To Indiana: Baron, Murphy, and Pietrus
To Golden State: J. O'Neal, D. Granger, and Sarunas Jasikevicious

Indiana would like this trade because BD would be a huge upgrade for them. He'll be placed around some vets and he'll complement Peja and get him more open shots. Also, Indiana is looking for a good defender to replace Artest, and Pietrus is that man. Murphy would also contribute with his scoring and rebounding.

It would be beneficial to us because we would have O'Neal down low at center, and Granger is a future star who would take over the three. Saras is a point who can dish and take the three. Either him or Monta (depending whether Monta is a 1 or a 2) would start at point. With this trade the lineup would look like this:


Sarunas (Fisher)
JRich (Ellis)
Granger (Dunleavy)
Diogu (Taft, Cabarkapa)
O'Neal (Biedrins, Foyle)

Thoughts?

well i dont necessarily think indy would do this because theyd be adding an injury prone PG to their already injured PG, jamal tinsley.
but i like the trade for us.

I would love this trade... if the lineup became what you said it'd become. However, something inside of me believes that Montgomery would still start Foyle and Dunleavy over Granger and Ike.

Because we have the king of idiots to head our coaching staff, this trade looks less attractive. A better coach, who'd know how to use talent, would make this trade the blockbuster it so rightfully should be.

Good... but I have a feeling Monty would screw over Granger's career like he's doing to Ike.

The Pacers would never do it! They are high on Granger and Baron is fairly injuryprone for a team that already has another two PGs. Tinsley would have to go as well.

The Warriors would now be banking on the PG combination of Jask and Fisher to be solid enough, if Ellis does is not ready to start, which is likely. That PG duo does not bode well for a team looking to be a plaoff team next season and then looking to be a contender with all the young talent in other positions developing

I was going to bring that up; the fact that Indy is practically in love with Granger.

But, migya, what's the difference between a Jask/Fisher duo and a Baron/Fisher duo, in terms of Monta Ellis' playing time...? They both outrank him, as far as point guard status is concerned. All the more reason I believe he should convert to shooting guard. It would mean more minutes (in a backup role for JR) and it would utilize his amazing scoring ability.

But what does it matter if Jask isn't solid? I don't see too much of a problem to have Fisher start. I mean, they won those 4-5 or whatever games in a row at the end with him starting. Plus two, assuming Ellis is a point (which he can play), that's three point guards, it's a safe bet one of them lives up to starting expectations. Also, Monta would get more min. as a point guard, since he would be over Saras, and JRich plays a lot of minutes.

You're right about Granger. How about S. Jackson? He'll suffice as a SF. The Pacers want to get rid of him because he complains a lot to the refs, which I don't think should be too much of a problem. Also, swapping Jackson and Granger would let the Pacers lose a little cap space, making the trade seem a little more attractive.

Fisher SHOULD NOT be ahead of Monta for much longer! Jask has shown nothing really so far and so Monta is probably better than him also! SJackson instead of Granger seems more probable but I don't really like him too much and would rather favor Pietrus over him BUT he is an upgrade over our town favourite dun .

It's Jermaine that is the real big thing here - Could his addition really sure up the frontline! He'll have to play Center ofcourse so Diogu can start at PF! This is a trade that is not that bad but might or might not work in our favour!

migya wrote:Jask has shown nothing really so far

Could not disagree more!!!

Sarunas Jasikevicious has shown a reliable, fierce outside shot... as well as the fundamental point guard abilities (with the occasional steal or two on defense)! He's been a great pickup for Indy so far! They are extremely high on him (and I'll bet they resign him to be Tinsley's backup... or stand-in during Jamal's frequent time on the injury list.

migya wrote:SJackson instead of Granger seems more probable but I don't really like him too much and would rather favor Pietrus over him BUT he is an upgrade over our town favourite dun .

You guys honestly believe that adding Stephen Jackson would make the trade MORE favorable for Indiana??? The Pacers refer to him as the heir apparent to Reggie Miller! He's got the complete offensive package. We'd be lucky to trade Murphy for him, straight up. He's a great player (at either SF or SG)... and definately would kick the crap out of Mickael Pietrus any day of the week. If I were in the front office, I'd pull the trigger on THAT trade quicker than anything.....

But, alas, inserting Stephen into the trade for Granger blows the trade machine up. Too bad.

#32 wrote:

migya wrote:Jask has shown nothing really so far

Could not disagree more!!!

Sarunas Jasikevicious has shown a reliable, fierce outside shot... as well as the fundamental point guard abilities (with the occasional steal or two on defense)! He's been a great pickup for Indy so far! They are extremely high on him (and I'll bet they resign him to be Tinsley's backup... or stand-in during Jamal's frequent time on the injury list.

The stats show that he is average and nothing more - 20.8mins, 7.3pts, 2.0rbs, 3.0ast, 0.5stl, 0.1blk, 39.6FG%, 1.2 3s at 36.4%, 91.0FT%, 1.6TOs. Assists are quite decent, the FT% and threes made are very good, but the rest is rather weak, the 39.6FG% and 1.6TOs don't make him look very reliable or have great PG skills at all . To put it all in context, double everything and you get his averages for approximately 42mins (which is more than the average court time which is about 33 - 35mins for a starting guard) per game = 14.6pts, 4.0rbs, 6.0ast, 1.0stl, 0.2blk, 2.4 threes and 3.2 TOS; Seems rather Marburyish but less .

Atleast he has something in common with our Baron: Very bad FG% (39.6%)

migya wrote:SJackson instead of Granger seems more probable but I don't really like him too much and would rather favor Pietrus over him BUT he is an upgrade over our town favourite dun .

#32 wrote:You guys honestly believe that adding Stephen Jackson would make the trade MORE favorable for Indiana??? The Pacers refer to him as the heir apparent to Reggie Miller! He's got the complete offensive package. We'd be lucky to trade Murphy for him, straight up. He's a great player (at either SF or SG)... and definately would kick the crap out of Mickael Pietrus any day of the week. If I were in the front office, I'd pull the trigger on THAT trade quicker than anything.....

Well............ per 48mins (real way to compare each stat) this is the line:
SJackson - 1.87 threes, 5.21rbs, 3.74ast, 3.34TOs, 1.74stl, 0.67blk, 21.93pts
Pietrus - 2.33threes, 6.56rbs, 1.90ast, 3.17TOs, 1.27stl, 0.42blk, 19.67pts

Jackson wins in four categories and Pietrus in three, not such an arse kicking. In fact, Jackson is the 2nd or third option of the Pacers so his stats will be better than that of Pietrus, the 6th option of the warriors!

Reckon Pietrus will be much better very soon!

The reason S. Jackson makes the trade look better is that the trade would have the Pacers clear some cap space and be able to sign a free agent. And we should take either him or Granger, whichever one they want to trade. By the way, Murphy is better than Jackson, and Pietrus will be better by the time he is Jackson's age. He has better stats, and Jackson has more MPG.

But try this: Baron, Murphy, Dunleavy for Jackson, Saras, and O'Neal. That DOES work with the trading machine.

What's wrong with O'Neal starting center? He's 6'11.

And for Jask... he is another rookie who is good; but if we trade in Baron, he'll be almost useless as a third point guard. Might as well take him... another thing to note is he is a 3PT shooter, something this team desperately needs. Also, his FT% is above 91.

Pietrus is attractive because he plays excellent defense along with his ten points per game. They're looking for a defensive player to replace Artest, and Pietrus is better defensively than Jackson (even though the stats don't show it).

John Patrick wrote:The reason S. Jackson makes the trade look better is that the trade would have the Pacers clear some cap space and be able to sign a free agent. And we should take either him or Granger, whichever one they want to trade. By the way, Murphy is better than Jackson, and Pietrus will be better by the time he is Jackson's age. He has better stats, and Jackson has more MPG.

But try this: Baron, Murphy, Dunleavy for Jackson, Saras, and O'Neal. That DOES work with the trading machine.

What's wrong with O'Neal starting center? He's 6'11.

And for Jask... he is another rookie who is good; but if we trade in Baron, he'll be almost useless as a third point guard. Might as well take him... another thing to note is he is a 3PT shooter, something this team desperately needs. Also, his FT% is above 91.

Pietrus is attractive because he plays excellent defense along with his ten points per game. They're looking for a defensive player to replace Artest, and Pietrus is better defensively than Jackson (even though the stats don't show it).

That trade is decent but I'd wanna throw either Foyle, dun or Fisher or even two of them if possible, to get rid of some big contracts (and garbage )

Which would make the trade totally unattractive to Indiana...

Agreed. If we were to dump, say, Foyle into the contract, we'd have to pick up one of their ridiculous contracts, and there's really no point in dong that.

The trade itself is not attractive to Indy. Granger? S(ruffemups)Jack? We'd have to give em a bunch of draft picks ---***030***---

I disagree. Baron Davis is a superstar and Troy Murphy is the 3rd best player in the trade. Granger & Sarunas trail Murphy's value by a mile. Plus, we throw in Pietrus as an added bonus? Sounds more than good enough for Indiana.

I just don't like throwing another roadblock in front of Ike.