<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">No Pietrus. NVE/Speedy + Damp</div> Speedy and Damp wont get you Artest. NVE and Damp wouldn't work capwise due to the pending deal Dampier will get. Either way.........
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">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. </div> IMO, duece made the best post in this thread. Sometimes its not whats said, that speaks louder than words. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> 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. </div> I will admit it. But the Pacers core of O'Neal, Artest, Tinsley, and Bender are all young and locked up(Tinsely coming up for contract soon). <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> I then said the east got even bigger now that Shaq is on the Heat. Again, I'm just stating a fact here. </div> When you start to make trades to combat other teams acquisitions, you get in trouble. Can they stop Shaq? No. But the Pistons proved you don't need to, to beat his team. So why make an unnecessary trade that isn't going to give you a player that can "stop" Shaq? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> 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. </div> Thats one way of interpeting data. Another would be, the top teams all share one characteristic: the ability to play defense well and score. Detroit does that. San Antonio does that. Minnesota does that. And Indiana does it too. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Would they be an even better team if they did balance out their roster? Yeah, I certainly think so, </div> Dampier plays well in his contract year. Sure, last year, his averages of 12/12 are good. But the year before? 8.2/6.6 The year before that? 7.6/5.3. Hardly impressive numbers.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Warriorfansnc93:</div><div class="quote_post">Why not?</div> Artest is worth more than Dampier and Claxton. I am going to try to explain this....... Orlando wanted Harrington, Bender, and Artest for McGrady. Indiana balked. Now, Harrington was going to be gone anyway, so losing him in this deal was no problem, as Indiana was looking at signing Jackson to the MLE. So had that trade gone down, the Pacers would have been left with Jackson and McGrady. As of now, they have Jackson, Artest, and Bender. So......let's set up a little equation... Jackson, Artest, Bender = McGrady, Jackson Subtract Jackson from both sides, and the equation is still balanced. You are left with Artest, Bender = McGrady. Now....if Orlando really offered that, don't you think that Artest is valued a little higher by GMs than Dampier and Claxton.....
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post">Artest is worth more than Dampier and Claxton. I am going to try to explain this....... Orlando wanted Harrington, Bender, and Artest for McGrady. Indiana balked. Now, Harrington was going to be gone anyway, so losing him in this deal was no problem, as Indiana was looking at signing Jackson to the MLE. So had that trade gone down, the Pacers would have been left with Jackson and McGrady. As of now, they have Jackson, Artest, and Bender. So......let's set up a little equation... Jackson, Artest, Bender = McGrady, Jackson Subtract Jackson from both sides, and the equation is still balanced. You are left with Artest, Bender = McGrady. Now....if Orlando really offered that, don't you think that Artest is valued a little higher by GMs than Dampier and Claxton.....</div> Do you realize the HUGE fallacy in your argument? Let me show with an example using the Warriors: The Warriors trade Damp and NVE to Dallas for Walker, Laettner, and Podkolzine (which is a trade a lot of Dallas fans on this board and others have said they'd like to do). The Warriors were going to lose Damp no matter what this year and NVE as well, now that they signed Fisher. So if you account for that, the Warriors would be sending (air and good wishes) to Dallas for Walker, Laettner and Podkolzine. Doesn't make much sense does it? I understand the point you're trying to make: from the Pacer's standpoint, it doesn't matter if you lost Harrington to Orlando or some other team. But, to say Harrington would have had no value when it came to acquiring McGrady is a big mistake. Look, I'm honestly not trying to insult the Pacers or their fans nor was I ever trying to do so, but just because you guys seem sensitive to insinuation whether its intended by me or not, let me restate this: I'M NOT TRYING TO INSULT THE PACERS OR THEIR FANS, I was merely making a trade proposal. And just so I can further clear things up: I'M NOT TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT THE PACERS CAN'T WIN A TITLE IF THEY DON'T MAKE THAT TRADE, NOR WAS I EVER TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT. I like the squad the Pacers have, they were my pick to go to the finals this year. But seeing as how they got dominated on the boards by Detroit in the playoffs, traded Harrington for Jackson, and have been rumored to be interested in making a trade for Damp, I thought I'd propose a trade. If you guys don't like it, that's fine, I like discussing things like this. If you think all the team needs is internal development to compete for a championship, that's fine, you may be right. I just made the proposal because it looked like a chance to make both teams better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">Do you realize the HUGE fallacy in your argument? Let me show with an example using the Warriors: The Warriors trade Damp and NVE to Dallas for Walker, Laettner, and Podkolzine (which is a trade a lot of Dallas fans on this board and others have said they'd like to do). The Warriors were going to lose Damp no matter what this year and NVE as well, now that they signed Fisher. So if you account for that, the Warriors would be sending (air and good wishes) to Dallas for Walker, Laettner and Podkolzine. Doesn't make much sense does it? I understand the point you're trying to make: from the Pacer's standpoint, it doesn't matter if you lost Harrington to Orlando or some other team. But, to say Harrington would have had no value when it came to acquiring McGrady is a big mistake. Look, I'm honestly not trying to insult the Pacers or their fans nor was I ever trying to do so, but just because you guys seem sensitive to insinuation whether its intended by me or not, let me restate this: I'M NOT TRYING TO INSULT THE PACERS OR THEIR FANS, I was merely making a trade proposal. And just so I can further clear things up: I'M NOT TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT THE PACERS CAN'T WIN A TITLE IF THEY DON'T MAKE THAT TRADE, NOR WAS I EVER TRYING TO INSINUATE THAT. I like the squad the Pacers have, they were my pick to go to the finals this year. But seeing as how they got dominated on the boards by Detroit in the playoffs, traded Harrington for Jackson, and have been rumored to be interested in making a trade for Damp, I thought I'd propose a trade. If you guys don't like it, that's fine, I like discussing things like this. If you think all the team needs is internal development to compete for a championship, that's fine, you may be right. I just made the proposal because it looked like a chance to make both teams better.</div> Yes, there is a fallacy in the way I did that. However, it still is valid in the sense that I was illustrating that Artest is worth more than Claxton and Dampier. And for that purpose, it does work. Yes, Harrington isn't a "zero." But if the Pacers were looking to dump Harrington for Jackson anyway, its not really a net loss per say.
I'd like to address a few issues, feel free to disagree. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting Vintage:</div><div class="quote_post"> Orlando wanted Harrington, Bender, and Artest for McGrady. Indiana balked.</div> For some reason, this deal actually went sour because of Bender; not Artest's value, nor Harrington's. Indiana put Tinsley there as their final offer, along with Artest and Bender. So, (although maybe Indiana had a change of heart recently and think that Artest is worth more now) it's hard to compare that trade because we're not asking for Bender. Orlando just didn't want those players and chose Steve Francis, Mobley, and Cato over Artest, Harrington, and Tinsley. So, this trade would be analyzed a bit differently. (It doesn't include Bender.) I don't mean to bring the level of analytical sophistication downwards, but I never thought of basketball wholly as a game of logic or numbers. Unlike baseball, there are few sabermatricians in the game. There's one I would trust who's name momentarily escapes me. It's tough to disagree with fundamental principles of winning - as Walker said, it's easier to win with a big man. As Vintage pointed out, teams win by playing good defense and scoring more points. As I point out, the right coaching style with the right players wins games. As such, there are a lot of ways to build a winning team. Without base premises, you might as well build a team of random star players without a coach and let anarchy go, and see if they win. In my opinion, the Pistons did stop Shaq. They clogged the passing lanes, played 3/4 defense and deflected passes to the inside. Shaq shot well when he got the ball, but those times were rare, because the Pistons put so much pressure on him. That strategy could possibly work for Indiana, but the Pistons also had more large bodies to throw at Shaq to help out in single coverage. Artest is a great player, no question. If I had him under control, like how he had been pretty good all season in Indiana, I'd keep him. But based on needs, a PG and a C would greatly help the Pacers in the long run. Even trade? I don't know. I thought that Richardson and Damp would be more fair mostly because of the name issue; J-Rich is probably the W's most recognizable player. They need a PG more than a wing, though, and Claxton has a great contract and also has proven he can be clutch in the playoffs (with the Spurs.)
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting wtwalker77:</div><div class="quote_post">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> I hate when people say that INDY need to blend their roster just cuz they lost in the ECF.......theyd only lost cuz JT and J.O. where injured. Harrison,Pollard,J.O.,Foster ani't enough size for you?
no it isnt enough size, harrison pollard and foster are all medocre centers and Dampier is alot better then them... what about Fisher, Jrich and Dampier for Bender and Artest? I think that Larry Bird wants to trade Artest away from the way he dangled Artest for Tmac and also because Artest never showed up for LArrys birds end of the season meeting. Indiana Clearly want scoring cause of the way they went after Tmac, so Jrich would provide that Plus DAmpier would provide the size and reboudning in center. If Dampier and JO were together they are one the better -> best front courts in the league. Plus Fisher would provide the veteran point gaurd play they needed in the playoffs. The pacers Gaurd play was the reason why they lost so Fisher would add leadership and toughness plus clutch shooting. Lineups Speedy Pietrus Artest Bender/Murphy Adonal foyle Derek Fisher Jrich Stephen Jackson JO Dampier your thotz?
^ A preliminary problem with that trade is that Fisher can't be traded until Dec. 15th, the date you can first trade recently signed FA's. It'd have to be Claxton or NVE (well if you put in NVE, you'd need a lot of salary to balance it on the other side). Aside from that problem, I think Fisher would have been a great fit on the Pacers. For the trade, though, Indiana refuses absolutely to give up Bender. He's the most untouchable player behind O'Neal on that team.
