View Full Version : Position we will need to fill with trade

12-14-2005, 01:17 PM
I really think we need to get a shooting guard in return for Artest. If we keep Jackson and his best position is small forward then we only have Fred Jones and Runi that can play SG and they're both undersized.

We need a young, talented SG that can sink it from downtown. If we can get someone like Channing Frye or someone with great talent then it might be too good to pass up but I think SG is our biggest need so Jackson can move to SF.

12-14-2005, 01:20 PM
Well I say either SF of SG, depending on which we can get the better of. Jackson can play either, and I think that Ron being gone will affect his play more than whether he's a SF or SG. So as I said, whichever position in which we can get the better player.

12-14-2005, 01:31 PM
We DO NOT need a SF, we already drafted Ron's long-term replacement. Unless the SF we get back is clearly somebody that will backup Granger.

We do need a SG, because I'm not thrilled with any of our choices there.

12-14-2005, 01:32 PM
Jay, the point is that if we want to play Jackson at SG then we NEED a SF. Having only Danger at that spot would not be good.

12-14-2005, 01:33 PM
My first choice is a starting-caliber SG. Jack seems to play at least as well at the 3 as the 2.

12-14-2005, 01:39 PM
I don't want to play Jackson at SG.

(I don't want to play Jackson period, but I think he could net a starting caliber SG in another trade.)

Since Saras can play either guard position, you need five guys total for PG/SG/SF.

Tinsley PG - 30 mpg Saras - PG 18 mpg
Jackson SG - 24 mpg Saras SG - 12 mpg New guy - SG 12
Granger SF - 28 mpg Jackson SF - 12 mpg New guy - SF 8 mpg

Alright, I think we're barking up the same tree. We need somebody to take up to 20 mpg at the SG/SF positions, but I don't want to switch Jackson to SF AND trade for a SF. That was what I was trying to say.

12-14-2005, 01:41 PM
1 ) We need a starting ( or close to starting ) SG that can provide very solid perimeter defense that can function as a 3rd/4th scoring option that can hit the 3pt shot.

2 ) We need a backup PF/C that can come in and do the dirty work like rebound...if possible block some shots and provide some acceptable to decent interior defense and is good enough to provide short term starting relief if JONeal or Foster goes down with injury.
Both have to be professional, doesn't complain and most of all...they have to be somewhat durable.

These 2 players can help address one of the most significant issues that I feel that we have......defending the guard position and help in the Frontcourt. We need to be able to guarding against quick perimeter / drive to the hoop SGs that we do not have an adequate answer to quick...specifically Rip and Wade. The PF/C is more to bolster our Frontcourt rotation in the rebounding department since our existing Centers that are either injured ( Foster / Pollard ) or in foul trouble and not being played by Carlisle for whatever reason ( Hulk ).

Honestly....if we can get 2 players like that in trading Artest.....I think we can make a comprable run like we had last season with the Big 3 of Tinsley/SJax/JONeal alongside a healthy Foster/Freddie/AJ/Croshere/Sarunas.

12-14-2005, 01:45 PM
Hey CableKC, we do have a player that is good at defending fast SG's... Freddie. When we played against Miami, he spent much of the game guarding Dwayne Wade. I honestly think that he's been playing quite a few minutes solely due to the fact that he's a much quicker defender than any of the other Pacers. Now I'm not saying I wouldn't mind getting a player who can defend like Fred and score more consistently...

Jose Slaughter
12-14-2005, 01:48 PM
We need someone that will kiss Stephen Jacksons ***.

Vicious Tyrant
12-14-2005, 01:58 PM
We DO NOT need a SF, we already drafted Ron's long-term replacement. Unless the SF we get back is clearly somebody that will backup Granger.

We do need a SG, because I'm not thrilled with any of our choices there.
I don't know if I'm taking this too far away from the OPs topic, but are we all in agreement that Granger is the SF of the future, and are we happy about that? I haven't seen enough to have much of an opinion one way or the other.

12-14-2005, 02:00 PM
The problem is that right now we're all enthralled with what Danger COULD do or SHOULD do, but it's absolutely possible that he never translates as well as we hope into the NBA and we're forced to eventually look for another player for that position. But right now, most people think that he will EVENTUALLY turn into what we need from that spot... I just think some people expect it to happen sooner than it most likely will.

12-14-2005, 02:05 PM
I started a new thread for the Granger discussion, although I think its tightly related to this discussion as well.

Vicious Tyrant
12-14-2005, 02:11 PM
Should have done that myself....