This deal seems to make sense to me, let me know what you guys think: Indiana trades: Ron Artest Scott Pollard Golden State trades: Erick Dampier Either Jason Richardson or Mickael Pietrus Why Golden State would do it: Since they re-signed Foyle, they aren't going to keep Damp as well. Mullin has said repeatedly that he's not going to sign and trade Damp unless a deal blows him away, I believe he'd have to consider this one. Artest is one of the top 3 on the ball defenders in the league (I'd say Bowen and Pietrus are the other two), he's underpaid by NBA standards (he's got 4 years left and about 27 mil left on his deal with a player option for a 5th year). Pollard has two years left on his deal, and will provide about 6.8 mil in cap space in the '06 offseason. If Richardson is the guy in the deal, that's fine. He'll be looking for at least as much money on his next deal as Artest is making now. While he isn't a head case like Artest, and has the potential to be better than Aretest on offense, he's still a risk. If Pietrus is the guy, that's fine too. Though he has the potential to be better than Artest or Richardson, and could be the best perimeter defender in the league, he still has to turn that potential into a reality. The bottom line is that while Richardson and Pietrus may have the potential to be better than Artest (especially Pietrus), they aren't sure things. Artest may be a head case, but he can produce right now. The only question is whether Montgomery and Mullin will be willing and able to control Artest. Why Indiana would do it: They've got Bender and just traded for Stephen Jackson. Jackson can start at sf right away, while Indiana believes Bender has star potential. What they need is a center. Detroit out rebounded Indiana in 6 of their 7 playoff games and even got 19 offensive rebounds on the Pacers in one game. Foster is a nice back up center, but he's just not starting quality. Right now they're just too small to compete, even in the east. If Damp were with the Pacers, they'd have the second best center in the east (next to Shaq). If Indiana studies Damp's play over the last three years they'll see that his reputation as a guy who only plays in contract years is bogus. Damp has always performed when he gets 8-10 touches in the post each game, he just never got that consistently until this year. He also started in 74 games this year and all 84 last year, which should put to rest any questions about his durability. While it would definately hurt to lose Artest, if they got Pietrus in the trade, they would have replaced all of Artest's defensive abilities without taking on any of his baggage. Pietrus showed plenty of offensive potential as well whenever he started for the Warriors, and he scores without dominating the ball. In fact, he could eventually be a better scorer than Artest. In the meantime, Jackson should provide more than enough firepower. They also have Bender waiting in the wings as well. If they got Richardson, they'd be getting a guy who could step in right away on offense. He'll never be the defender Artest was, but he's already as good a scorer, and he keeps improving every year. Why Damp would do it: He's running out of options now that Atlanta is the only team that can afford to sign him straight up. Mullin has told Damp and Fegan that he'll only accept a great offer for a sign and trade, so its up to Fegan to go out and find one. Damp has said that he wants to play for a contender and would like to have a chance to be an all star. He'd have both options with Indiana. He'd also be much closer to his hometown Jackson, Mississippi, which was his third goal. Here are the problems that I see: Golden State: Are they willing to put up with Artest? Indiana: Are they willing to give up Artest for Richardson or Pietrus? Damp: Is he willing to be the third option on offense? So what do you guys think? Unbiased views are welcome as well
Although I am probably biased, I think that this trade is fair. Dampier is one of the few last true centers, even if he is 30, and both Pietrus and Richardson are athletes who can fit into any system. Artest is a great two way player who's mean on defense, has a great salary, and is still fairly young. He's also an all-star, and while Richardson is close and Pietrus has potential, current skill usually is the safer measure of value. Pollard is a reasonable backup F/C who's had a lot of playoff experience. If GS had proposed this earlier when Damp was rumored to be going everywhere and closer to the Artest playoff meltdown, Indiana probably would have felt more pressured to do this trade. But now that Damp's buzz value has dropped a bit and Indiana realizes how valuable Artest can be when he's under control, I'd say that Indiana wouldn't pull off the trigger on this trade. There's fear of Damp having a career year, which only grows as more teams stop their trade talks with GS, which is probably why we won't see this trade in this form. But, if the offseason goes along, someone is bound to be desperate for a big man, and it could very well be Indiana who does accept. I seem to be wishy-washy with myself, don't I?
Two words- Jermaine Oneal. Did you guys forget about him? Why would they want to pay all that money for centers when they need shoting and a better point guard? It also seems like the Warriors are giving up alot, Seems to me if they did go for it you wouldnt have put anyone but artest and Dampier in there, In my opinion they are very closely matched, certainly you dont need to give up richardson. Maybe im wrong i just dont think artest is any better than dampier. I would guess their salaries are pretty close if anything artest makes less than 10 mil a year which is wear dampier will end up.
Why are the warriors shopping Jrich around, is it because of EuroJordan? Its stupid to trade jrich, hes the only guy selling the tickets for them
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting MainMan:</div><div class="quote_post">Why are the warriors shopping Jrich around, is it because of EuroJordan? </div>Having Pietrus definately makes Richardson atleast an option to be traded, a very unlikely option. J-Rich has really developed as a player and is not even close to finished. He will be an all-star in a couple of years and I have a lot of respect for him. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Its stupid to trade jrich, hes the only guy selling the tickets for them</div>Not true, thats a misconception. The Warriors have a huge fan base here in the bay area and they are true fans. They were here before J-Rich got here and they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting rphinney1:</div><div class="quote_post">Two words- Jermaine Oneal. Did you guys forget about him? Why would they want to pay all that money for centers when they need shoting and a better point guard? It also seems like the Warriors are giving up alot, Seems to me if they did go for it you wouldnt have put anyone but artest and Dampier in there, In my opinion they are very closely matched, certainly you dont need to give up richardson. Maybe im wrong i just dont think artest is any better than dampier. I would guess their salaries are pretty close if anything artest makes less than 10 mil a year which is wear dampier will end up.</div> Six words: Jermaine O'neal is a power forward. The Pacers would never go anywhere with him as a center and Bender or Chroshere as the power forwards. The Warriors couldn't trade Artest for Damp straight up because Artest only makes 5.8 mil next year (which is what makes him such a great value). Besides, I'm sure Indiana wouldn't give up Artest just for Damp. As for Richardson, the Warriors aren't really shopping him, but the potential Pietrus showed last year means the Warriors could stand to trade him if a great deal came along (yes, Pietrus could be that good). Richardson has a chance to be a 24/7/4 guy in the league, and while I he'll probably develop into a clutch schorer in a year or two, it isn't definate. He'd also command more money than Artest, so it makes financial sense for the Warriors. It really wouldn't make a difference to me whether the Warriors traded Richardson or Pietrus, though I'd imagine the Pacers would probably want Pietrus because he'll still be on his rookie deal for a few more years and that's important to the Pacers since they're right up against the luxury tax line. By the way, Richardson is not the only guy who sells tickets for the Warriors. They've had a great fan base for the last five years or so and people around here are just as excited about Murphy, Dunleavy, and Pietrus as they are about Richardson. And the fact that the team was winning a lot more games the last two years was the biggest factor.
There is no way Pacers are going to trade their best player alongside J.O., and they don't really need those things badly, cuz J.O. often plays center, so I wouldn't see why they should trade the DPY,Allstar,Dominant player, best player. And why do you post these trades....it's no meaning in them cuz it ain't gon happen, unless you got it on paper, so plzz stop doing it!!!!!!!!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Duece~2:</div><div class="quote_post">And why do you post these trades....it's no meaning in them cuz it ain't gon happen, unless you got it on paper, so plzz stop doing it!!!!!!!!</div> This is the rumor mill forum. There are rumors that Indiana is going after Damp. Therefore, I'm posting on what a potential trade could be between the two teams. Let me put it to you this way: Three weeks ago, a rumor that Shaq would be headed to Miami for Odom, Grant, Butler, and a future #1, would have seemed just as preposterous as the deal I'm proposing now. The same would go for a rumor that Kobe was seriously considering going to the Clips. Be careful what you say is or is not going to happen, because this has been an unpredictable offseason and I sincerely believe that there are a few surprises yet to come.
Doesnt make sense on Indiana's part. Dampier had ONE good year and is a noted underachiever...if u include J-Rich, then it makes more sense, but not Pietrus...if I was Indiana I'd consider if J-Rich was included, but even then, players who are above average on both sides of the ball (as Artest is) come once in a million years...
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Duece~2:</div><div class="quote_post"> And why do you post these trades....it's no meaning in them cuz it ain't gon happen, unless you got it on paper, so plzz stop doing it!!!!!!!!</div>This is the rumor mill man. This is a valid proposal and was thought up well. So plzz stop posting useless thoughts!!!!!!
This sounds like a deal that could work out in favour for both teams. If you look at it, it is pretty much a 2 for 1 deal. Ron Artest for JRich/Mikael Pietrus and Erick Dampier. It may be surprising, but I would much rather have Pietrus than Richardson in Indiana. He is a very talented young player who can only get better and he also plays better defense than JRich. The one thing I am concerned about is his shooting. I know Artest is not the best shooter in the world but he can shoot the three/midrange on a semi-consistent basis. He also has a strong post game as well. Will Pietrus be able to match what Artest can do offensively? Dampier would fit in nicely with JO to be a fomidable force down low. If Carlisle can find him enough looks on offense without taking JO's chances, you may be looking at the best centre/power foward combo in the league other than Detroit. Another added bonus is getting rid of Scot Pollards contract. He is essentially the Brian Grant of the deal.
^I don't think its surprising at all that Indiana would want Pietrus instead of Richardson. From an economic standpoint its a no brainer. The Pacers are going to be right up against the luxury tax line and wouldn't want to pay a whole lot for Richardson. Pietrus gives them a few more years of indentured servitude and by the time he's up for an extension, Croshere will be off the books. From a talent standpoint, I'd say Pietrus has the most potential of all three players, but he's got the furthest to go in terms of realizing his potential. The big advantage over Richardson is his defense. He'd be able to step in right away and play defense just as well as Artest. His offense is a few years behind where Artest is, but he's also not a ball hog. He likes to set up his teammates. Actually, that was a criticism Pietrus had of other guys on the Warriors last year, too many of them were looking for their own shots while he spent all his energy trying to get shots for other guys.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Rudeezy:</div><div class="quote_post">This is the rumor mill man. This is a valid proposal and was thought up well. So plzz stop posting useless thoughts!!!!!!</div> Its not valid at all. Artest is not going to be traded for Richardson and Dampier. Indiana was having trouble coughing up Artest, Bender, and Harrington for TMac, and in which case, they could have simply signed Jackson to the MLE....leaving in essence, a McGrady/Jackson combo instead of an Artest/Jackson combo. Harrington would have been replaced with Jackson either way. Losing Harrington was going to happen anyway, so Indiana was faced with either McGrady and Jackson, or an Artest, Bender, and Jackson package. They choose the latter. Leading one to believe Indiana is very high on Artest, and for obvious reasons. I highly, highly doubt Indiana would be the least bit interested in that deal. For those reasons, I agree with the original poster who said this was a worthless trade proposition.
You can call it worthless if you want, but the simple fact is that Indiana had an unbalanced roster last year and with the Harrington/Jackson trade, it's become even more unbalanced. Indiana has Artest, Jackson, Bender, Jones, and Miller at the sg/sf. While they have O'neal, Croshere, Pollard, and Harrison at pf/c. What's wrong with that picture? Hey, Indiana won 61 games last year, so they're obviously doing something right. But they were also physically dominated by Detroit in the playoffs. With Shaq in the east, getting bigger becomes even more of a priority. If Indiana fans think they can get by with a guard heavy offense and only O'neal down low, that's fine. But, if I was Walsh and Bird, I'd look to balance out the roster.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">You can call it worthless if you want, but the simple fact is that Indiana had an unbalanced roster last year and with the Harrington/Jackson trade, it's become even more unbalanced. Indiana has Artest, Jackson, Bender, Jones, and Miller at the sg/sf. While they have O'neal, Croshere, Pollard, and Harrison at pf/c. What's wrong with that picture? Hey, Indiana won 61 games last year, so they're obviously doing something right. But they were also physically dominated by Detroit in the playoffs. With Shaq in the east, getting bigger becomes even more of a priority. If Indiana fans think they can get by with a guard heavy offense and only O'neal down low, that's fine. But, if I was Walsh and Bird, I'd look to balance out the roster.</div> So what you are saying, is that Pacers have NO chance too win, if they don't sign Damp and J-rich/Pietrus?
Or maybe since the Warriors just signed another PG(Fisher) they could deal Claxton or van exel away. Indiana trades: Ron Artest Scott Pollard Golden State trades: Erick Dampier Mickael Pietrus Van Exel
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Duece~2:</div><div class="quote_post">So what you are saying, is that Pacers have NO chance too win, if they don't sign Damp and J-rich/Pietrus?</div> Duece man, you're starting to irritate me alittle bit. Go back and read my post again, did you see anywhere in my post where I said the Pacers had "NO" chance to win? No. I said they have a guard heavy roster right now and got physically dominated by the Pistons in the playoffs. Do you dispute that? It looks like a fact to me. I then said the east got even bigger now that Shaq is on the Heat. Again, I'm just stating a fact here. What I'm saying is that when you look at the top teams in the league, the Pacers don't have as much size as most of the rest of them. Can the Pacers still win a champsionship without balancing out their roster? Yeah, of course. Would they be an even better team if they did balance out their roster? Yeah, I certainly think so, and CourtVision seems to agree with me. If you don't, that's fine, but tell me why. That's what this forum is for.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Alley-oop:</div><div class="quote_post">Or maybe since the Warriors just signed another PG(Fisher) they could deal Claxton or van exel away. Indiana trades: Ron Artest Scott Pollard Golden State trades: Erick Dampier Mickael Pietrus Van Exel</div> The trade wouldn't work under the cap, but it might if NVE was replaced with Claxston. It depends on how big Damp's contract is.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Alley-oop:</div><div class="quote_post">Or maybe since the Warriors just signed another PG(Fisher) they could deal Claxton or van exel away. Indiana trades: Ron Artest Scott Pollard Golden State trades: Erick Dampier Mickael Pietrus Van Exel</div> No Pietrus. NVE/Speedy + Damp
This trade makes sense.. I heard Pacers management weren't opposed to trading Artest, and the Pacers will need someone other than Jermaine O'Neal to battle Shaq and the Heat. I'd throw in Croshere and take Van Exel's contract though, seems to be more fair that way (2 bad contracts to GS + All Star for an established C, good young prospect, and potential starting PG).
