http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/misc/1428534.html In a story from ESPN, it was suggested that the Pacers should give up two of three players (either Bender, Artest, Harrington), Jamall Tinsley, Fred Jones, and their number one pick next season. All for Gary Payton. The whole article says that Payton is the key to Indy returning to the NBA Finals, and while I agree with that, giving up five promising players for a veteran whose years are catching up with him is not the answer. I personally thing Artest/Bender/and two future draft picks will do it. But the Pacers are absurd to even consider the 5-for-1 deal.
I wouldn't do it either. Pretty much all the players listed are pretty good and to trade 4 of them and a no.1 is pretty dumb, imo.
I like the idea for both teams. The Pacers get one of the best PG's in the league to help them make it to the finals again, and the Sonics get a talented player in either Artest or Harrington along with a pretty good PG in Tinsley. From the Pacer's standpoint, they are done rebuilding and believe that if they want to make a run at the finals, the time is now while the East is in a sorta slump. With Payton, they are a lock for a top 3-4 spot in the East, where the veterans can work their magic in the playoffs and get them to the finals. The Sonics might do it for rebuilding purposes, and of course for some insurance in case Lewis bolts (not going to happen though.) With Harrington they get a player on the brink of showing the NBA what talent he has been storing for so long, and in Tinsley they have a PG who they can mold in what ever matter they see fit. And of course the most important reason to do this trade is... FOR THE ROCKETS! With the Sonics in an official rebuilding phase, it allows the Rockets for a sure spot in the playoffs, and another start for our beloved Steve in the All-Star game.
That sort of trade would not win the Pacers a title, and it's even questionable whether it would win them the East. Most importantly, it sets back their entire rebuilding process by trading away most of their young talent. The author, Sam Smith, is a noted Bulls apologizer. It doesn't really surprise me that he would be in favor of such a trade.
There's no way anyone can think this deal can favor the Pacers. Mybe- MAYBE- or the short term, but giving away five promising athletes for an aging veteran is no way to help a team's growth. It actually stunts their potential. Just think of the trade that Houston did that got them Barkley for Cassell/Horry. Even that trade hurt them, and they only gave up two players, opposed to five.
The Rockets also gave up Mark Bryant and Chucky Brown in that trade but it didn't hurt us because we also picked up Kevin Willis.
I wanted to clarify my previous post. The frontcourt got better but we did miss Cassell and also Horry's 3 point shooting. Cassell's absence forced Maloney into a starting role which was too much for him.
Well this never was our intent. We just missed out on Derrick Harper as a FA (I don't have much doubt we would have beated the Jazz in the WCF with him). Then we signed Price as our starter who promptly blew out a knee (we had probably overrated him anyway) and E Davis blew out a knee as well. We had a real bad run of luck and Maloney was the best we could get in the circumstance.
Pacers would be giving up ROLE PLAYERS. None of those guys will be anything more than a decent starter. If I'm Indy, I do that trade, if I know that I can go out and sign adequate backup players. Depth doesn't win in the NBA, quality does.
I agree with Saleem that the Barkley trade didn't make the Rockets better. I never like the idea of trading your good young players for an aging superstar (even if it might appear to have the possibility to push you over the hump for a championship). There is always the possible problem of chemistry. People think that a veteran superstar is a surer thing than some young promising players. I think otherwise. The young players who are already contributing well for the team is a surer thing than a superstar coming in who might ruin the chemistry.
My God. What leg do the Barkley-trade haters have to stand on? We would have gotten swept by Sea in 97, if we didn't have Barkley. More than likely we would have won around 45-50 games that year. In 96, we won only 49 games, and got raped by Seattle in the 2nd round. In 97, we came close to reaching the Finals. What more do you want? Ya, we really miss Cassell and his selfish ways (we wouldn't have Francis if we still had Sam I Am), and a BACKUP PF in Robert Horry. Good grief, you guys act like we gave up our ticket to Heaven in the Barkley trade. We were mediocre before Barkley. Do all the trade haters think that we got Barkley immediately after we won 2 titles or something? Like I said, what leg are you guys standing on? A pirate's peg leg is much sturdier.
Terrible trade for the Pacers, why not just give their excellent young nucleus a little time to mature? Oneal, Brad Miller, Bender, Artest, Harrington, Fred Jones, Mercer, and Tinsley are all 26 or younger.
I'd do it -- if I were either/both teams. Indy will be skizzo as long as Isaih is there, and their team has a funny mix -- inc Croshere whom IT apparently hates, and Tinsley who may never be a 1st stringer. Indy needs to dump AC or IT or both.
