While most GSoMders have been doing cartwheels over this trade, more distant observers are arguing that the Pacers, not the Dubs, made out better in this deal. For example, on Foxsports Charlie Rosen displayed his vast ignorance for all to see (if you don't believe me, check out: http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/6378428)

Rosen works systematically through the players:

In Troy Murphy, the Pacers add an excellent stand-still, mid-range shooter who can run the floor, screen and pop, and attack the offensive boards.

Well, that depends upon your definition of "excellent" - 40% FG isn't all bad, but ...

The left-handed Murphy can also post up on occasion ... Nor is Murphy afraid to be physical in the paint.

Huh? Did I miss all those games? At least Rosen points out Murph's flaws:

What can't he do? Defend, pass or compete with the same sheer athleticism as his peers.

Rosen obviously hasn't heard about Troy's success in the middle:

Murphy and Jeff Foster now comprise an effective tandem in the middle.

Maybe this was an appeal to Midwest customers:

Since Murphy always works hard and is a solid citizen, look for him to thrive under Rick Carlisle's firm, yet fair management.

Obviously that's a dig at Jackson, who was in the much publicized incidents last summer. But it is with his analysis of Dunleavy that I was stumped:

Mike Dunleavy can hit open shots from anywhere, pull-and-shoot going either way, move without the ball, sneak to the boards, and look to pass. Dunleavy's consistency from beyond the arc will be an asset for the Pacers, as will his willingness to play team-oriented ball.

Huh?! Wasn't Dundun's shooting a weakness? Even open jumpers were inconsistent, not to mention shooting beyond the arc. At least Rosen does find some weakness in MDJr's game:

What he can not do is play anything resembling adequate defense. Zilch. Nada.

Rosen's analysis of Diogu is a bit baffling only because this is supposed to be the player who tips the balance in the Pacers' favor:

Ike Diogu remains a work in progress. A powerful 6-foot-8, he can either post and bang his way to the basket or shoot an effective turnaround jumper. Defense is a problem, as is passing, and avoiding turnovers. But like Murphy and Dunleavy, Diogu always plays hard all of the time.

Then he rips the out-going Pacers, particularly Harrington and Jackson for their two "gigantic egos"

In Harrington, the Pacers lose a selfish player who never got sufficient touches to satisfy his huge ego. In Stephen Jackson, they deal away a loose cannon who has exploded far too many times, and who can't tell the difference between a good shot and a bad one. ... Jackson is a shot-happy wing-man, who (like Harrington) loves to play iso-ball and fire away at his pleasure. Defense is not his thing ... In Sarunas Jasikevicius, they lose a savvy, dead-eye shooter who was too slow and too defenseless to justify more than occasional playing time at either of the backcourt positions. In other words, the Pacers have bereft themselves of a headache, a migraine, and a secret malcontent.

Rosen does pay attention to how the Dubs could gain from the trade:

Harrington can ring up points with a medium-range jumper, with aggressive post-up moves, and with ferocious drives to the basket. An extremely talented performer, he can rebound like a big, and also has the skills to play some point guard. ... The Warriors are now much more athletic than they were before the trade. With so many potent one-on-one scorers at his disposal, Nelson will have a ball puppet-mastering matchups.

But then he caps off his in depth knowledge of our lads:

[W]ith Brad Davis, Monta Ellis, and (when he's healthy) Jason Richardson monopolizing the ball, Harrington will inevitably be frustrated at not being the focus of the Warriors' offense.

Brad Davis? Ok, so it was a typo, but did you know that we had an arrogant SF?

... will Harrington's arrival eventually shove Pietrus to the bench? One shudders to think how the arrogant Pietrus will react to such a demotion.

Or that this trade now necessitates that GS trade JRich?

To loosen up the logjam of scorers, the Warriors must trade Jason Richardson for a workmanlike big man who can defend and rebound.

The Pacers, Rosen claims, will now benefit from:

... unselfish ball-movement and ball-sharing [which] will become the norm. Roles will be much more defined. Airheads will no longer be tolerated.

Basically, Rosen's argument amounts to the Dubs trading two "solid citizens" for two athletic but problematic attitudes with Ike tipping the balance in Pacer's favor. I have some problems with this analysis. First, Rosen doesn't seem to know jack about the former Warriors strengths and weaknesses, and the comparison of these players doesn't mention the relative weight their respective contracts had on their franchises (no small factor!). But the third inference that rubs is the repeated inference that the "good citizens" are heading east while the "troubled athletes" coming are going west.

What do you think of Rosen's analysis?