know at this past season's trade deadline, Memphis offered us Mike Miller for Ike Diogu and Marquis Daniels?

4 - Naw, don't give away this year's first, even in a trade as dumb as that. That is a really bad trade idea and we can get much more for JO believe it or not, and I think you know it. 

5 - This made me fall out of my chair laughing. Why would New York give up their young PF for an old, pretty much battered down SG? David Lee to New York is practically like Danny Granger to us. He means alot to their franchise, and they want to try and build around him in the future. No way would they give him up for Hughes. 

6 - No way in hell the Raptors give up Calderon, a young PG with tremendous potential (and showed it this year) for Dunleavy, no matter how good of #'s Dunleavy put up this year.

7 - Eh, if it was a 2nd round pick, that would be a good deal. 

But most of these trade ideas you mentioned are really unrealistic that the opposing team that we would be trading with probably wouldn't do it. Just tellin it the way it is from my standpoint. 

This took me way too long to write, but I feel I got my point across.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

PacersorBust said:


> It may just be that I'm in a bad mood tonight, but this is a horrible post. About 99% of this post is dumb dumb dumb. First...Jermaine O'Neal is worth SO much more than Zerbs and Snow. Honestly, the trade looks more like O'Neal for Zerbiak since Snow really isnt much of a player anymore. Zerbs/Snow are both expirings which equal about 20M in value, but if we were trading O'Neal, we have to get at least some value in return. Wally is a nice 6th man to have off the bench, but we lose this trade so bad value-wise.
> 
> 
> You say to get a rookie coach and have him bring this team back up then fire him and get a new coach? That would destroy the team's chemistry almost instantly. That rookie coach will have built the team up to contend for the playoffs/title then Bird comes in says thanks for creating this team, now get the hell outta here so we can get some old *** fart to coach this team. No way in hell that would happen...like i said, it would really bring down the team's chemistry/structure.
> ...


Because getting salary relief for an over-paid, injury-prone 30 year old who likely won't be anything more than a 15-8 guy the rest of the way is "dumb"? The only reason the Cavs are making this trade would be because they are desperately trying to find some help to keep Lebron in Cleveland. If the Pacers get such an offer they should take it and be happy about saving over 40 million dollars. Teams trade players for salary relief all the time. The Twolves wouldn't have traded KG if it weren't for Theo Ratliff's 12 mil expiring contract. Just like the Blazers trading Zach Randolph for basically nothing just to save salary.

I didn't say bring in a rookie coach "to bring this team back up". I said you bring a rookie coach here so that the team will lose for sure and not stay at .400. In other words, you're trying to tank for the next 2 years. You don't need a proven coach to lead the team through these transition years. When you have gotten some young talent and is ready to make a push, then you spend the big money on a big name coach to steer the team in the right direction.

At the end of the day, it's about whether or not you're trying to aim for a 7-8th seed *in the East* or are you aiming for a chance at going deep in the playoffs. With the messed up roster the Pacers have right now, if you don't blow everything up the most you can get is a lower seed. I don't know about you, but if I'm a Pacer fan I am not excited if my team which is already financially tied up can only win 35 games and end up being the 8th seed that gets booted out of the first round.


----------



## DannyGranger33 (May 12, 2005)

seifer0406 said:


> Because getting salary relief for an over-paid, injury-prone 30 year old who likely won't be anything more than a 15-8 guy the rest of the way is "dumb"? The only reason the Cavs are making this trade would be because they are desperately trying to find some help to keep Lebron in Cleveland. If the Pacers get such an offer they should take it and be happy about saving over 40 million dollars. Teams trade players for salary relief all the time. The Twolves wouldn't have traded KG if it weren't for Theo Ratliff's 12 mil expiring contract. Just like the Blazers trading Zach Randolph for basically nothing just to save salary.
> 
> I didn't say bring in a rookie coach "to bring this team back up". I said you bring a rookie coach here so that the team will lose for sure and not stay at .400. In other words, you're trying to tank for the next 2 years. You don't need a proven coach to lead the team through these transition years. When you have gotten some young talent and is ready to make a push, then you spend the big money on a big name coach to steer the team in the right direction.
> 
> At the end of the day, it's about whether or not you're trying to aim for a 7-8th seed *in the East* or are you aiming for a chance at going deep in the playoffs. With the messed up roster the Pacers have right now, if you don't blow everything up the most you can get is a lower seed. I don't know about you, but if I'm a Pacer fan I am not excited if my team which is already financially tied up can only win 35 games and end up being the 8th seed that gets booted out of the first round.


I think you are the only one that gets this logic.. (aside from me of course)

Even Larry Bird himself doesn't grasp this. Hence why my faith in this organization in dwindling by the day. 

I can't wait to see Danny leave for nothing (I see visions of Granger in a Nets jersey with LeBron) when his contract expires.. and a big part of me hopes he does because his career will be wasted if things do not change drastically very very soon.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Does Carter really have anything left? It's tough to tell with his suspect motivation, but the guy doesn't seem like the answer.




He's most definetly not the answer at this point in his career, maybe 3 or 4 years ago, but then again so was JO so....


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

PacersorBust said:


> 5 - This made me fall out of my chair laughing. Why would New York give up their young PF for an old, pretty much battered down SG? David Lee to New York is practically like Danny Granger to us. He means alot to their franchise, and they want to try and build around him in the future. No way would they give him up for Hughes.


I didn't make this up myself. Well the hughes part yes, but not trading Lee to dump salary. THE NEW YORK FANS DID. If you go to the new york forum (maybe three or four weeks ago) and read a lot of the "we have to dump Randolph and/or Curry" threads the idea of dumping one of them packaged with either Lee or Robinson comes up alot. and i'd say about 70% of them are in favor. Not to mention there are threads about his unrealistic contract demands. And then it comes out that Dantoni really likes Robinson. So that leaves Lee as the odd man out. Not to mention Curry is just a horrible fit with Dantoni.

And yes i realized i goofed. I thought Curry's contract was two years longer than Hughes, meaning 12 mil in cap relief in two years instead of 4. And you have to factor in that even in the best case scenario NY wouldn't be a free agent player in any less than two years. And thats really pushing it. Meaning that they are so far buried that from a rebuilding standpoint, expiring in two years instead of one is basically the same thing.


----------

