IC Cold Links: NBA Draft Spiced Up With Trades And Rumors

by Tom Lewis on Jun 24, 2009 6:28 AM EDT in News Comment 20 comments

Here are a few items of interest to digest on the eve of the NBA Draft:

VCU's Maynor an old-school point guard
Jeff Rabjohns profiles Eric Maynor as a point guard prospect for the Pacers.
Mike Dunleavy: Anticipating another memorable draft night
Mike Dunleavy updates us on his knee while he anticipates draft night for the Pacers.
Larry Bird on Kravitz & Eddie (audio) with Mark Boyle in for Kravitz. Bird mentions that Danny Granger, Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert are the only untouchable Pacers in trade talks. He also minimizes the importance of the workouts and reiterates that he has four players on his radar and he expects at least three of them to be available. He also gives Bill Laimbeer credit as a coach that should get an opportunity in the NBA, although he admits he still doesn't like him. Classic.
Charlotte Bobcats allow Sean May to be unrestricted free agent
The Charlotte Bobcats will not make a qualifying offer to forward Sean May, allowing the former first-round pick and Indiana Mr. Basketball to become an unrestricted free agent. Hmm, an undervalued PF with plenty to prove.
Pacers guard situation uncertain
Cliff Brunt breaks down the Pacers guard situation as the head into the NBA Draft on Thursday.
PACERS: Pacers Fans Live Mock Draft II
The fan mock draft at Pacers.com produces some lively discussion and Gerald Henderson for the Pacers.
Minor move, big dividends for the Bucks and Pistons?
Kelly Dwyer breaks down an intra-divisional trade that appears to help both Milwaukee and Detroit more than you think.
A pair of deals, Milwaukee and San Antonio, as well as Washington and Minnesota really stirred up the NBA stew heading into the draft. Washington now has a glut of shooting guards while Minny has a glut of first round picks (four!). Appears to be just the beginning for those two teams. Maybe Minny GM, David Kahn will remember his friends in Indy if he starts dealing one of his picks.
NBA.com: David Aldridge's Big Board
DA breaks down the draft prospects by position at NBA.com.

0 recs | Comment 20 comments | Share

Comments

I strongly disagree with Larry’s beliefs regarding Roy and Brandon. I don’t believe either of them should be untouchable. In fact they might be our only trade bait other than Danny who actually should be untouchable.

by ThirtyOne on Jun 24, 2009 11:16 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Jun 24, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Untouchable

They are untouchable because of their value for money. They are both young promising players who are already producing and not hurting the salary cap at all. These types of players should always be untouchable. Plus, we would get nothing of equal value for their financial worth. We would have to take on more money in a trade for one of these players and the Pacers are going to stay under the salary cap.

"My game’s like the Pythagorean Theorem. It ain’t got no answer." - Shaq

by bleedinblueandgold on Jun 24, 2009 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t agree with this. There are other second and third year players as well as draft picks that I would rather have than these two. To say they are untouchable means that even presented with like salaried players the Pacers would decline. This shouldn’t be the case.

by ThirtyOne on Jun 24, 2009 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You just can't replace guys

Who should be 8th and 9th guys on a good teams. Larry should absolutely make these guys untouchable. Same with Jeff Foster, Maceo Baston and Travis Diener. You just can’t win without grit and determination.

" Tell me something Steve, How does a guy from Puerto Rico loose a ball in the Sun? "

by aaronb on Jun 24, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

aaronb ignore my comment below

I misread your post. I thought you were saying Rush and Hibbert would be the 8th and 9th best players on a good team.

"My game’s like the Pythagorean Theorem. It ain’t got no answer." - Shaq

by bleedinblueandgold on Jun 24, 2009 5:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To call Rush and Roy

8th and 9th guys on a good team is ridiculous. We watched them play for one year. How many rookies come lead a team and would play significant minutes on contending team?! Rush is going to be our starting 2 guard and Hibbert our starting center. These guys are building blocks in our rebuilding process next to the base (Granger). To think were going to get some top tier game changer for these two is crazy. At best we would get equal value for more money, what players or picks would you trade them for, ThirtyOne, that would bring in equal financial means and provide an upgrade for the team?

"My game’s like the Pythagorean Theorem. It ain’t got no answer." - Shaq

by bleedinblueandgold on Jun 24, 2009 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

untouchable is GM speak for “you will have to blow us away”

If we are using “there are better players” excuse, then no one on the pacers is untouchable even Danny.

by dbcb on Jun 24, 2009 5:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I would trade Brandon for Mario Chalmers, George Hill or Courtney Alexander in a blink.

I would trade Roy for Jason Thompson or Anthony Randolph.

by ThirtyOne on Jun 24, 2009 6:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Why?

You are trading young, unproven, high upside guys for young, unproven, high upside guys. How do you have any idea how any of these players are going to do two years from now? Rush has as much potential if not more then Chalmers, Hill, or Alexander. Thompson will be a good PF, not C, which we need in Hibbert. Randolph? He had some amazing stats at the end of the year for an uptempo team who refused to play its stars. Padded stats. He has no more potential then Hibbert does, plus we would lose size.

by jantz101 on Jun 24, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anthony Randolph has no more potential than Hibbert? I live in the bay area. You obviously have never seen Randolph play. Nelson was keeping him on the bench all year (because Nelson is an idiot) he wasn’t padding his stats. He is really good. I would want him over everyone on the team except Granger. I think you could offer the Warriors Hibbert AND Rush and they would still say no. Randolph is that good.

Not as useful as Rated-R Superstar, but, hey!, I stick my Grease watching to once a weekend.

by rollonubears on Jun 24, 2009 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

I live in Sacramento, I’ve seen Randolph play plenty of times. I am saying his stats were padded because Nelson never played the stars at the end of the year. James Jones had a great year when he became the starting SF instead of the 12th man for the Pacers. You might be right that Randolph may be the better player over the next 4 years, but I will take Hibbert who has size and a good touch around the rim. Once he gets his footwork down we are looking at a C who will be the backbone of our team for years to come.

by jantz101 on Jun 24, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Courtney Alexander??

The guy who hasn’t been with an NBA team in years? Do you mean Courtney Lee or Joe Alexander? And while I agree I might trade Brandon for Lee, no way for George Hill or Chalmers. The point of the matter was summed up by Jantz. No one is going to trade two unproven players for each other just for giggles. I still think Rush may end up being the best player of everyone you just listed. I do like Randolph but he is more a SF than a PF let alone a C.

"My game’s like the Pythagorean Theorem. It ain’t got no answer." - Shaq

by bleedinblueandgold on Jun 24, 2009 7:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, Courtney Lee is who I meant. Slight mix up. You have your opinion on this and I have mine. Obviously no one would give us these players for Rush or Hibbert, that is my point. They can’t be untouchable when there are players with comparable salaries who I would much rather have. It doesn’t make sense.

by ThirtyOne on Jun 24, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah I Agree

I don’t think they would trade them to us and I don’t think we would trade for them. I think the untradable is referring to not being a part of a deal that send a player such as Murph somewhere else. They really have no reasonable trade value other than for young players (such as those you listed) that their particular franchise feels similar about as us with Rush and Hibbert. The players who have a likelihood of being dealt are Murph, Foster, and Ford. These would have to be our center pieces in a trade. The problem is none of these players would really bring back much in return because teams that would be interested would be looking to add veteran players and dumping their salaries. Not a whole lot of assets on our roster, unfortunately.

"My game’s like the Pythagorean Theorem. It ain’t got no answer." - Shaq

by bleedinblueandgold on Jun 25, 2009 2:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

TJ

Looks like TJ is on the block, according to Adrian Wojnarowski:

The Indiana Pacers are discussing trading point guard T.J. Ford with several teams, league sources say, including the Phoenix Suns.

Interesting

by jantz101 on Jun 24, 2009 6:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Phoenix?

That trade would have to involve Barbosa, Richardson, Shaq, Amare, or Nash. I can’t imagine the Pacers wouldn’t want Shaq or Richardson and Nash isn’t going anywhere, so that leaves Barbosa or Amare….

by SethGrandpa on Jun 24, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

To clear it up....

I would NOT trade Rush for Chalmers, Hill or Alexander, Courtney Lee is a whole other story. (as long as he works on his aley oop layups). Big Roy had so much trouble all year staying on the court because of foul trouble, not because of ability. But from what I have seen, what FreeDarko has written, and what everyone says, Anthony Randolph is the type of player we almost have never seen before. I think he is going to be phenomenal, but hey, everyone has their own opinions, there’s no use in putting people down for what they think.

As for trades, I think we have to jump all over Rondo right now, I was messing around with the trade machine at work, and there’s gotta be some way to do it. If anyone listened to simmons podcast with chad ford, you realize that they’re not going to want to give Rondo a big salary when hes up. We definitely have some pieces to move (no, im not suggesting put Tinsley and Marbury on the same team, the world might explode if that occurred), and what I didnt realize till today is that over the next 2 years, we are going to have RIDICULOUSLY VALUABLE trade pieces in Murphy and Dunleavy, with those huge deals coming off the books. I would love to either see Hinrich or Rondo wearing a Pacers uniform next year. Guess tomorrow we will see what direction we are going wit the PG position.

by captain flitzy on Jun 24, 2009 8:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hear Grizzlies may be in talks

Involving Rudy Gay, Mike Conley, and spare parts for an old Ford Festiva. I’d love to try and make a run at Rondo. I have no clue why Boston is shopping him, seeing as he’s better than Conley today and I think better than Conley tomorrow. I mean, are there five young PGs better than Rondo? He was half a board and assist away from averaging a triple double in the postseason. Screw Maynor or Lawson. I want that!

And I also don’t want to trade Rush for any of the aforementioned players. Lee would be the only one I would entertain, but I’d want to get a little bit more out of it than just him straight up. I like Rush’s future, especially if last year’s finish to the season was more than a fluke on his behalf, which looked to me like it was.

by goodlucksaturday on Jun 24, 2009 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What they were saying of Rondo...

is that he has maturity issues. And with how he stepped up his play, if he doesn’t get a maz deal, hell be really dam close to it. And they are afraid of throwing big money + lots of years to a guy they can’t control now, cause then it will really get out of control.

by captain flitzy on Jun 25, 2009 9:07 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs