PDA

View Full Version : Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.



McKeyFan
04-20-2008, 10:46 PM
The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.

SoupIsGood
04-20-2008, 10:52 PM
We would have to be getting one hell of a player to justify trading Danny over Dun... and more than likely, that "one hell of a player" ain't for sale. If we traded Danny we'd probably be making a poor move.

I can see how you might "trust" Dun's shot more, but Danny's has a better history of going in at a good %.

Honestly I think we should try to trade Dun because he just had what will probably be the best year of his career. We could possibly get something of value for him.

Sollozzo
04-20-2008, 10:55 PM
I like them both. But it's hard to be a good team if your two best players are wing players. We have to get some sort of post player or point guard, and it could very well cost one of them. Granger is the obvious choice to keep as he has more upside, but of course he could net you more in a trade.

I'd be against trading Danny unless it was for a very sweet deal that brought a PG/Post player in. Then it would be very very hard to say no, especially given how good of a year Dunleavy had for us this season.

Ownagedood
04-20-2008, 10:55 PM
..And I would take Granger and wins. :D

DGPR
04-20-2008, 10:56 PM
Danny's a lifer with the Pacers I'm hoping.

Young
04-20-2008, 10:59 PM
I don't see us getting rid of either.

My question with them being our 2 and 3 is can we be good enough on defense with those two starting? It would be a question to be answered down the road.

Right now I am not worried about it. We are not close to being a team that competes for a championship and not until then would I really worry about trading Mike or Danny for that matter.

We have a long ways to go. Really we don't even know who our go to guy is right now or hell who has a future with this team (Williams, Diogu).

I think we have another 2-3 years of Mike and Danny before we really considering moving one of the other.

rexnom
04-20-2008, 11:00 PM
How much better is Mike going to get?

How much better is Danny going to get? does anyone feel like he's hit his ceiling?

I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.

Hicks
04-20-2008, 11:52 PM
I don't see it. Trading Danny won't make us better because everyone knows what he is and what he isn't (within a spectrum of possibility). We won't get a franchise player for someone who figures to be a 2nd-to-the-franchise player.

granger33
04-21-2008, 12:05 AM
If you haven't read what O'Brien and Bird have said..they wouldnt give up Granger for anyone.

CableKC
04-21-2008, 12:20 AM
I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.
This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.

Midcoasted
04-21-2008, 12:23 AM
The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.

I say keep both as long as we can now. Upgrade our 1 and 5 like Ive been screaming all along, and we are set for another run. Im even for signing Granger to a shorter deal if he skyrockets, if possible. Then he is still very movable if we dont feel we could pay him that much.

Midcoasted
04-21-2008, 12:35 AM
This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.


I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

Order of importance.

#1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.

Dr. Goldfoot
04-21-2008, 01:19 AM
Is Granger even going to want to re-sign with the Pacers? If I was in charge the majority of you would be calling for my head 'cause I'd package them together and go after a a real star player.

PaceBalls
04-21-2008, 01:22 AM
Yeah, I've been thinking about it, and now is the time to trade Mike, he is never gonna have this much value again.

I'm amazed anyone would want to keep Mike over Danny... In pretty much all aspects, potential talent, shooting and defense, Danny is better. Mike might have an edge in craftiness, but that doesn't make up for his horrible defense...

Maybe we can keep both, but I would rather have a better defender out there than Mike.

You don't trade Danny, ever... He is as close to Reggie Miller as we are ever gonna get again.

CableKC
04-21-2008, 01:37 AM
I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

Order of importance.

#1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.
TBird's Perimeter Defender thread is much better at explaining why I think we need a perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot.

I agree that getting a better PG and Center is as important....but realistically.....getting a perimeter defender at the SG spot is much easier then acquiring the type of PG or Center that I think we would need to make a difference on this team. Getting a defensive minded perimeter defender to help limit the sheer # of 3pt shots made against us ( that ends up making scrubs put up All-Star #s against us ) would go a LONG way to improving the defense of this team. Getting a stronger perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot isn't going to transform us into a top-notch Defensive team but it's a cheap and simple way to make a decent impact to this team with the paper-thin perimeter defense that we have.

Pacers4Life
04-21-2008, 01:55 AM
points 1 and 2, i don't think i could possibly disagree more. while im not one to judge someones jump shot per se (they're in the NBA for a reason, it obviously works) but maybe you haven't noticed Mike pretty much makes a V with his legs during his follow through. I love him and he's good as hell, but its a gross shot.
and as for point 2, while i think neither of them are great at it, i think that simply because Danny is more athletic that hes better at it. He's just going to continue to get better and better at it whereas what Mike does currently is exactly what we will continue to get. (again not complaining, i love mikes drives)
my $0.2

skyfire
04-21-2008, 02:02 AM
I think Granger is pretty close to untouchable unless you get a deal that you just cant refuse. I think Mike is pretty close to his peak, where as Granger will likely improve for the next 2-3 seasons before his peak even starts.

I would listen to offers for Mike, but unless you are going to get an above average starting PG or C you'd probably start the new season with those two at the swing positions.

andreialta
04-21-2008, 02:15 AM
i still think Mike isn't done improving yet at all. neither is Danny. both of them go well with each other. i think other positions are what we need to fill. Mike is such a late bloomer but Danny isn't.

we need a off the bench defensive stopper.

Kofi
04-21-2008, 04:46 AM
Let's take a poll....

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7697/pacmaniv3.jpg

Oops..wrong chart. :blush:

duke dynamite
04-21-2008, 04:54 AM
I would keep both of them. They can only get better. That's the bottom line. Sorry I'm not going into detail...

Kofi
04-21-2008, 05:02 AM
Our perimeter defense says Dunleavy is the one to go.

Evan_The_Dude
04-21-2008, 08:54 AM
Call Danny's 40% beyond the arc streaky, say we don't want to pay him, overlook the fact that he's one of the only defenders we have, but I just have one question.

In the three most important games of this season, who stepped up the most?

Danny.

Dunleavy played a part but when it came down to it, Danny took over. He did something that Jermaine has been talking about doing since Reggie said it was Jermaine's team. The only thing is that Danny never talked about it, he just went out and did it. Next season Danny is our leader. Bird knows it, O'Brien knows it, Jermaine knows it, and Danny knows it.

I'd like to keep both Danny and Mike around, but if I had to choose, we'd be flat out stupid to let Danny go unless it gives us a ridiculously sweet deal in return.

McKeyFan
04-21-2008, 10:43 AM
Call Danny's 40% beyond the arc streaky, say we don't want to pay him, overlook the fact that he's one of the only defenders we have, but I just have one question.

In the three most important games of this season, who stepped up the most?

Danny.

Dunleavy played a part but when it came down to it, Danny took over. He did something that Jermaine has been talking about doing since Reggie said it was Jermaine's team.

I agree there. Danny does have the potential to be clutch down the stretch. I can see him being a better go-to guy than Dunleavey. However, he doesn't have the skills yet to really pull it off. But he's a hard worker and could possibly get there.

Another factor in this overall question: I think Dun's game may be more enduring. Danny depends more on athleticism, Dun more on finesse. I can see Dun being effective when he's 38. That being the case, the age issue may be a wash between the two players.

Like I said at the beginning, I want to keep both. I just wanted to give Dun some love.

Actually, I'm intrigued by the idea of two very unselfish players like Danny and Dun working together and building a true team. It sure provides an interesting contrast to the days of JO and Ron.

Rajah Brown
04-21-2008, 11:05 AM
The bottom line is that neither Granger or Duns are capable of being
THE go-to guy on an elite team. Duns has the higher Bball-IQ and
feel for the game while DG is a superior (though only average for
an NBA wing, which will ultimately limit his upside no matter how
much he works on his skill-set) athlete. But neither will ever be
the guy to fill that marquee role.

Kegboy
04-21-2008, 11:12 AM
I have no problem getting rid of either one. However, we must remember that Danny is up for his extension, so we're talking $50-60M easy. That's another $10M a year, which means $20M for two guys who play the same position.

However, that extension doesn't kick in until next year and Danny is still under his rookie contract. So I'd look at it this way. If Player X makes $10-12M a year, we could trade Mike for him. Or, we could trade Danny+Troy for him. Yes, Danny has the bigger upside, but dropping that much salary is sure enticing.

Hicks
04-21-2008, 11:25 AM
I'm going to start a thread about that last part.....

MyFavMartin
04-21-2008, 11:29 AM
danny plays defense. defense wins championships.... we keep danny.

Oneal07
04-21-2008, 12:54 PM
We have em both, so why not keep em both

Jonathan
04-21-2008, 12:57 PM
The Pacers would/should trade Danny Granger if another team is willing to take on the contracts of both Murphy & Tinsley.

naptownmenace
04-21-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm amazed anyone would want to keep Mike over Danny... In pretty much all aspects, potential talent, shooting and defense, Danny is better. Mike might have an edge in craftiness, but that doesn't make up for his horrible defense...

Maybe we can keep both, but I would rather have a better defender out there than Mike.

You don't trade Danny, ever... He is as close to Reggie Miller as we are ever gonna get again.

DITTO!

Granger is a sure fire All-Star next year and will become the Pacers next franchise player. He's improved each season he's been here and he hasn't hit the ceiling on his potential yet. I think that next year, he'll be even better.


With that said, I expect the Pacers to keep both Mike and Danny together for awhile. They work very well together and give the Pacers flexibility on offense. I have no problem with keeping them both and I think that's the right thing to do. They'll try to fill in the gaps through the draft and hope that JO will return healthy next year.

Since86
04-21-2008, 01:59 PM
If you haven't read what O'Brien and Bird have said..they wouldnt give up Granger for anyone.

I don't care what they say. If Orlando called and wanted to swap Danny and Dwight Howard, you can bet your *** LB would do it.

I could make a list with quite a few names, but he's not anywhere near being untouchable. I'm not saying it's realistic that any of those guys would be available but everyone on this roster has a price.

Los Angeles
04-21-2008, 02:13 PM
Wait ... why is this an either/or?

Is there some kind of consensus that one of them MUST go? You have to convince me of that before we talk about which one of them is more valuable.

dohman
04-21-2008, 02:34 PM
I think we proved this year that we can play both at the same time. Get a natural SG for backup like Rush and start shopping for a REAL PG.

Since86
04-21-2008, 03:18 PM
I honestly don't think the wing defense is all that big of a problem.

It starts with the PG, and when you don't have a defender who can slow the opposing PG down, you're going to run into trouble no matter how good your 2 and 3 defenders are.

Tinsley won't do it, TD can't do it, Quis can't do anything right on the other side of the halfcourt line to get mins at the point, Flip is gone, and who really cares about Owens.

It's asking a lot out of wings to play help side for a PG who is always at risk to get beat off the dribble, but be good enough to rotate back to their man.

Get a PG capable of running both ends of the floor, and you will see a dramatic rise in the defense.

JOB's whole defensive scheme is about stopping the ball off the dribble, and when the other team can get into the lane without making a pass, it really makes it difficult to play it the right way.

Your defense starts at the top, the top is the PG.

Danny is more than capable of handling the other teams best wing player. No, he's not going to shut down LeBron, or Kobe, or DWade or those type of players, but in reality, what defender does?

Good offense will always beat good defense, and twice on the weekends. The rules are setup that way, and it's always harder to react that just act, so defense is made to be harder than offense.

Dunleavy is more than serviceable as your 3rd wing player. His defensive shortcomings are just magnified because of the added pressure put on but not having a PG capable of playing good D.

mrknowname
04-21-2008, 03:45 PM
I honestly don't think the wing defense is all that big of a problem.

It starts with the PG, and when you don't have a defender who can slow the opposing PG down, you're going to run into trouble no matter how good your 2 and 3 defenders are.

Tinsley won't do it, TD can't do it, Quis can't do anything right on the other side of the halfcourt line to get mins at the point, Flip is gone, and who really cares about Owens.

It's asking a lot out of wings to play help side for a PG who is always at risk to get beat off the dribble, but be good enough to rotate back to their man.

Get a PG capable of running both ends of the floor, and you will see a dramatic rise in the defense.

JOB's whole defensive scheme is about stopping the ball off the dribble, and when the other team can get into the lane without making a pass, it really makes it difficult to play it the right way.

Your defense starts at the top, the top is the PG.

Danny is more than capable of handling the other teams best wing player. No, he's not going to shut down LeBron, or Kobe, or DWade or those type of players, but in reality, what defender does?

Good offense will always beat good defense, and twice on the weekends. The rules are setup that way, and it's always harder to react that just act, so defense is made to be harder than offense.

Dunleavy is more than serviceable as your 3rd wing player. His defensive shortcomings are just magnified because of the added pressure put on but not having a PG capable of playing good D.

really???? spurs and pistons success says different. even boston this year

Kegboy
04-21-2008, 03:51 PM
really???? spurs and pistons success says different. even boston this year

Yes, in terms of team defense, but a great defender isn't going to slow down a great scorer on a one-on-one basis.

idioteque
04-21-2008, 04:01 PM
When building a team it is important to consider what a player's role would be on a contending team, because that alone determines whether the player should be shipped or not.

Danny Granger could start on a lot of contending teams. Mike Dunleavy, on the other hand, is a 6th or 7th man on a contending team.

We can build a good team in Indiana without getting rid of Danny. I would be excited if we were able to create some sort of deal that would involve Dunleavy and Hinrich, which would give us a good starting PG. You've then got Marquis Daniels' expiring deal and our draft pick as possible chips to use during the offseason to improve the team. If we could somehow free up the money to sign Quinton Ross as well (maybe trade the Quis contract in a S&T), things could get interesting.

The point of this all is that this team does have some, albiet a limited amount, of players we can move this offseason to make the team better while keeping Granger.

If you look at the best teams in the East, I like our chances of competing with Boston and Detroit if we have a decent defender in Danny and a lockdown defender in Ross guarding Hamilton/Prince or Allen/Pierce than I do with Dunleavy and someone else, unless that someone else was a real superstar.

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 04:14 PM
The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.
1) oh really? You were liking Mike's outside shot better last year, or even the year before?

2) Mike's ability to create offense is summed up by him having lower assists than Stephan Jackson. This is not a strength area, it's fool's gold.

4) Granger can bring us much, much more on the floor too. Dun is probably not a #2 guy due to his defense. And Danny isn't bringing you a #1 guy, not at least that will be a #1 guy while Dun is still around.

5) With Danny you have the choice to pay him or not. How is he going to get a larger deal than Dunleavy has going the next few years?

In fact 4 & 5 answer this issue themselves. He would fetch more in trade and cost more on a resign because he is better. This team has a lack of talent. You don't fix that by moving your best piece IF HE'S YOUNG. Sure if he was 35 you'd deal him because he wouldn't be around for the rebuild finish. But the young talent is what you build around, not what you deal away.


Danny has been on more playoff squads than Dunleavy. Think about that. I realize it's all just pure luck, including last year when Mike's old team went from out of the playoffs to in and beat the #1 seed, while his new team went from in the playoffs to out and a horrible W-L record.

If they dealt Granger for say JRich just for goofs, and the Pacers went from 20-20 to 50-30 (30-10) I'd certainly be willing to agree that Danny might have been a factor.



Yes, in terms of team defense, but a great defender isn't going to slow down a great scorer on a one-on-one basis.
Of course he is, that's the whole point of TEAM defense. Not stopping a guy outright, but forcing him to choose the tougher shot, the weaker rebounding position, the places on the floor that you want him to be and the timing of plays that you want him to have.

People see success despite defense and just take this "can't be stopped" attitude about the NBA. Doesn't work that way. It's more like hitting where great pitching "wins" most of the time, maybe 70% in fact. The key is SLOWING down pitchers just enough to adjust the success from 27% to 32%, that's enough to win a game.

So it goes with the NBA. If Mike let's a guy into the lane easy and it makes things too quick for Foster to come over and help in time then you get an And-1 and a Foster foul.

But slow that guy just enough and the help gets there. Now maybe you get a charge, a less successful shot attempt (say down from 85% to 45%), or a forced pass. Sure that next guy might dunk on the dish, but he also might fumble the pass, and in the meantime more help defenders have extra time to get there.


We are talking about working the threshold and that's an ultra sensitive area.* What seems like just a minor difference can have a major impact.














* that's what she said

Naptown_Seth
04-21-2008, 04:23 PM
I think we proved this year that we can play both at the same time. Get a natural SG for backup like Rush and start shopping for a REAL PG.
They also proved this year that they can have one of the worst defenses in the NBA this year. What's your point?

Mine is that "they can play together" is pretty subjective. Hey, Troy and Mike didn't trip over each other so I guess they can play together too. Considering the low assist totals of both Danny and Mike I'd say that they didn't really show some magical symbiosis.

And from watching I'd say that most of the time it was just one or the other somewhat taking over and getting their own shot.

Since86
04-21-2008, 04:35 PM
2) Mike's ability to create offense is summed up by him having lower assists than Stephan Jackson. This is not a strength area, it's fool's gold.


Jackson's career average is 2.8 apg. Yes he did average 4.1 this year, but it's called an average for a reason.

Mike's career averae is 2.7 apg. Yes he did average 3.5 this year, but it's called an average for a reason.

Jackson's to's/game? 2.7 this year, 2.32 for his career.
Mikes? 2.32 this year, 1.7 for his career.

You try to make it seem like Mike isn't even close to having Jackson's ability to find the open man, or even take care of the ball, when in fact their assist numbers are almost identical and Mike's to's/g is 0.5 better.

Not to mention that Mike is a career 44.5% shooter and Jack is 41.8%.


Mike makes a pass that leads directly to a score just as often as Stephen, doesn't turn the ball over as much, and when he shoots he averages more makes.

I would take Mike over Stephen anyday of the week, over Jackson, and that's not even taking into account the differences in the attitudes.

Yes, Jackson is hand over heels better on the defensive end, when he's not b!tching at the refs and actually wants to play defense.

mrknowname
04-21-2008, 04:54 PM
When building a team it is important to consider what a player's role would be on a contending team, because that alone determines whether the player should be shipped or not.

Danny Granger could start on a lot of contending teams. Mike Dunleavy, on the other hand, is a 6th or 7th man on a contending team.

We can build a good team in Indiana without getting rid of Danny. I would be excited if we were able to create some sort of deal that would involve Dunleavy and Hinrich, which would give us a good starting PG. You've then got Marquis Daniels' expiring deal and our draft pick as possible chips to use during the offseason to improve the team. If we could somehow free up the money to sign Quinton Ross as well (maybe trade the Quis contract in a S&T), things could get interesting.

The point of this all is that this team does have some, albiet a limited amount, of players we can move this offseason to make the team better while keeping Granger.

If you look at the best teams in the East, I like our chances of competing with Boston and Detroit if we have a decent defender in Danny and a lockdown defender in Ross guarding Hamilton/Prince or Allen/Pierce than I do with Dunleavy and someone else, unless that someone else was a real superstar.

i like how this man thinks. i hope we can trade Daniels for Ross in a S&T too

however i doubt bulls do dunleavy for hinrich, they don't need any more SF's.

BlueNGold
04-21-2008, 08:10 PM
Call Danny's 40% beyond the arc streaky, say we don't want to pay him, overlook the fact that he's one of the only defenders we have, but I just have one question.

In the three most important games of this season, who stepped up the most?

Danny.

Dunleavy played a part but when it came down to it, Danny took over. He did something that Jermaine has been talking about doing since Reggie said it was Jermaine's team. The only thing is that Danny never talked about it, he just went out and did it. Next season Danny is our leader. Bird knows it, O'Brien knows it, Jermaine knows it, and Danny knows it.

I'd like to keep both Danny and Mike around, but if I had to choose, we'd be flat out stupid to let Danny go unless it gives us a ridiculously sweet deal in return.

Best post in this thread. The best part of this post is: "The only thing is that Danny never talked about it, he just went out and did it."

Granger is bringing aggression and is showing some signs of a killer instinct. He's hardly Reggie Miller at this point, but he's much closer to that than MDJ....and I like Mike....so I don't want to knock him. Mike's good enough to start at SF on a contender IMO.

Taterhead
04-22-2008, 09:02 AM
I have no problem getting rid of either one. However, we must remember that Danny is up for his extension, so we're talking $50-60M easy. That's another $10M a year, which means $20M for two guys who play the same position.

However, that extension doesn't kick in until next year and Danny is still under his rookie contract. So I'd look at it this way. If Player X makes $10-12M a year, we could trade Mike for him. Or, we could trade Danny+Troy for him. Yes, Danny has the bigger upside, but dropping that much salary is sure enticing.

That's exactly my point on this issue. And I think you are on the low end with your 10 million a year estimate. I think he will get more than that.

I bet if Granger does make the all star team next season he will command a max deal, or atleast very close to it. We have got to stop overpaying to keep good talent. We need great talent.

If you put Granger next to a great number 1 option, he can be a great number 2, but how are we going to land a great number 1 without using Danny to get him?

Evan_The_Dude
04-22-2008, 11:28 AM
If you put Granger next to a great number 1 option, he can be a great number 2, but how are we going to land a great number 1 without using Danny to get him?

What did the Lakers do to get Pau Gasol? In this league, anything is possible.

Infinite MAN_force
04-22-2008, 11:30 AM
Wait ... why is this an either/or?

Is there some kind of consensus that one of them MUST go? You have to convince me of that before we talk about which one of them is more valuable.


I sort of think this is rediculous. Based on what Bird is saying if there is one thing that we can feel pretty sure about its that Danny and Mike will be here next year. Sorry, Chris Paul or Dwight Howard are not going to be offered for Danny, he is staying put.

I still say an athletic combo gaurd who plays great D at the 1 would balance out our wings perfectly... Westbrook anyone? Maybe Randy Foye if he could be had. Thats what would compliment the two perfectly. The nice thing about Dunleavy is he could take on the role of playmaker in a halfcourt set because of his passing skills.

Infinite MAN_force
04-22-2008, 11:34 AM
That's exactly my point on this issue. And I think you are on the low end with your 10 million a year estimate. I think he will get more than that.

I bet if Granger does make the all star team next season he will command a max deal, or atleast very close to it. We have got to stop overpaying to keep good talent. We need great talent.

If you put Granger next to a great number 1 option, he can be a great number 2, but how are we going to land a great number 1 without using Danny to get him?

sometimes I think people get too hung up on this #1, #2, stuff. Even though Reggie was our "star" in the old days, I always felt the team had a very balanced attack. I don't think Detroit runs this way either, its a balanced unselfish style. Put the right mix of players together with the right contrasting skillsets and see what happens... I also don't think Danny is done improving and want to see where his ceiling truly is.

naptownmenace
04-22-2008, 12:05 PM
Yes, in terms of team defense, but a great defender isn't going to slow down a great scorer on a one-on-one basis.

I have to disagree. A great defender will slow down a great scorer on a one-on-one basis if that great defender is also a good scorer.

Tayshaun Prince in the 2004 Finals slowed down a great scorer in Kobe Bryant.

Ron Artest slowed down Paul Pierce in the 2004 first round playoffs.

Hakeem Olajuwon slowed down David Robinson (majorly) in the 1995 playoffs.


It doesn't happen often but it can and has happened before.

Naptown_Seth
04-22-2008, 12:26 PM
Jackson's career average is 2.8 apg. Yes he did average 4.1 this year, but it's called an average for a reason.

Mike's career averae is 2.7 apg. Yes he did average 3.5 this year, but it's called an average for a reason.

Jackson's to's/game? 2.7 this year, 2.32 for his career.
Mikes? 2.32 this year, 1.7 for his career.

You try to make it seem like Mike isn't even close to having Jackson's ability to find the open man, or even take care of the ball, when in fact their assist numbers are almost identical and Mike's to's/g is 0.5 better.

Not to mention that Mike is a career 44.5% shooter and Jack is 41.8%.


Mike makes a pass that leads directly to a score just as often as Stephen, doesn't turn the ball over as much, and when he shoots he averages more makes.

I would take Mike over Stephen anyday of the week, over Jackson, and that's not even taking into account the differences in the attitudes.

Yes, Jackson is hand over heels better on the defensive end, when he's not b!tching at the refs and actually wants to play defense.
It's fun to mix points, makes it easier to win. But winning the debate with me about who turns the ball over more is a STRAWMAN. What's next, you prove to me that I'm wrong for saying puppies can fly? I'm a lot more civil when people are civil with me.

My point is that Jack was not considered a "facilitator", but LAST YEAR on the SAME ROSTERS (both with GS or both with IND) it was Jackson with slightly more assists. So Mike as a facilitator for the offense of others is a myth.

People with a personal issue with Jackson or for Dun are naturally going to have an issue with hearing this. That doesn't make the point invalid. In fact that's the very reason I used the example.


And just how did you prove my point about assists wrong by saying "its called an average for a reason" when the averages all back Jack slightly? Pretty strange logic, then you jumped tracks into the undebated TO situation.

I said create offense. I can stand in the corner and hold a ball for 22 seconds, then hand it to JO and let him take the shot clock hit. No turnovers...not a lot of offense created either. Protecting the possession is important too, but it's a different skill. Jack does not protect his dribble well. Who has EVER said different? Not even ajbry or I'd bet Jackson.

Since86
04-22-2008, 12:52 PM
You always try to compare the two and make it seem like Jackson is head over heels better than Mike.

As far as having an issue with Jackson, the biggest issue around here is your constant harping about him when Mike is brought into the discussion.

The deal is over, it will never be reversed no matter how often you want to compare them. These posts are in no way uncivil. Do you constantly compare the two players? Yes. Do you constantly make it seem like we got the short end of the stick between the two? Yes. It's not being uncivil calling someone out for something they always do when the discussion comes up.

As far as you saying that Mike isn't a creator for the offense, how so? The only player's who averaged more assists were Tinsley and Travis, and TD averaged 3.8 per game only 0.3 more than Mike.

I think the consensus around here is that Travis is great with the ball and making decisions with it. That he sets up the offense wonderfully. Someone who averages 0.3 assists less per game isn't even considered a creator? Okay.

I think it would be a safe assumption to say that Mike's average would be good as the #3 assist man on just about most teams throughout the league.

A creator on offense does multiple things. He makes assists, he takes care of the ball, he makes good decisions, and even takes good shots.

Not doing anyone of those things kills the offense, and Mike does all of them.

If you're saying that Mike stands in the corner and holds the ball for 22 secs, then hands it to JO for an assist and no TO, then say so. If not, then what's your point?

Infinite MAN_force
04-22-2008, 09:43 PM
They also proved this year that they can have one of the worst defenses in the NBA this year. What's your point?

Mine is that "they can play together" is pretty subjective. Hey, Troy and Mike didn't trip over each other so I guess they can play together too. Considering the low assist totals of both Danny and Mike I'd say that they didn't really show some magical symbiosis.

And from watching I'd say that most of the time it was just one or the other somewhat taking over and getting their own shot.


since when is 3.5 assists a game bad playmaking numbers for a forward? thats pretty damn good actually.

It is like the tayshaun prince thing, forget the stats... I have watched games where Mike consistently made great plays to set up his teammates. He has the ability for sure. I saw it with my own eyes.

I just don't understand why people are so gung-ho to ship this dude out of town after he gave us the best year of his career. We have gotten a lot of production out of our two wing players and yet the debate is "which one are we gonna get rid of??". Lets fix our real problems first... When we have a Point gaurd who can defend his spot and some sort of defensive presence in the paint... THEN we can evaluate the situation on the wing. Trading one of your two most productive players for a defense oriented role player (Mike will not get you any sort of an elite player folks) is stupid.

A defensive oriented wing player can be signed in free agency for the MLE probably. No reason to waste dunleavy in a trade. For all the talk, Mike is still more valuable to us on the floor than in a trade IMO.

Hicks
04-22-2008, 09:45 PM
I'm "gung-ho to ship this dude out of town" because I want to strike while the iron is hot. I don't see his on-court (money's another thing) value getting higher, and if you could get a guy in return who's a better defender than Danny Granger, that could do great things for us.

Infinite MAN_force
04-22-2008, 10:10 PM
I really don't think Mike is going to have great value in a trade. He won't get us any calibur player that we probably could not sign in free agency for a reasonable amount. He is not young (though he is not old either), he has a long contract, and he still has a reputation as a "bust". I don't think one good year will really change that perception for most GM's. He is also perfectly suited to the system that our current coach is trying to run.

I just feel that any deal involving mike will have us on the losing end from an on the court perspective. Hell, I am even open to the idea of aquiring a defensive wing and turning mike into our ginobli... but I think trading him is the wrong move. That guy can be aquired without getting rid of Mike.

idioteque
04-22-2008, 10:12 PM
For those who are pro-trading Mike (and I am one of those people if the circumstances are right) who do you think we could get for him?

I think that Danny and Mike are redundant, but I don't want to trade Mike if we don't get a solid player, as in a really good 6th man or a decent starter, in return.

mrknowname
04-22-2008, 10:22 PM
For those who are pro-trading Mike (and I am one of those people if the circumstances are right) who do you think we could get for him?

I think that Danny and Mike are redundant, but I don't want to trade Mike if we don't get a solid player, as in a really good 6th man or a decent starter, in return.

corey maggette??????

malik rose and renaldo balkman?????

foster/dunleavy for tj ford/nesterovic?????????????

steve blake and martell webster??????

Taterhead
04-23-2008, 02:47 AM
What did the Lakers do to get Pau Gasol? In this league, anything is possible.

I am still trying to figure that out.

But if we are going to rely on getting lucky enough to pull off one of the most lopsided trades in history, we are going to be waiting around awhile.

Pau is a natural number 2 anyways, IMO, which is why he is flourishing playing next to Kobe.

Taterhead
04-23-2008, 02:51 AM
sometimes I think people get too hung up on this #1, #2, stuff. Even though Reggie was our "star" in the old days, I always felt the team had a very balanced attack. I don't think Detroit runs this way either, its a balanced unselfish style. Put the right mix of players together with the right contrasting skillsets and see what happens... I also don't think Danny is done improving and want to see where his ceiling truly is.

But both Detroit and the Pacers had similiar make-ups. And on offense, Reggie was a true number 1 option. And on Detroit Rip Hamilton is a true number 1 option.

Reggie and Rip force other teams to play them first, and created opportunities for thier teammates to get easy looks.

Does Danny really do that? I don't think he does.

Every great team in history has had a player that does that to opposing teams.

Evan_The_Dude
04-23-2008, 08:33 AM
Pau is a natural number 2 anyways, IMO, which is why he is flourishing playing next to Kobe.

On most teams he's a #1.

Taterhead
04-25-2008, 09:46 AM
On most teams he's a #1.

On a team like Memphis yeah, but on any contender he's #2, JMHO.

BTW, love your moniker. I am a huge fan of DTD myself.

So what is your favorite album? Mine-Just Tryin' to Live

Rajah Brown
04-25-2008, 10:20 AM
There aren't very many true, #1's in the NBA. Even a guy like
Nowitzki, who's presumably viewed as a #1 by most, is proving
again that he really isn't one. To be a true #1, you have to be
able to both create your own 'open' shot at will and also make
everyone around you better.

That's a pretty short list.

Kofi
04-25-2008, 11:01 AM
Danny Granger vs Josh Howard, year 3...

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/736/dgvjhrw5.gif

Pretty similar across the board. Howard is a slightly better rebounder, Granger the more versatile defender due to his size (6'7" vs 6'9"). What separates the two is their offense. As the points-per-shot shows us, Granger is a far more effective scorer than Howard.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3703/19115497ev5.gif


Someone on RealGM suggested a three-way deal in which Dunleavy goes to Houston, Battier goes to L.A., and Odom comes here. The Rocket fans were into it. If we're desperate for defense, we could cut out L.A. and see if Houston was interested in Dunleavy for Battier, straight up 1-for-1 deal.

Swingman
04-25-2008, 11:16 AM
You guys are really caught up in 1s and 2s lol. It's like arguing whether a hot girls is a 9 or 10 :):box:

MyFavMartin
04-25-2008, 11:19 AM
Reggie and Rip force other teams to play them first, and created opportunities for thier teammates to get easy looks.

Does Danny really do that? I don't think he does.



Did Reggie do this in his 3rd year? I think Danny is progressing nicely and his ceiling is still projecting very well and could very easily develop into a #1 option.

Taterhead
04-25-2008, 08:19 PM
Did Reggie do this in his 3rd year? I think Danny is progressing nicely and his ceiling is still projecting very well and could very easily develop into a #1 option.

Reggie averaged 25 pts in the regular season, 27 pts in the playoff against the Detroit Pistons and thier defense in the middle of thier 2-peat, on 15 shots per game. He also made the all star team that year. So I guess the answer is yes.

Do you see Danny Granger putting the type of fear into the opposing teams that Reggie did? I don't.

BTW, this is not about me slamming Danny Granger, I think he's a damn good player.

Taterhead
04-25-2008, 08:20 PM
You guys are really caught up in 1s and 2s lol. It's like arguing whether a hot girls is a 9 or 10 :):box:

Who wants the 9 when the 10 walks in?

Taterhead
04-25-2008, 08:26 PM
There aren't very many true, #1's in the NBA. Even a guy like
Nowitzki, who's presumably viewed as a #1 by most, is proving
again that he really isn't one. To be a true #1, you have to be
able to both create your own 'open' shot at will and also make
everyone around you better.

That's a pretty short list.

I agree, Nowitzki is probably a number 2, and that is probably why Dallas hasn't won a title.

My point is I want this team to win a championship. I have seen this team come close a couple of times. I don't care about making the playoffs and ultimately losing our last game anymore. For Indiana not to have an NBA title in it's history is a travesty, IMO.

And you're right, it is a short list, so when you have a chance to get one, either in the draft or in free agency, you pull the trigger. Even if you have to deal a guy like Granger to do it.

Kofi
04-25-2008, 08:26 PM
Do you see Danny Granger putting the type of fear into the opposing teams that Reggie did? I don't.

BTW, this is not about me slamming Danny Granger, I think he's a damn good player.

With the way his offense is coming along, I can see it.

Taterhead
04-25-2008, 09:20 PM
With the way his offense is coming along, I can see it.

I could not disagree more.

In Reggie's third year, not only did he make the All Star team, he dropped 27 PPG on 58% FG and 64% 3FG against Joe Dumars, and the defending champion Bad Boys defense in a three game sweep, the Pistons again won the title that season. He took an average of less than 15 shots per game to do this.

I like Danny a lot, but he is not in Reggie's league.

Rajah Brown
04-25-2008, 09:41 PM
Taterhead-

I agree completely. The only goal that matters is winning an
NBA title. Everything that's done by Pacers mgmt should be
aimed solely in that direction.