If no KG, then what about JO?
So ESPN writes today that
"O'Neal is clearly available now that Indiana has decided it needs a major overhaul."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/marty_burns/07/13/mailbag/index.html
It seems like we might be able to get him for a little less than KG, and he still would be a HUGE improvement for our team in the post. He's got a decent J from about 18, meaning he wouldn't be useless in nellieball. plus, he's signed for an extra year.
Since we already took 'em last year for our overpayed white-boys, is it too early to stick 'em up again? I was just thinking that we've focused so much on KG, but JO would be nice too.
it would have to include some sign-and-trade and maybe the contracts would be tough to equalize, what about Pietrus, Ellis, Foyle and Wright for O'neal? Hell, we'd even through in our O' :
the notorious, PO'B
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
I like JO and KG
by ballin on Jul 13, 2007 7:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah, but
by panhandlelegend on Jul 13, 2007 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
JO
Or maybe they really like Dunleavy and Murphy and want more of our scrubs?
Foyle + Jasikevicius + POB for Jermaine O'Neal
by jlagace on Jul 13, 2007 9:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
chemistry
(unless of course my memory has gone, which is a definite possibility)
by azw on Jul 13, 2007 10:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i thought that they
by travisl212 on Jul 13, 2007 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i believe it was more on-court
by azw on Jul 14, 2007 1:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Believe The Pacers
by JohnColtrane on Jul 15, 2007 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
uhhh
might as well make west coast pacers...
by bun on Jul 14, 2007 12:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
JO
by zaki on Jul 14, 2007 3:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
by WhatWouldTerryCummingsDo on Jul 14, 2007 3:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yup
but seriously, we need to find how to get some rebounds for this squad, or we'll have a tough time even getting back to the playoffs next year.
hahah... It still feels good to even say that
by panhandlelegend on Jul 14, 2007 7:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I AGREE
If the PACERS are willing and we don't give up too much for him, then I say the W's should think about.
by scottiepimppen on Jul 14, 2007 8:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
JO would be nice
Looking at the rosters it would be kind of hard to make a deal work salary-wise without including players that we just got from them. That alone might make this a little unrealistic.
by olympicmike on Jul 14, 2007 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Injury prone over-rated player.
He's sick, but sick in the sense of damn, that guy should see a doctor sick. He's a walking trip to the trainer's table. His boosters will say that his decline in the second half of last year was due to playing hurt, and it may be true. However, that's the one thing we can count on--he will get hurt. We worry that Baron's injury history suggests that he's difficult to depend on. O'neal's is just as bad. Over the last three years, O'neal has played in one more game (and about 18 minutes total) than Baron, and that includes playing hurt at the end of last year. Do we want another pivotal piece who is paid a max salary but is more likely to appear in 50 games than in 75 games? Big men who start accumulating injuries almost never get healthier as they age.
And he's not really shown that he makes his team better. Since he has missed so much time, there's some data about how the team does without him. Answer: their record without him is almost identical to their record with him. That suggests that his impact isn't really as great as his stats might superficially suggest.
No thanks. If O'neal could be depeneded on for a whole season, it would be one thing. If he cost us essentially nothing, it would be another. If, when he were healthy, he was a 50%+ shooter, it would be another. If his team looked better when he played, there might be some cause to want him. But he'll cost us plenty and there's no reason to believe he'd a) be healthy or b) help us win when he was healthy.
by jae on Jul 14, 2007 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Injury prone no doubt
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 15, 2007 1:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
to me
by Proof on Jul 14, 2007 11:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 



















