A trade that might be in the works.

[Diesel]

You can't read. I said JT has been one of the reasons....

NOT THE REASON.

[Diesel]

JT cannot be traded without his permission until Sept 25. Because we are under the cap, there are no BYC restrictions on trading Terry. Because the trade is to Indy where he might meet up with Oneal and Jax, Terry may be happy with the deal.

[Diesel]

Actually EDS, i don't disagree with that... However, with Childress and whoever else we get, we will need a ball distributor too. I have good hopes for Childress... Maybe 14/6 first season. From everything that Woodson is saying, Offense is not our first love. Defense is. JT is everything that Woodson doesn't want. Just listen to the message that we get from Woodson/Knight.

Long, Atheletic, Versatile, DEFENSIVE...

If you think about those things, I would be more inclined to believe that the trade is JT for Artest/Tinsley.

Sadly enough, I don't want Artest here under any circumstances.

[drzachary]

Thanks D. I had missed the operative words, "with his permission," when I read it before.

[Lascar78]

well in all fairness tinsley isn't exactly tall and athletic either.

Plus he has proven to be useless in the playoffs when they needed him

[Packfill]

I would take the gamble with Artest over Harrington.

But as ar as Tinsley goes, my impression is that he is not a good defensive player either, so he doesn't fit. I think the trio of Terry/Childress/Diaw could get it done as far as ballhandling and distribution. That trio fits the "versatile" theme Knight is pushing - on any given trip up the court one of the three could serve as the primary ballhandler.

[Diesel]

I honestly don't think Tins would be our starter if we made the Harrington trade.

I think our starter would be Royal I.

He's big, defensive, and can score. We pick up a vet PG like.... Charlie Ward for Cheap and you have a good three man rotation at PG...

[Lascar78]

I don't think Ivey is ready yet, is he? It's tough enough for rookie PG's, he hasn't faced this level of competition. But again I'd do it. I'm just saying tinsley doesn't fit the mold more than JT does. I feel like that's about even, getting Pollard is key, and Harrington is a good freebie.

Pollard's contract isn't great, but it's only 2 seasons, and we REALLY could use a good center

[jezmund]

Yeah he hasn't faced NBA competition yet but I'd say he's faced as tough competition as any other rookie PG's coming in. The Big 12 isn't a cupcake conference. Oklahoma, Ok. St., Kansas as well as facing top out of conference teams every year. Not that this is anywhere equivalent to NBA, it certainly isn't but I think he is as ready as any other rookie. He certainly won't put up a Ben Gordon statline but Gordon won't necessarily play better defense or run a team any better than Ivey. Just my two cents, maybe I'm wrong....

[Traceman]

I'm not sure I would want to trade JT for Harrington straight up but I KNOW I don't want to take Pollard back in the deal. Pollard would eat into the caproom we have for '05-'06 when the FA market looks a lot better. As for Harrington, I like him but is he a 3 or a 4?

Tinsley I could take or leave but why pay Pollard and Tinsley $7.5M when we could kick in another $2.5M-$3.5M and sign K-Mart? Or we could just use part of that $7.5M to sign Swift. The bottom line is that I'd rather have K-Mart (or Swift) and JT than Pollard, Harrington and Tinsley.

Even those of you who like the deal suggest that neither Pollard or Tinsley are longterm solutions. Basically, Harrington is the only one in the deal you see as a part of the future. Doesn't it make more sense to either try to trade JT for Harrington straight up or just say no to this deal?

[hawkszone]

The potential return of Scott Pollard!!

I remember back in '98 when Lenny Wilkens had him in the Hawks preseason camp and cut him because he had the flu and a hairstyle Lenny didn't care for.

Not a bad trade on the whole though. Gives us some size and clears Terry's contract.

http://www.hawkszone.net