# Pacers and Suns Finalize JJ sign-and-trade, more trades to come?



## StephenJackson (Oct 28, 2004)

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050825/SPORTS04/508250494



> The Indiana Pacers will re-sign swingman James Jones and trade him to the Phoenix Suns, according to two sources with knowledge of the deal.
> 
> The pending trade, possibly in return for a second-round draft pick, is the first of several possible Pacers moves in the coming weeks.
> 
> ...


I wonder if we do make more trades strictly to get back towards the luxury tax threshold. I still just want us to try to keep things as is, with us just adding another bigman that we could afford.


----------



## tempe85 (Jan 7, 2005)

I've heard the numbers are 2.5 mill for 4 years. If he becomes a pretty decent player that'd be a bargain. I wonder what the Suns will use the rest of the 6.1 Mill (now 3.6) TE on?


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

I'm sorry this an awful move for the Pacers. I don't care that they are over the cap. Saving a million or half a million isn't going to make a big difference. Normally Donny and company are great at holding on to young players. They messed up with this one. We are going to miss ya J Jones


----------



## StephenJackson (Oct 28, 2004)

jreywind said:


> I'm sorry this an awful move for the Pacers. I don't care that they are over the cap. Saving a million or half a million isn't going to make a big difference. Normally Donny and company are great at holding on to young players. They messed up with this one. We are going to miss ya J Jones


I agree, we are going to regret this decision. I just hope that we don't make more decisions that we will regret, such as trading away guys like Freddie and AJ by simply trying to get our payroll down. I'm really starting to hope that we don't make any more trades, because if we do, I feel like we are not going to be making trades that will push for a championship run, but trades that will be cutting payroll.


----------



## onetwo88 (Jul 16, 2002)

*James Jones officially gone*

Pacers get 2008 second round pick

Jones goes to Suns

http://www.insidehoops.com/jones-suns-082505.shtml


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

*Re: James Jones officially gone*

2008? Man.. It's a SECOND ROUND PICK. The least they could do was make it as soon as possible.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: James Jones officially gone*

not much of a S&T


----------



## pacerfan23 (Jun 14, 2005)

*Re: James Jones officially gone*

Yeah that is kind of a bummer a 2nd rounder and now 2008?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

This is terrible. If we want to win a championship, why can't we just sacrifice an extra few million dollars? As if losing Dale Davis wasn't hard enough, we now lose James Jones for nearly nothing. The depth of this team no longer extends to third stringers. In fact, some positions don't even have 3 players:

C- Foster/Harrison/Pollard
PF- O'Neal/Croshere
SF- Artest/Granger
SG- Jackson/Jones/Gill
PG- Tinsley/Saras/AJ

Sure, we didn't have room for JJ, but this team has proven to be very injury-prone in the past few years, so the least we could do is keep one of our good FA's. What are we going to do now? Sign some scrub to play forward?


----------



## The Man (Aug 20, 2005)

Pacers Fan said:


> This is terrible. If we want to win a championship, why can't we just sacrifice an extra few million dollars? As if losing Dale Davis wasn't hard enough, we now lose James Jones for nearly nothing. The depth of this team no longer extends to third stringers. In fact, some positions don't even have 3 players:
> 
> C- Foster/Harrison/Pollard
> PF- O'Neal/Croshere
> ...


Dale Davis and James Jones would have nothing to do with us winning a championship. Indiana fans will be sad to see DD and JJ go but its really not the end of the world. I'm happy for JJ, not for Dale. I was so happy when Dale came back, now I could care less about him.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

The Birdman said:


> Dale Davis and James Jones would have nothing to do with us winning a championship.


Dale Davis > Austin Croshere, Scot Pollard, David Harrison, and sometimes even Jeff Foster.

In JJ's case, someone always seems to go down at the G/F. Jermaine, Artest, and Jackson could all be suspended again for not giving the ball to a ref fast enough. Even with our bench players, many of them seem to go down often. Let's assume that Danny Granger gets injured for a few days. In those few days, Stephen Jackson, Austin Croshere, and Ron Artest would all be getting more minutes than they need, which wouldn't be good for the team.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

a second rounder, why?


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

If I was wealthy, I woulda donated the $1 million to cover the luxury.


----------



## Gonzo (Oct 14, 2004)

Good Bye JJ. Sorry Indiana never really gave you a chance.


----------



## The Man (Aug 20, 2005)

Larry Legend said:


> Good Bye JJ. Sorry Indiana never really gave you a chance.


Actually he had a pretty good chance last year. Give it up buddy, it was about $$$. We have the third highest payroll in the league so their is no point in signing a third string SF and paying $4 million a year (salary + tax). I don't think their is anyone who wouldn't like for him to stay but it's best for both sides.


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

The Birdman said:


> Actually he had a pretty good chance last year. Give it up buddy, it was about $$$. We have the third highest payroll in the league so their is no point in signing a third string SF and paying $4 million a year (salary + tax). I don't think their is anyone who wouldn't like for him to stay but it's best for both sides.


Hey my issue with the "it was about the $$" comment is that we are talking about a 4 years 2 million. That means around $1 million per year cost for the Pacers if they kept him. In a market of millions and millions this isn't even a dent. Finley was about the money, this deal had to be that the Pacers just didn't really want him anymore. For the cost of him, I just think the Pacers made a really bad move here. Is the sky falling, no...he isn't going to make or break the season, just hurts depth.


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

I at least wanted him to come to Detroit so he at least stayed in the rivalry. Sensable move by Indiana but not necessarily my favourite.


----------



## pacerfan23 (Jun 14, 2005)

jreywind said:


> Hey my issue with the "it was about the $$" comment is that we are talking about a 4 years 2 million. That means around $1 million per year cost for the Pacers if they kept him. In a market of millions and millions this isn't even a dent. Finley was about the money, this deal had to be that the Pacers just didn't really want him anymore. For the cost of him, I just think the Pacers made a really bad move here. Is the sky falling, no...he isn't going to make or break the season, just hurts depth.


Actually the deal was *4 years at 11 million dollars*. First year at around 2.5 million and it would increase each year after. 

I loved JJ and wished we could keep him rather than Freddie really but.. There is no way the Pacers could have kept him at that price for him to only play less than 10 minutes or so a night and a third option at SG or SF. It would not be fair to JJ or the Pacers. I am sad to see him go, but I think he will benefit in the long run. The Pacers will have to make due without him.


----------



## jreywind (May 30, 2003)

pacerfan23 said:


> Actually the deal was *4 years at 11 million dollars*. First year at around 2.5 million and it would increase each year after.
> .


Ok that changes my mind a bit, that is a lot more than I initially heard. I can see that move being made based on that amount as it would cost about 6 million per year for the Pacers to keep him after Luxury additions.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Jones will make $11.1 million over four years, including a player option in 2008-09. Jones' $2.4 million salary this season leaves Phoenix with $3.6 million of a trade exception. That can be used to offset a future deal's salary gap.


 http://www.azcentral.com/sports/suns/articles/0826sunsnb0826.html<!-- BOXAD TABLE -->


----------



## MillerTime (Jul 6, 2003)

It's amazing that a player like James Jones can demand and get that kind of money. He was one of my favorite players, mostly because of his play when we had the suspensions and stuff, and he made the pacers and all our fans proud, but there's noway that guy is worth that type of money. 

As for Freddie Jones, why would we deal him? It'd be one of the dumbest things this club could ever do to deal Freddie Jones, who has shown sparks of a big time preformer, has shown he can play under pressure and can play the SG and PG very well, and is loved by the fans. If Larry Bird deals FJ, he better be getting something really nice in return. But even then, i won't understand the reasoning....


----------



## Shiners (Aug 19, 2005)

As much as I like JJ the person and player, I see how letting him go makes some sense financially. 

The P's are not going to be weak at the SF position, and JJ wasn't vital any more. But also, this move had less to do with Granger than most people think. No matter what his potential, he's still a rookie. Don't forget that Jackson also plays SF quite well. Even if he starts at SG, Jax can switch to SF and we'd have backcourt options of Tins(pg), Saras(PG and SG), Jones(SG)and AJ(PG and last ditch resort at SG). So, JJ wasn't even going to be our third option at SF, more like our forth option at SF. 

We shouldn't underestimate the appeal of being under the luxury tax threshold. After everything that happened last season, we don't know what season ticket sales are like; and with the way the cost of living keeps rising, it's safe to assume that ticket sales will be affected. The Pacers are not going to want to spend more then they absolutely have to. With that reasoning, JJ was the most likely candidate to go.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Shiners said:


> As much as I like JJ the person and player, I see how letting him go makes some sense financially.
> 
> The P's are not going to be weak at the SF position, and JJ wasn't vital any more. But also, this move had less to do with Granger than most people think. No matter what his potential, he's still a rookie. Don't forget that Jackson also plays SF quite well. Even if he starts at SG, Jax can switch to SF and we'd have backcourt options of Tins(pg), Saras(PG and SG), Jones(SG)and AJ(PG and last ditch resort at SG). So, JJ wasn't even going to be our third option at SF, more like our forth option at SF.
> 
> We shouldn't underestimate the appeal of being under the luxury tax threshold. After everything that happened last season, we don't know what season ticket sales are like; and with the way the cost of living keeps rising, it's safe to assume that ticket sales will be affected. The Pacers are not going to want to spend more then they absolutely have to. With that reasoning, JJ was the most likely candidate to go.


That's a nice take on things. Many of our players are very versatile, so that does help the loss of JJ. I'd rather keep JJ and keep most of our players at their natural position, though. If you really think about it, a lot of our players are very versatile:

Jeff Foster: C/PF (Although, for Jeff to play PF, he'd need David Harrison in at Center)

Austin Croshere: PF/SF (Much better at PF, but all he does is shoot so it wouldn't hurt too much to just have him stand around for open threes)

Jonathan Bender: PF/SF/SG (Although he'll get injured at all three of these, he can attempt to play them)

Danny Granger: PF/SF/SG

Stephen Jackson: SF/SG (I actually think he's better at SF than SG)

Freddie Jones: SG/PG (Yet again, he's much better at SG, but he can play PG if we need some isolation plays)

Sarunas Jasikevicius: PG/SG (I'd love to see what he and Tinsley could do on the floor together, besides destroying our perimeter defense)

Anthony Johnson: PG/SG (All he does when he's playing PG is hold the ball or pass it and stand, so I don't see why he couldn't play the 2 with Saras or Tinsley in the game)

Eddie Gill: PG/SG (Similar to AJ, although a better playmaker)

Then again, only Stephen Jackson and Danny Granger seem to be the players who wouldn't have problems at different positions.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

i wouldn't say gill is a better playmaker than aj. if he were, he would be the 2nd pg, instead of the 3rd. aj is not a bad guy to have. considering we still have excellent depth at all positions i am not worried about trading jj. no sense in paying a guy 5+ mil. a year (when adding the lux tax) to play maybe 8-10 min a game. i wish jj luck but, we will do just fine without him


----------



## TheNap (Aug 23, 2005)

Gill a better playmaker than AJ!!!! WTF???

Come on man, don't you have to get the ball to halfcourt to even make a play in the first place. AJ is much better defensively than he is offensively, but his offensive game isn't that bad.




> It's amazing that a player like James Jones can demand and get that kind of money.


It's not that much money actually. Go check out what non-rookie contracts are paying for any guy that can shoot 40% from 3 or can grab 5-6 rpg or get 3-4 apg as a backup PG.

AJ gets around the same pay and its fair by NBA standards. I recently compared Troy Murphy, a 40% 3pt guy that also grabs a fair amount of rebounds. He's getting $10m per year. So I think $3m per or less for a strong shooter that can block shots AND showed improvement as the season progressed AND was a smart 4 year college type is not only fair but a smart deal.


I sure hope that TE is used to bring someone back and this wasn't just about saving less than they could have saved by using AC as the amnesty guy instead of Reggie.


Also, while Jack showed he COULD play the 3, he was clearly much stronger when he was able to move to the 2. He matches up much better against other 2s on both ends. Danny might be able to work the 2 or 4, but we will see. I'm still not sold that Granger will be a great NBA 3pt shooter.

The team is solid but I still think before its all said and done there will be rumblings when it comes time for some big 3pt shots....unless SarJas takes over that role, which certainly he could. Or Ronnie for that matter.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

clownskull said:


> i wouldn't say gill is a better playmaker than aj. if he were, he would be the 2nd pg, instead of the 3rd.


Anthony Johnson is a terrible playmaker. He's better off just passing the ball to someone and stand there.



> Gill a better playmaker than AJ!!!! WTF???
> 
> Come on man, don't you have to get the ball to halfcourt to even make a play in the first place.


That's what Anthony Johnson doesn't do.

Gill is a better playmaker and 3-point shooter, while Anthony Johnson is a better mid-range shooter and is a much better defender.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

Pacers Fan said:


> Anthony Johnson is a terrible playmaker. He's better off just passing the ball to someone and stand there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


uhmm, nope. you are just plain wrong there. gill is a better 3 point shooter?- not a chance. gill didn't even shoot 31% from 3 last year while a.j. shot 38%

and gill is a better playmaker too? wrong again. aj is such a terrible playmaker that he ranks 13th in the league in assists per turnover ratio at 3.15 assists to each turnover. gill does not. the only thing i noticed gill apparently does better than aj is a better foul shooter and thats about it.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

clownskull said:


> gill didn't even shoot 31% from 3 last year while a.j. shot 38%


3P% doesn't matter when judging when look at how good players are at hitting 3's. Sure, you can get a general idea of who the best are in the league, but it's not a valid stat. To find a perfect stat, you'd have to treat it as a scientific experiment. Everything needs to be controlled, but since games aren't, you'll never get a good enough stat. Seriously, do you think Cuttino Mobley is a better 3-point shooter than Kyle Korver and Peja Stojakovic? Statistically, he is.



> and gill is a better playmaker too? wrong again. aj is such a terrible playmaker that he ranks 13th in the league in assists per turnover ratio at 3.15 assists to each turnover.


Yet again, I'll have to explain why stats don't matter. Assists can come off many different things, but don't measure how good a playmaker a person really is. Anthony Johnson is simply bad at making plays. He can rarely find someone on the inside or outside when they're wide open, and doesn't appear to do his job well when it involves moving around the court. He's much more suited to just standing around and waiting for someone to make a pass to him for a jump shot. Anthony Johnson is a great role player to have on your team, but I'd rather play him alongside Jamaal Tinsley against a team with a short SG and only one scoring power at the two positions.
Turnovers also cannot be judged as to how good a player is at playmaking. Each team we face varies. Some like to run different defensive plays, or have different types of players that affect AJ's or Gill's performance. Neither play the same time against the same players in the same plays, so a turnover could just mean that a player on the other team is good at intercepting the passing lanes. It can also mean that your teammate didn't go where he was supposed to go, causing you to throw the ball away. If you want to count turnovers as an actual stat, consider that Anthony Johnson makes safe passes to someone when he comes up the court, so he doesn't have to set up the offense. This reduces his number of turnovers.



> the only thing i noticed gill apparently does better than aj is a better foul shooter and thats about it.


One can never trust Anthony Johnson at the FT Line. Here's my take on some aspects of the game:

Defense: Anthony Johnson, dominates Gill in almost every thing you can think of on defense. It's not even worth discussing.

Handling: Anthony Johnson

Passing: Eddie Gill

Playmaking: Eddie Gill

3-point shooting: Eddie Gill

Mid-Range Shooting: Anthony Johnson

Clutch Shooting: Anthony Johnson

Penetration: Eddie Gill (at least he tries)

Free Throws: Eddie Gill

Quickness: Eddie Gill

Free throws and quickness are the only areas where Gill has Johnson beat by a lot. He's a better playmaker and passer, but it's not as far away as free throws, quickness, or overall defense. Their shooting is pretty close, but I'd still give it to Gill without thinking very long.


----------



## DannyGranger33 (May 12, 2005)

Sucks.. but at least Granger gets his old college number now  (which is good for me)


----------



## StephenJackson (Oct 28, 2004)

DannyGranger33 said:


> Sucks.. but at least Granger gets his old college number now  (which is good for me)



This is very true. 33 is all his. Seeing JJ leaves, but I am more than excited to see what Granger can bring to the table for us.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

Arizona Republic - The Phoenix Suns failed in their courtship of Michael Finley, and that is good news for young James Jones. 

Jones, acquired last week in a sign-and-trade deal with the Indiana Pacers , was introduced at a news conference on Thursday. 

"I told him we had a thousand 3s to make up, and I penciled him in for about 500 of them," coach Mike D'Antoni said. 

The Suns traded Quentin Richardson and lost Joe Johnson to Atlanta from the starting lineup of their high-energy, 62-win team a year ago. They went after Finley to help fill that void, but he chose San Antonio. 

That should mean more playing time for Jones, a 6-foot-8 guard-forward who shot 40 percent (66-for-166) from 3-point range for the Pacers last season. 

"He's going to play a lot," D'Antoni said. "I don't know if he'll start, but he will get his opportunities."


----------

