PDA

View Full Version : Question for all the Future GM's here?



DrBadd01
04-06-2008, 10:59 AM
Hypothetically lets say the Pacers just miss the play-offs In the lottery they get the get the 12th spot. Team X gets the 1st pick in the draft. They already have PG they like and draft Beasley, Team Y has the second pick. Now they already have a point guard they are very happy with, but lack a quality small forward. Do you trade Danny Granger and the 1st round pick to get Derrick Rose? (assuming they would say yes) Why or why not?

I know what my answer would be. However, I am curious as to what fellow Pacer fans think?

Kstat
04-06-2008, 11:02 AM
Sure you would. But no GM in the league would be stupid enough to make that trade. It doesn't even approach possibility.

If a team with the 2nd pick is so happy with their PG spot that they would pass up Rose, they you're looking at Brook Lopez, Jarred Bayliss (who I believe will be a SG in the pros), and after that they will certainly be able to deal for a better player than granger or a better pick than #11.

All of this is moot, of course, because i don't see two lottery teams so solid at PG that they'd pass up on Derrick Rose.

Ownagedood
04-06-2008, 11:03 AM
Hypothetically lets say the Pacers just miss the play-offs In the lottery they get the get the 12th spot. Team X gets the 1st pick in the draft. They already have PG they like and draft Beasley, Team Y has the second pick. Now they already have a point guard they are very happy with, but lack a quality small forward. Do you trade Danny Granger and the 1st round pick to get Derrick Rose? (assuming they would say yes) Why or why not?

I know what my answer would be. However, I am curious as to what fellow Pacer fans think?
Nope. Pick someone other then Danny/Dun/JO and I would do it.. But I think we should keep those guys for a different trade. :)

We probably should, but I wouldn't.

EDIT: Now that I thought about it.. Ya, I would do it.. Rose is the next Chris Paul.. Who wouldn't trade Granger and our 11/12 pick..

But the #1 an #2 picks right now are Miami and Seattle.. I think Seattle would take rose to pair with Durant.

Doddage
04-06-2008, 11:57 AM
I would do it... although it's more so a matter of would the other team with Rose's pick do it.

Swingman
04-06-2008, 12:26 PM
I'm not sure why we'd do it. What if Rose doesn't live up to the hype? Then we're without Granger and whoever we would have gotten with our pick.

LoneGranger33
04-06-2008, 12:35 PM
No way I trade Granger for a pick. Never.

Rajah Brown
04-06-2008, 12:41 PM
No NBA GM at #2 would be dumb enough to do it so it's a moot
point. But ya, I'd do that deal in a heartbeat. At worst, Rose
will be a very good PG. More than likely, he'll eventually
be a top-3 PG and an elite player at a premium position.

DG will never be anything more than a very good player at a
position that's the easiest to fill in the NBA. Plus, we already
have a guy in Duns who's more of a SF than SG and who is
capable of playing it almost as well as Granger.

Note: All of the above is predicated on the assumption that the
Pacers will end up with #11. If they end up at #3, I'd
want more than just #2 to deal it.

JayRedd
04-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Like KStat says, the GM from Seattle, Minny, Miami, Memphis or wherever would never do it...

But, I would trade our entire 15-man roster, Boomer, Bowser, Larry Bird and Conseco Fieldhouse for Derrick Rose. He will make no less than six All-Star games.

Infinite MAN_force
04-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I was just recently comparing Granger to pippen, but...

Uh, yeah, you do that. absolutley. We have options at that position, and its the easiest to fill in the leauge. You absolutley give up Danny Granger for a frachise point gaurd. I cant believe anyone here would say no to that.

Kraft
04-06-2008, 01:35 PM
Where do I sign?

tdubb03
04-06-2008, 01:49 PM
No way. I don't care if Rose turns into Chris Paul. You don't trade a proven commodity for unproven hype when you're in our sort of situation.

Not to mention the way our last Memphis St. player turned out.

edit: Of all our SFs, Danny's the only one I'd bet money on being a Pacer next season. Mike'll probably be here, but him being moved wouldn't surprise me. I think Williams is as good as gone.

PR07
04-06-2008, 01:51 PM
Yeah, I think you have to do it. Especially since you have a guy in Shawne Williams who is only waiting in the wings at SF.

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 01:59 PM
You know maybe a better question is, what would the pacers give up to get a 1st or 2nd pick in the draft that the other team might find acceptible and plausible?

The answer might very well be that we have nothing short of offering draft picks of the future as well.

avoidingtheclowns
04-06-2008, 02:00 PM
But, I would trade our entire 15-man roster, Boomer, Bowser, Larry Bird and Conseco Fieldhouse for Derrick Rose. He will make no less than All-Star games.

+1

JayRedd
04-06-2008, 02:17 PM
You know maybe a better question is, what would the pacers give up to get a 1st or 2nd pick in the draft that the other team might find acceptible and plausible?

I literally don't think it's possible.

Maybe Granger, the number one and next year's first. But I doubt even that. Teams want to improve immediately and would much rather have a franchise guy that will be making like $5 million over the next four years as opposed to someone who is due for a minimum extension of $40 million/four years in the next 18 months.

The only other asset we even have is Shawne...And I don't even think adding him would make teams give up the promise of Beasley or Rose.

BlueNGold
04-06-2008, 02:33 PM
Granger is a proven commodity and between the 5th and 8th best players in his draft. I would not give him up unless we cracked the top 3...and that's not going to happen. Combine that with the fact he's a good citizen type player, you simply don't move him unless you think you cannot resign him.

jcouts
04-06-2008, 02:44 PM
I would trade anyone on the team if it meant securing Derrick Rose for the future.

AesopRockOn
04-06-2008, 04:05 PM
I thought this was going to be a thread about future grandmothers. So disappointing.

But seriously, mortage anything, even the counting thread, for Rose. That dude is God body.

Shade
04-06-2008, 04:27 PM
Seriously? I do it without a second thought.

Shade
04-06-2008, 04:34 PM
No way. I don't care if Rose turns into Chris Paul. You don't trade a proven commodity for unproven hype when you're in our sort of situation.

Not to mention the way our last Memphis St. player turned out.

edit: Of all our SFs, Danny's the only one I'd bet money on being a Pacer next season. Mike'll probably be here, but him being moved wouldn't surprise me. I think Williams is as good as gone.

Um...Shawne has been quite a nice surprise as the #17 pick.

And it's funny that you would mention Shawne, as his inclusion on this team makes it an even bigger "duh" to trade Granger for Rose.

tdubb03
04-06-2008, 04:36 PM
Um...Shawne has been quite a nice surprise as the #17 pick.

And it's funny that you would mention Shawne, as his inclusion on this team makes it an even bigger "duh" to trade Granger for Rose.

I was talking about his involvement in our continued PR problems. I agree, on court he's been a nice player.

Will Galen
04-06-2008, 05:04 PM
Um...Shawne has been quite a nice surprise as the #17 pick.

And it's funny that you would mention Shawne, as his inclusion on this team makes it an even bigger "duh" to trade Granger for Rose.

We wouldn't be trading just Granger for Rose, it would cost us our draft pick too, don't forget that.

I LOVE Danny, he's my favorite Pacer, however I would probably do the trade because Rose would fill so many needs. Plus I think he's going to be a point guard for the ages.

Just so you can see how much I like Danny, the only other player I would trade Danny for is Labron.

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 05:16 PM
Would Rose be considered a score first point guard?

I honestly don't know, I don't watch him enough.

I do know that score first point guards don't always fair as advertised. I don't know that score first point guards really ever win championships...

With that I would expect that a bunch of people are going to come up with score first pgs who've won... which is fine. Maybe my theory is wrong...

Kstat
04-06-2008, 05:28 PM
Rose is a score first, second and third point guard. They do have those in the NBA.

Kofi
04-06-2008, 05:32 PM
The last time the #2 pick was traded was back in 2001 when Tyson Chandler was traded to the Bulls for Elton Brand. Elton was the #1 pick just two years earlier and was coming off of averaging 20/10 over his first two seasons, albeit on some horrible Bulls' teams. His stock was very high, much higher than Granger's is currently.

With that said, it's not entirely impossible, as I think most GM's value a well-rounded proven commodity like Granger more than the members here, and throwing in a top-10 pick is a great sweetener, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

If you're confident in Shawne Williams as the future starting SF, you could move Granger for a pick around #5 and take someone like Bayless, then use your own lottery pick on someone like Love or Mayo.

Shade
04-06-2008, 05:34 PM
We wouldn't be trading just Granger for Rose, it would cost us our draft pick too, don't forget that.

I LOVE Danny, he's my favorite Pacer, however I would probably do the trade because Rose would fill so many needs. Plus I think he's going to be a point guard for the ages.

Just so you can see how much I like Danny, the only other player I would trade Danny for is Labron.

I know, and I still take Rose over Granger & Augustin/Collison/Westbrook without blinking.

Kofi
04-06-2008, 05:42 PM
Granger is a proven commodity and between the 5th and 8th best players in his draft. I would not give him up unless we cracked the top 3...and that's not going to happen. Combine that with the fact he's a good citizen type player, you simply don't move him unless you think you cannot resign him.

Looking over the 2005 Draft, there are only 3 players I can say for certainty would go ahead of Granger - Chris Paul, Andrew Bynum, and Deron Williams - probably in that order, although most wont be able to fathom Bynum going ahead of Williams.

After that, Monta Ellis probably would go ahead of Granger, but given his size and defensive issues, I'm not 100% certain of it. After that the only two in the discussion are Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams. Bogut might considering he's a big man, Williams probably wouldn't considering he's similar to Granger, but less proven.

Will Galen
04-06-2008, 06:00 PM
Looking over the 2005 Draft, there are only 3 players I can say for certainty would go ahead of Granger - Chris Paul, Andrew Bynum, and Deron Williams - probably in that order, although most wont be able to fathom Bynum going ahead of Williams.

After that, Monta Ellis probably would go ahead of Granger, but given his size and defensive issues, I'm not 100% certain of it. After that the only two in the discussion are Andrew Bogut and Marvin Williams. Bogut might considering he's a big man, Williams probably wouldn't considering he's similar to Granger, but less proven.

You know what's interesting about this. Bird said they had Granger as the 4th best player in that draft. Seems he was close.

Pacersfan46
04-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Rose is a guy I've had a man crush on since the college season started .... and I'd trade anyone on the team to get him here.

I'd trade any, and everyone on the roster, and the lottery pick this year. The only thing I wouldn't do is add future picks to it. Rose would be my centerpiece, and I'd build around him using those picks.

The hard part is getting any other GM in the league to buy sliding down that far, and taking Granger, Williams, Diogu .... or whatever it took, but I'd certainly do it.

-- Steve --

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 06:55 PM
Rose is a score first, second and third point guard. They do have those in the NBA.


Obviously there are score first point guards, but how many can you name that win championhips?

The theory here being that when a point guard is looking to score instead of distribute, it changes the game up a bit. I remember Magic Johnson back in the 80's and early 90's saying that when he scored in the 20's or more, the Lakers often lost.

Kegboy
04-06-2008, 07:00 PM
God yes I would. After watching him destroy Collison and Westbrook last night, I'd give anything on our piece of **** roster for him, and I'd take whatever dead weight contracts they forced on us in return.

Kegboy
04-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Obviously there are score first point guards, but how many can you name that win championhips?

The theory here being that when a point guard is looking to score instead of distribute, it changes the game up a bit. I remember Magic Johnson back in the 80's and early 90's saying that when he scored in the 20's or more, the Lakers often lost.

Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups

Kstat
04-06-2008, 07:05 PM
Obviously there are score first point guards, but how many can you name that win championhips?

The theory here being that when a point guard is looking to score instead of distribute, it changes the game up a bit. I remember Magic Johnson back in the 80's and early 90's saying that when he scored in the 20's or more, the Lakers often lost.

That's all true, but you'd rather have him on your roster than nothing at all.

It isn't like we're discussing dealing a superstar for Rose. We're talking Granger and the 11th pick, which would be grand larceny if some team agreed to it.

BTW, in both of Magic's MVP seasons, he averaged over 22+ ppg.

Kofi
04-06-2008, 07:26 PM
Obviously there are score first point guards, but how many can you name that win championhips?

The theory here being that when a point guard is looking to score instead of distribute, it changes the game up a bit. I remember Magic Johnson back in the 80's and early 90's saying that when he scored in the 20's or more, the Lakers often lost.

Depends on what your definition of score-first point guard is.

More than twice as many ppg as apg?

Using that criteria, the last time a non-score-first starting point guard won the championship was Avery Johnson with the Spurs back in 1999.

2007 Tony Parker - 18.6 ppg, 5.5 apg
2006 Jason Williams - 12.3 ppg, 4.9 apg
2005 Tony Parker - 16.6 ppg, 6.1 apg
2004 Chaunce Billups - 16.9 ppg, 5.7 apg
2003 Tony Parker - 15.5 ppg, 5.3 apg
2002 Derek Fisher/Lindsey Hunter - 17 ppg, 4.2 apg (combined)
2001 Ron Harper - 6.5 ppg, 2.4 apg
2000 Ron Harper - 7 ppg, 3.4 apg
1999 Avery Johnson - 9.7 ppg, 7.4 apg

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 07:30 PM
Tony Parker
Chauncey Billups

I'll try to dig out; yes you've got two pretty good examples there.

I guess when I think of score first, pass later types of PGs, I think moreso of guys like AI, Marbury, Tim Hardaway, Penny Hardaway, and even Tracy McGrady and Penny Hardaway who was originally billed as a PG; I think in 94 Penny was the starting PG against us. The only one of the above players I would want is AI. I think the others are subraction by addition.

So I think that Chauncey Billups and Parker look for there pass about, about equally as much as they look for their shots. That could be a stretch, but I think those two are much more pass oriented than the afore mentioned "villains", if you will.

So let me ask this - who would you guys consider or compare this Rose kid to, even if it isn't someone mentioned above?


Question #2, can the kid play off guard?

Kstat
04-06-2008, 07:35 PM
So let me ask this - who would you guys consider or compare this Rose kid to, even if it isn't someone mentioned above?

Gilbert Arenas, no question.





Question #2, can the kid play off guard

Yes, but I would not recommend it. He needs to have the ball in his hands.

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 07:39 PM
Agh. I don't watch the wiz enough, in fact I only read about games afterwards; don't you think that Arenas gums up the offense - too many guys standing around watching Arenas and not enough ball movement?

Again, I don't know but I'm not sure I want an Arenas type player.

He is a superstar, don't get me wrong, and he does sell tickets. And he can put the team on his back. But can he win a championship?

Maybe I'd want Gilbert if he was a means to an end, but I don't know. He's not my favorite player.

Kstat
04-06-2008, 07:42 PM
Agh. I don't watch the wiz enough, in fact I only read about games afterwards; don't you think that Arenas gums up the offense - too many guys standing around watching Arenas and not enough ball movement?

Again, I don't know but I'm not sure I want an Arenas type player.

He is a superstar, don't get me wrong, and he does sell tickets. And he can put the team on his back. But can he win a championship?

Again, who on the pacers IS going to win them a championship?

If you have a chance to get a guard that could get you 27 and 5 in his prime, you do it.

Pacersfan46
04-06-2008, 07:44 PM
Gilbert Arenas, no question.

I don't know, I'd say Wade more than Arenas. Maybe it's an attitude and the way he carries himself reminds me of Wade more .... but either way I think he's going to be a great player.

-- Steve --

Kaufman
04-06-2008, 07:46 PM
From Wikipedia, the official source of NBA basketball information:

In the Washington, D.C. area, "Gilbertology" is the name given to Arenas's unorthodox behavior on and off the court, first coined by Wizards head coach Eddie Jordan. After being criticized for shooting too much as a point guard, Arenas would play games nearly without shooting at all, and then score at will the next game.

Shade
04-06-2008, 07:58 PM
God yes I would. After watching him destroy Collison and Westbrook last night, I'd give anything on our piece of **** roster for him, and I'd take whatever dead weight contracts they forced on us in return.

So far, Rose has proven to be far better than Augustin as well. He's far and away the best PG in this draft.

Ownagedood
04-06-2008, 08:25 PM
I just did the mock draft..Only took me 7 times to get the Pacers as the #1 pick. And of course, we took Rose.

Kofi
04-06-2008, 08:31 PM
I still think Beasley goes #1. People are so caught up in Rose and Memphis' success, that they're forgetting just how dominate Beasley was this season.

Will Galen
04-06-2008, 08:38 PM
I just did the mock draft..Only took me 7 times to get the Pacers as the #1 pick. And of course, we took Rose.

Earlier today I wanted to see if Ford had changed who we were getting and it took 149 try's for the Pacers to move up. They got #2 and picked Rose.

I didn't do it anymore because it was a big waste of time. Well . . . I knew that going in but it was wasting more time than I wanted to waste.

We won't move up, and we won't get a second pick in the 1st round. I'm just hoping we get a good point in the draft. Westbrook I hope, but it will probably be Augustine.

Kstat
04-06-2008, 08:47 PM
Derrick Rose probably goes #1 unless memphis wins the #1 pick.

New Jersey is a possibility too, but I still think they'd take Rose.

Ownagedood
04-06-2008, 08:55 PM
I still think Beasley goes #1. People are so caught up in Rose and Memphis' success, that they're forgetting just how dominate Beasley was this season.
Ya, he is really good.. People are just starting to realize that a good PG is better then a good SF.. SF's are easiest to come by with skill.. So why not take the PG? Unless you already are set a PG.

Shade
04-06-2008, 08:56 PM
Derrick Rose probably goes #1 unless memphis wins the #1 pick.

That's kind of ironic. :laugh:

Pacersfan46
04-06-2008, 08:58 PM
Derrick Rose probably goes #1 unless memphis wins the #1 pick.

New Jersey is a possibility too, but I still think they'd take Rose.

Why would you take Rose over Beasley? I don't believe that'll happen at all, but only time will tell.

-- Steve --

Kstat
04-06-2008, 08:58 PM
It's really hard to see them taking Rose, unless they plan on dealing mike conley.

Kstat
04-06-2008, 08:58 PM
Why would you take Rose over Beasley? I don't believe that'll happen at all, but only time will tell.

-- Steve --

Look at the teams in the draft lottery. PG is a serious need to almost all of them.

Pacersfan46
04-06-2008, 09:06 PM
Look at the teams in the draft lottery. PG is a serious need to almost all of them.

That's true, but it's so rare that a team takes a PG at #1.

The last real PG taken number one was Magic Johnson, unless you count Allen Iverson as a real PG.

It'll be interested, but for whatever reason teams keep passing on PG's in the draft. I wouldn't blame a team for going either way, myself.

-- Steve --

Kstat
04-06-2008, 09:10 PM
Jay Williams would have gone #1 had Yao Ming not declared in 2002.

Pacersfan46
04-06-2008, 09:20 PM
That's impossible to say for certain, but either way, I think the point (no pun intended) still stands.

-- Steve --

rexnom
04-06-2008, 09:25 PM
Derrick Rose would save basketball in Indiana. Are we sure that Memphis wouldn't trade that number one pick and Brian Cardinal for something like Ike, Danny, Shawne, and our pick?

Kstat
04-06-2008, 09:30 PM
Derrick Rose would save basketball in Indiana. Are we sure that Memphis wouldn't trade that number one pick and Brian Cardinal for something like Ike, Danny, Shawne, and our pick?

:laugh: not a chance in hell.

If they got the #1, they'd take beasley unless they got offered something like Al Jefferson or Chris Paul, or Kevin Durant, some other young stud.

granger would move the pacers up 5-6 spots in the draft. he would not move them up 9-10.

rexnom
04-06-2008, 09:52 PM
:laugh: not a chance in hell.

If they got the #1, they'd take beasley unless they got offered something like Al Jefferson or Chris Paul, or Kevin Durant, some other young stud.

granger would move the pacers up 5-6 spots in the draft. he would not move them up 9-10.
Wait, you're saying that we couldn't trick the grizzlies into a quantity for quality for trade? ;)