PDA

View Full Version : Who has the stones to advocate a Granger Trade?



McKeyFan
10-15-2008, 03:34 PM
Four years ago, I called for trading Tinsley, and I got shellacked.

Today, I am calling for the trade of Danny Granger. You trade when someone's value is high (like when Tinsley's was much higher four years ago). You trade before you make a huge contract extension and lose your chance thereafter (like we did with Tinsley). You trade when you think the piece you get back is more likely to take the team to the next level than staying put.

We don't know about the last statement. But it's likely we could find someone pretty darn good. Granger is our best trading asset.

I like Granger. I like his all around ability. I like his commitment to defense. I like, especially, his attitude and character. (That would be the hardest thing to part with.)

But I don't like Granger as a franchise player. We need one, and I don't think Danny can live up to that. Neither do I think we can get one without trading Danny.

Personally, I like Dunleavey a lot. There has been much talk about Danny and Dun being redundant at the 3. I would be open to trading Dun instead, but don't think we get as much back.

I also like Dun better for the same reason I'm not in love with Granger. He just doesn't have dependable offensive skills, IMO. Dun can drive, has a midrange game, a great three, and passes quite well and really has a feel for the game.

Danny has superior defense. Other than that, he is less impressive to me than Dunleavey. I also think Danny's offense at this point lives and dies with the outside shot. What can he do if that fails him? Not too much.

As I've said in other posts, I am open to watching Granger improve and add offensive weapons, just as he has added a good three-ball to his arsenal. I'd like to watch that closely along with another key factor: where will the leadership come from this year? If Ford is bringing it, or someone else like Jack, Foster, or even hints of Rush or Hibbert, then I think trading Granger is a no-brainer. But if Granger clearly emerges as our team leader this year, trading him becomes much more iffy.

But if all the concerns and trends I listed prove true by the trade deadline, I say now is the time to make a move that brings us back really high value . . . BEFORE we lock into something we end up regretting, once again, for many years to come.

Go Pacers.

themayhem87
10-15-2008, 03:39 PM
no way granger gets traded...i think a dunleavy trade would be much more likely

Shade
10-15-2008, 03:44 PM
No. Not only because of his on-court abilities, but because his personality is something we sorely need right now.

BillS
10-15-2008, 03:50 PM
Satan has clouded your reason. Step away from the #9 jersey and you will be forgiven.

In other words ... hwhut?

I don't see anyone out there we could get for Granger that is as valuable as Granger to this franchise.

I've never advocated "you gotta trade your best player as soon as he's worth something otherwise you get nothing." When do you keep a good player in hopes of pairing him with another good player? When do you use him?

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 03:56 PM
1...2...3...not it!

No way no how does Granger wear another team's uniform.

Phildog
10-15-2008, 03:57 PM
I'd advocate a trade if it made sense, but there aren't any on the table, nor do I think there would be that would return a "franchise Player" that wasn't some kind of massive risk---I don't think Danny is actually a tradable commodity. Look at what we got for JO, Minny for Garnnet.

Putnam
10-15-2008, 04:06 PM
More like rocks in your head, maybe? Your question is, Who would ADVOCATE a trade, which I take to mean go out and start shopping Danny. Sure, if some team called up and said, "Take this healthy, under-paid perennial All-Star power forward who's in his prime and has three years on his contract for Granger" then we ought to consider it. But the idea of shopping him has harmful repercussions for the team and for Danny. I couldn't support that at all.




See my signature.


.

OTD
10-15-2008, 04:10 PM
That would reallly show a lot of brains to trade one of the best players we have. Some people never cease to amaze me.

avoidingtheclowns
10-15-2008, 04:11 PM
it isn't about having the stones. it's about being bat**** crazy or not.

trading tinsley was more of an option because he wasn't the foundation of the team at that time. JO was that rock (regardless of quality, he was supposed to be the rock). tinsley wasn't. right now the pacers are going through a major transition - they're moving on from JO and Tinsley and are desperate to start filling up the seats again. you don't do that by trading away easily the most recognizable and charismatic Pacer on the roster. that's asking for the team to pack it up for seattle.

give me a realistic "legitimate post threat" we could get back for danny? what options do you see out there that i don't see?

on a strictly baskeball level, i'm not totally opposed to the idea if it was well-reasoned. right now, however, i'm just not able to envision a scenario that makes any sense given the direction of the franchise (rebuilding effort, franchise popularity, etc).

i don't think the pacers view danny as a legitimate #1 offensive option. i do think they see him as a worthy face of the franchise because of his talent and his character. he's likeable, smart and young. the pacers SORELY lack talent and i don't think it is a very good idea to trade away arguably the most talented of the group because you don't think he's a perennial all-star.

Unclebuck
10-15-2008, 04:11 PM
If we want to trade him when his value is at its highest - then I would wait another year or maybe 2.

But sure I would trade Danny, if we got the right player in return. I would want an allstar player in return

Peck
10-15-2008, 04:22 PM
No player is untouchable.

However Danny is as close to untouchable as we have.

As U.B. stated, I would be willing to trade Danny if we got something great in return. However I do not want potential or assets, I would want a bonifide star and frankly Danny probably is not going to bring us that this year.

DgR
10-15-2008, 04:22 PM
Four years ago, I called for trading Tinsley, and I got shellacked.

Today, I am calling for the trade of Danny Granger. You trade when someone's value is high (like when Tinsley's was much higher four years ago). You trade before you make a huge contract extension and lose your chance thereafter (like we did with Tinsley). You trade when you think the piece you get back is more likely to take the team to the next level than staying put.

We don't know about the last statement. But it's likely we could find someone pretty darn good. Granger is our best trading asset.

I like Granger. I like his all around ability. I like his commitment to defense. I like, especially, his attitude and character. (That would be the hardest thing to part with.)

But I don't like Granger as a franchise player. We need one, and I don't think Danny can live up to that. Neither do I think we can get one without trading Danny.

Personally, I like Dunleavey a lot. There has been much talk about Danny and Dun being redundant at the 3. I would be open to trading Dun instead, but don't think we get as much back.

I also like Dun better for the same reason I'm not in love with Granger. He just doesn't have dependable offensive skills, IMO. Dun can drive, has a midrange game, a great three, and passes quite well and really has a feel for the game.

Danny has superior defense. Other than that, he is less impressive to me than Dunleavey. I also think Danny's offense at this point lives and dies with the outside shot. What can he do if that fails him? Not too much.

As I've said in other posts, I am open to watching Granger improve and add offensive weapons, just as he has added a good three-ball to his arsenal. I'd like to watch that closely along with another key factor: where will the leadership come from this year? If Ford is bringing it, or someone else like Jack, Foster, or even hints of Rush or Hibbert, then I think trading Granger is a no-brainer. But if Granger clearly emerges as our team leader this year, trading him becomes much more iffy.

But if all the concerns and trends I listed prove true by the trade deadline, I say now is the time to make a move that brings us back really high value . . . BEFORE we lock into something we end up regretting, once again, for many years to come.

Go Pacers.

I think you're right in that we'd probably have to trade either Mike or Danny in order to improve. I have the feeling Duns stock would rise tremendously over the course of the season and by next summer his contract will be a year shorter and would also seem much more worthy of his skills to other clubs.

Los Angeles
10-15-2008, 04:33 PM
Everyone in the NBA can be traded. The results of the trade are what win my advocacy. Danny has become a fantastic NBA ballplayer. But if you have an opportunity to get better, he's as tradable as anyone.

NapTonius Monk
10-15-2008, 04:46 PM
I thought certain Croz24 started this thread. Along the lines of a statement I heard in Batman: Danny may not be the franchise player Indy wants, but he's the franchise player Indy needs right now.

Young
10-15-2008, 04:46 PM
I don't think that trading Danny will land us a franchise player.

We can't afford to overpay him when it comes to an extension. However he is worth having on this team in the long run.

I don't think many see him as a franchise player. Damn good second or third opition though.

It will just take some time. I think that we really need a big who can score and rebound of course. However we just can't go and trade our most valueable asset.

We need to draft well and manage the cap. Look what the Blazers and Celtics have done through the draft and look who the 76ers landed when they signed Elton Brand this summer.

Now we don't have the talent to pull of trades like the Celtics did last summer but it was by good drafting that they were able to do that.

It will take some time. We fans must be patience. Things will work out in the end if TPTB manages the cap and drafts good.

maragin
10-15-2008, 04:56 PM
Several other posters have said it, but I would reiterate that I would trade anyone on the team for the right deal.

If the total value of a trade is weighed, I don't know that we will get a sufficient offer for Granger at this time.

McKeyFan
10-15-2008, 04:57 PM
I just googled a couple of power forward rankings.

JO was #7 in one.
Murphy #19 in two lists.
Foster #29 in one.

I guess the pickins are slimmer than I thought.

Anthem
10-15-2008, 05:18 PM
Trade him for who? Like others have said, there's nobody out there as valuable to us as Danny.

I'm ok with trading any player if it makes the team better, but it's hard to see a trade involving Danny that would improve us.

pacergod2
10-15-2008, 05:20 PM
Shaq got traded three times. Twice when he was (arguably) the most dominant force the NBA has ever seen.

I could honestly see us doing a sign and trade for Granger after this season, where I think his value will be at its peak. Send him to a team like Minnesota or Atlanta or New Orleans for a young current player, a first round pick or two and an expiring. See the Joe Johnson trade. I still think Phoenix got the better end of that deal based on what Atlanta paid him plus two future firsts, Boris Diaw and a trade exception. They didn't really utilize their picks or the trade exception however.

I would expect a deal like that for Granger if we were to pull the trigger. I don't think it would be fair to the franchise if we didn't see what Granger and Rush could do with significant minutes together. We ABSOLUTELY NEED to see what Ford, Rush, Granger and Hibbert can do together this year.

aceace
10-15-2008, 05:28 PM
I don't think any GM that wants to keep his job would trade Danny. Pure suicide. He's put up much bigger numbers each year. What could you possibly hope to gain. A new "knickname"

Los Angeles
10-15-2008, 05:44 PM
Trade him for who? Like others have said, there's nobody out there as valuable to us as Danny.

I'm ok with trading any player if it makes the team better, but it's hard to see a trade involving Danny that would improve us.

I can think of several young players that I would trade Danny for. Thing is, most are not available.

The TJ Ford deal was a good example on how to get young talent: wait for a team to have two equally qualified players vying for the same spot. The team is looking to relieve the tension of a "time-share" situation and also has needs elsewhere. Get one of those players.

Unfortunately, I just described the Pacers more than any other team at this point. Since we are the one with several roster horse races going on and we're the ones trying to establish a solid starting 5, we are currently in a position to trade a handful of backups and starters for an established veteran.

Not really a hard thing to do when a veteran has worn out his welcome eslwhere, but boy does that kind of thing have the power to backfire on the team trading for the star.

ChicagoJ
10-15-2008, 05:54 PM
Unless Dunleavy "welcomes" his pending sixth-man role when Rush takes over the SG spot, one of our SFs is going to have to go.

I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return.

But not this season. And maybe not even next summer. I want to see how Dunleavy does in the sixth-man role.

GO!!!!!
10-15-2008, 05:59 PM
The Questions would be

Who are you getting in return?
Who would want Granger?
As far as I am concerned he’s more untradable then Shaq, after the last 4-6 years I’m getting close to being fed up with this team and Granger, Rush, Hibbert are the future and I don’t care about anyone else...

We are not going to get Paul or Howard back for him and they would be the only sort of guys I’d be interested in.. Ok there All Stars but their character and commitment can’t be questioned (well as far as I am aware, I don’t know any of em personally)

But as far as this franchise and my commitment is concerned...

I want to see this team grow... from Rookie to Retirement..

Reggie Miller, Rik Smits...

The people this franchise used to represent... i know i could be living in the 90’s and the world changes.. But people, honestly...

Think about it...

You want glory, go support the Celtic’s or Lakers.. You want apple pie on a Sunday afternoon after having a shoot around with the family then this is more your team..

I have never been to Indiana.. Never been to the US and maybe i am ignorant.. But what this team represents in my world, is a laidback mid west county were some of the old time virtues still exist and that’s the way i like it..

I don’t live in a big city and have no desire to, I am a believer in hard work and growing from within and wether we overpay Danny or not, as far as i am concerned he seems to be a genuine guy and the face of the franchise, do we need a " franchise " player, do we need a marquee selling point, or should we just say TEAM and win...

If we make the playoffs ever year for the next ten and make the east finals a couple times, I’d be more then happy, if we win the World Championship in 4-5 years when the Celtic’s have fizzled and Lebron is NY and Howard is Playing for the Lakers, then that’s MAGICIAL.. But if we don’t..

I’ll be disappointed but i love this team for what i believe it represents, not because it’s a Winner or Loser..


Just my two cents when i should be finishing my Analyse and Evaluate Risks assignment...

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 06:11 PM
Unless Dunleavy "welcomes" his pending sixth-man role when Rush takes over the SG spot, one of our SFs is going to have to go.

I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return.

But not this season. And maybe not even next summer. I want to see how Dunleavy does in the sixth-man role.
I think we need to let a little more time pass before Rush becomes a starter...

d_c
10-15-2008, 06:20 PM
At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to trade him.

Right now you'd only trade Granger if you got an equally or nearly as talented player at another position.

Thing is, nobody is going to trade a good PG or PF for Granger, as good as Granger is. If I was the Pacers I'd call Atlanta and offer Granger for Al Horford, but the Hawks would say no simpy because Horford plays a position that is at more of a premium.

Chances are, what you'll get offered by other teams are just a collection of guys who aren't as good as Granger.

Charcoal Filtered
10-15-2008, 06:38 PM
I would not advocate trading Granger, but would also not make him untouchable.

Yes, he is not a franchise player. However, look at a team like Washington. I would not classify Arenas, Jamison, or Butler as franchise players either. Heck, I would not classify anyone on the Detroit team that won the championship as franchise.

If we got an unbelievable offer, trade him.

If not, I will be happy if we resign him to a decent extension.

HC
10-15-2008, 06:40 PM
If we want to trade him when his value is at its highest - then I would wait another year or maybe 2.

But sure I would trade Danny, if we got the right player in return. I would want an allstar player in return

I feel the same way. I would trade Danny without blinking an eye if the deal was right.

HeliumFear
10-15-2008, 07:04 PM
Psh,I've got bigger stones than you!

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1708~2760~2768~1017&teams=18~18~18~11&te=&cash=

I'm advocating this trade to show off the size of said stones. I ain't scared.

Justin Tyme
10-15-2008, 07:33 PM
At this point in time, it probably doesn't make sense to trade him.

Right now you'd only trade Granger if you got an equally or nearly as talented player at another position.

Thing is, nobody is going to trade a good PG or PF for Granger, as good as Granger is. If I was the Pacers I'd call Atlanta and offer Granger for Al Horford, but the Hawks would say no simpy because Horford plays a position that is at more of a premium.

Chances are, what you'll get offered by other teams are just a collection of guys who aren't as good as Granger.

For Horford in a minute, and I like Granger!

dlewyus
10-15-2008, 07:35 PM
I agree with this.



I feel the same way. I would trade Danny without blinking an eye if the deal was right.


But not this.


Psh,I've got bigger stones than you!

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=1708~2760~2768~1017&teams=18~18~18~11&te=&cash=

I'm advocating this trade to show off the size of said stones. I ain't scared.

Smoothdave1
10-15-2008, 08:51 PM
The Pacers are not going to trade Granger unless an unbelievable deal comes along, which is unlikely. Trading players when their value is greatest is only viable if you're stuck and/or not going anywhere. For example, the T-Wolves were stuck in salary cap hell with the big KG deal costing them 20+ million a year. They knew they were not going to be winning a championship any time soon and KG had been there for 10+ years. They were able to turn that into Jefferson, picks, etc. Is Jefferson the player KG is? Of course not. However, they helped their cap situation and are rebuilding.

It's the same reason the Lakers don't trade Kobe, the Cavs won't trade LeBron or the Magic won't trade Howard. Granted, Danny isn't in the same league as the players mentioned. But what deal would the Pacers get that would make them better by dealing Granger?

I'm not saying we wouldn't deal Granger or that I would object to a deal to send him elsewhere, but unless Danny came out and asked to be traded or got into a ton of trouble off the court, the chances of him being dealt are slim to none.

duke dynamite
10-15-2008, 08:53 PM
Well said, Dave.

McKeyFan
10-15-2008, 10:50 PM
After watching tonight's game, I'm wondering if Hibbert might end up becoming the low post threat we desperately need.

croz24
10-15-2008, 11:07 PM
feels nice to not be the only pd member mocked for wanting granger gone. i too was calling for guys like jalen rose, jermaine o'neal, austin croshere, rick carlisle to be traded or fired. what's that famous ghandi quote..."first they ignore you. then they laugh at you. then they fight you. then you win."

dunleavy has a more consistently higher ceiling than granger and is imo the more valuable player. funny how the pacers fans who don't think he's a franchise player and acknowledge he's nothing more than a #2 option on a decent team and #3 option on good team, call him "untouchable" or close to it. granger just isn't as good as most pacers fans think imo and it's the perception of granger that would net us a solid player in return.

croz24
10-15-2008, 11:25 PM
trade granger for brandan wright and a future 1st and i'm satisfied

Smoothdave1
10-15-2008, 11:40 PM
As far as trading Granger, for those of you advocating and suggesting he should be dealt, I would love to hear some trade proposals! Simply saying Granger should be traded is fine, but as I mentioned before, would it make the Pacers any better?

First, you're only going to find players in their rookie deals who would be suitable trade partners (cap wise). Otherwise, we'd have to include a larger contract to get a deal done.

Secondly, what GM is going to trade a marquee player for Granger? Not to knock Granger, but he's probably more valuable to us than perhaps any incoming player (with few exceptions) would be. Granger's value is in the NBA second tier right now. I would put him on par with a Rudy Gay, Iguodola, Luol Deng, etc. That's not a bad place to be, but he's not a Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, etc. talent -- at least not yet.

For those of you wanting a legit and dominant PF, let's see who is out there (on a rookie deal):

1. Lamarcus Aldridge
2. Al Horford
3. David Lee
4. Kevin Love
5. Marvin Williams
6. Jason Maxiell

The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.

My point is that as much as some of us want to trade Granger, it takes a willing team to take him and offer something that makes the Pacers better. Until that happens, a deal will not go down. I don't want to trade a dollar for a few quarters, a dime and a nickel simply for the sake of making a trade or getting value for Danny.

Anthem
10-15-2008, 11:54 PM
The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.
Man, I'd be intrigued by a Granger for Love trade. A Hibbert/Love/Dunleavy frontcourt would be pretty interesting. Neither team would do it, though.

Infinite MAN_force
10-15-2008, 11:59 PM
This whole thing is rediculous.

As I stated in another thread, I want someone to give me a reasonable trade scenario that another team would actually do, where he are going to trade Granger for our future franchise player. Im sick of all this abstract "lets trade granger to become a contender" crap. Give me something legit.

So far we have Brandon Wright and a future first, that is laughable.

Heres the most recent fantasy report on wright from NBA.com...

Update: Wright needs to be more aggressive and start "stepping up" if he is going to beat out rookie Anthony Randolph for the Warriors backup power forward spot, the Contra Costa Times reports.
Analysis: "We need Wright to be more aggressive, there's no question about it," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "He needs to show he's a good player. It's his second year; I expect more out of him. He's got to start stepping up." Wright scored four points in eight minutes in the Warriors preseason opener.

So our proven 20/6 guy, who has done nothing but improve not only every season, but seems to be improving all the time (like the end of last season where he was averaging something like 24 ppg when we made a run at the playoffs) we are trading that guy for some totally unproven second year player who has "potential"... Some guy who has been in the league a year and is having trouble beating out the totally raw Anthony Randolph for the backup spot, who is a rookie.

This is really the only bet we have in a scenario that involves trading granger, an all in gamble for a totally unproven player with lots of "potential". Jonathan bender had a lot of potential too, so does shawne williams. Its just simply not going to happen and would, most likely, be absolute folly.

Truth is, nobody is trading an established all-star caliber player to us for Danny Granger, at least not by himself. And the whole "Potential" thing is very dangerous waters.

There may be a legit argument that this team may get to a point where we need a certain caliber player to get to the next level and this team will essentially be "spinning its wheels"... fact is, we are not even there yet. There is nothing wrong with taking the wait and see approach, because the sort of deal being proposed here, is the one that more often than not blows up in your face, and actually sets you back even further.

In two seasons we will have huge expiring contracts, we will still have Granger, who will probably still be giving us something to the effect of 20/6 and getting paid a fair contract, two budding young players on rookie contracts, and future first round picks. If at THAT time it is looking as if this team will just be spinning its wheels, we would be in a MUCH better position to make a run at some dissatisfied perennial all star on a bad team somwhere. At that time you can package Granger, Rush, Murph-expiring, future first rounder for whoever if you think the team needs that "it" player to make a championship run. We might even find it may not be necessary... but it is silly and unrealistic to talk about this now. It will not happen, it should not happen... why don't we see what we have first?

Right now Danny is the best thing this struggling franchise has going, simply put, he will not be traded. For PR considerations alone.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 12:07 AM
Man, I'd be intrigued by a Granger for Love trade. A Hibbert/Love/Dunleavy frontcourt would be pretty interesting. Neither team would do it, though.

That is a woefully slow front court. I like all those players individually, but not together.

d_c
10-16-2008, 12:30 AM
So far we have Brandon Wright and a future first, that is laughable.

Heres the most recent fantasy report on wright from NBA.com...

Update: Wright needs to be more aggressive and start "stepping up" if he is going to beat out rookie Anthony Randolph for the Warriors backup power forward spot, the Contra Costa Times reports.
Analysis: "We need Wright to be more aggressive, there's no question about it," Warriors coach Don Nelson said. "He needs to show he's a good player. It's his second year; I expect more out of him. He's got to start stepping up." Wright scored four points in eight minutes in the Warriors preseason opener.

So our proven 20/6 guy, who has done nothing but improve not only every season, but seems to be improving all the time (like the end of last season where he was averaging something like 24 ppg when we made a run at the playoffs) we are trading that guy for some totally unproven second year player who has "potential"... Some guy who has been in the league a year and is having trouble beating out the totally raw Anthony Randolph for the backup spot, who is a rookie.


If I'm the Pacers, I wouldn't trade Granger for Wright, but FTR, always take Nellie's comments during training camp with a grain of salt.

He said that to motivate Wright. The reality is Wright is actually the guy ahead of Randolph in the rotation and he's played pretty well overall this pre-season. The day after he said that, Wright responded with a strong game against the Blazers.

The next day Nellie all but came out and said that he was just trying to kick Wright in the pants, and that Wright needs to be consistent with that kind of effort because he can't use those motivational ploys every time since after awhile the reporters won't take him seriously and they'll never print that stuff.

Nellie at one point pimped Robert Kurz as a guy who rebounds well, plays hard and is one of his smartest players, or something to that effect. The reality is Kurz isn't even going to make the team. He's going to get cut in a matter of days.

Be very selective in what you read from Nellie in training camp. He's just BSing you most of the time, as he absolutely was doing in this case with Wright. FWIW, Anthony Randolph is the guy with more long range potential but he's just nowhere near ready right now, despite a strong summer league. The kid is 4 years younger than Brandon Rush (who is also a rookie).

d_c
10-16-2008, 12:36 AM
1. Lamarcus Aldridge
2. Al Horford
3. David Lee
4. Kevin Love
5. Marvin Williams
6. Jason Maxiell

The Pacers could probably get Lee, Maxiell, Williams or maybe Love for Granger, but probably not the first two.


At this point in time, that pretty much says it. Those last 4 players are not worth trading Granger for. You would easily trade Granger for those first two guys, but their respective teams obviously wouldn't do that.

Pretty much, the only trades the Pacers would do are the ones other teams wouldn't, and vice versa. That's why Granger probably won't be going anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 12:43 AM
If I'm the Pacers, I wouldn't trade Granger for Wright, but FTR, always take Nellie's comments during training camp with a grain of salt.

He said that to motivate Wright. The reality is Wright is actually the guy ahead of Randolph in the rotation and he's played pretty well overall this pre-season. The day after he said that, Wright responded with a strong game against the Blazers.

The next day Nellie all but came out and said that he was just trying to kick Wright in the pants, and that Wright needs to be consistent with that kind of effort because he can't use those motivational ploys every time since after awhile the reporters won't take him seriously and they'll never print that stuff.

Nellie at one point pimped Robert Kurz as a guy who rebounds well, plays hard and is one of his smartest players, or something to that effect. The reality is Kurz isn't even going to make the team. He's going to get cut in a matter of days.

Be very selective in what you read from Nellie in training camp. He's just BSing you most of the time, as he absolutely was doing in this case with Wright. FWIW, Anthony Randolph is the guy with more long range potential but he's just nowhere near ready right now, despite a strong summer league. The kid is 4 years younger than Brandon Rush (who is also a rookie).

Point taken. I didn't really research it in depth. The larger point is that trading your best player for an unproven player is generally a bad idea. That little blurb happened to be the first thing I stumbled on when looking into wright.

Kemo
10-16-2008, 03:01 AM
I like Danny. I like Dun. You trade whichever one gets you a better player in return..


No ... you try and KEEP BOTH .. and if it absolutely HAD to be done , you can't just weigh the trade on who would get you the better return .
You ALSO have to weigh the damage that would be done to the fanbase , the team chemistry as well as the locker room morale

Right now , you have a young player in Granger, whom has been getting better and better EACH year , not to mention , becoming the face of the franchise.
You DO NOT trade him , and risk losing fans and the revenue they bring in to the Pacer's organization..

I realize the rationalization that some of you have about having 2 very good SFs on the same team. But , I don't see it becoming a problem.
It doesn't matter WHO starts really as far as DG and Dun. Because really, with both guys able to play multiple positions well, they are going to BOTH see the same amount of minutes per game as if they were starters.

Me personally , I like BOTH Danny Granger and Mike Dunleavy Jr. about equally .. Besides, really liking their personalities and how they represent the Pacers, there are qualities in each of their games that are very important to this Pacers team.
Not to mention I REALLY Enjoy watching Dunleavy play for us.


This is the first time in a VERY long time, in which I have thoroughly enjoyed watching more than a few players on 1 team play and grow as a team, and as individuals.....


Out of our current roster ,the guys that I really love watching, are Hibbert , T.J. , Granger and Foster .. and yes .. even Diener is on my list since I am on the Dienermobile bandwagon .. heh

Although I am liking what I am seeing thus far from Jarrett Jack and think he brings alot off the bench for this team , his turnovers really make me cringe . I just hope he starts getting that under control, if he does, I think he will be great for this team. In my opinion , offensively as well as defensively , he is exactly what we wanted, and expected out of Quis, and haven't got ..
In my mind he is Quis' replacement..

Brandon Rush ... I like watching him on the court getting some experience , I just think he will take a little longer to get used to playing in the NBA. We should be patient with him , because once he does , we will start to see him come into his own and he will develop into the SG that we knew he could be when we drafted him..
I think that Hibbert will surpass Rush in his early development/transition into the NBA , but in time Brandon will be good.. It is nice being able to see our Rookies grow into good players before our very eyes... and this team develop comraderie and chemistry.




As far as Croshere, I enjoy seeing him as a veteran on the bench helping our young players out. Now whether he can step it up a few notches and really help this team on the court , is something we will have to wait and see... But I have always liked Cro ... on the court, when he is hot , he is on FIRE , but when he is cold.. he is FROZEN ... Cro is a good guy and a decent player , and at times a real offensive threat.. It's just his inconsistancy that keeps him from being a real good offensive player ..At times his Defense is decent enough at times, better than Murph , lol ,he just needs to be more agressive on the rebounds.. But I do enjoy seeing him come off the bench and lite it up from time to time...As I said before, his veteran presence is very much needed and welcomed..

Marquis Daniels............. well , last year I liked it when he was consistant and slashed his way to the basket , making some of the wildest looking lay-ups
that always seemed to go in... If he could bring that all the time , I would enjoy watching him more, and seeing him be a part of this team off the bench to provide a lil spark... But ever since he got minutes at the point , and got his little moniker said "quisy for the threezy" he TOTALLY went DOWNHILL .. His 3 point shooting really became abyssmal, he turned the ball over quite abit, he seemed to make alot of bonehead plays , and he stopped getting to the basket very often with his slashing in the lane moves.. often getting his pocket picked, and/or turning the ball over in the process of driving the lane..
At this point , I really don't like seeing him on the floor to be honest, except to give our guys a rest, injuries, or garbage minutes.. I don't really like seeing him taking minutes other guys could be getting... especially Rush , Diener, Graham . I guess I just soured on Quis after about January of last season..


I could go into the rest of our players, but I will save that for another time...

good day .. :-)

Merz
10-16-2008, 03:17 AM
trade granger for brandan wright and a future 1st and i'm satisfied

Yeah and then as soon as Wright gets old like Granger (25) and proves to not be anywhere close to a franchise player you'll be clamoring to ship him out for some unproven 21 year old athlete. I bet alot of fans can get behind that revolving door mentality. :rolleyes:

Is it seriously that hard for you to think of any other way for the Pacers to improve besides trading Granger and tanking. I bet you saw no future for the Pacers in '93 did you? (I know they never won a championship but that team in '98 would of ended the Bulls dynasty if they refs didn't swallow their whistles when Pippen manhandled Jackson all series)

duke dynamite
10-16-2008, 03:19 AM
I agree with Kemo

Pacemaker
10-16-2008, 05:02 AM
Keep Granger. Every team has its flaws and Granger is our cornerstone.

DGPR
10-16-2008, 05:52 AM
Lets wait until after this season to decide if Granger can carry this franchise. We did just get out of the Jermaine O'Neal era.

Kemo
10-16-2008, 06:36 AM
Lets wait until after this season to decide if Granger can carry this franchise. We did just get out of the Jermaine O'Neal era.



Granger doesn't have to "carry" this franchise .. .. ya see THAT is the same mentality that was bestowed upon J.O.

What we NEED is a TEAM of guys to carry this franchise... and I think we have a damn good start


I'll give you a good example of what I am talking about...


Boston Celtics Larry Bird era ...
They had a very good core of players ...

If you would have taken away Mchale , Parrish or Dennis Johnson out of that line-up .. it would NOT have been the same team , and I don't think that team would have had the kind of chemistry that ..that particular lineup had ...

Not comparing Pacers with the Celtics of that era , but my point is... when you have a good thing , why gamble with so many factors to consider?

Gamblers rarely win ...
.

It's the guy who walks away with money in his pocket that wins , not the guy who keeps gambling it on the blackjack table .. and loses what he came in with..


.
.

Doddage
10-16-2008, 07:43 AM
Be very selective in what you read from Nellie in training camp. He's just BSing you most of the time, as he absolutely was doing in this case with Wright. FWIW, Anthony Randolph is the guy with more long range potential but he's just nowhere near ready right now, despite a strong summer league. The kid is 4 years younger than Brandon Rush (who is also a rookie).
What was the relevance of this comment?

Justin Tyme
10-16-2008, 07:46 AM
[QUOTE=Smoothdave1;791908]


First, you're only going to find players in their rookie deals who would be suitable trade partners (cap wise). Otherwise, we'd have to include a larger contract to get a deal done./QUOTE]

Well said!

With Danny's rookie contract, you aren't going to get much back in return unless you can get someone to take a Murphy type contract. Many want to trade, but they fail to take in consideration of salaries.

I'd take Aldridge or Horton in a heartbeat, but then reality sets in that they aren't going to be traded for Granger.

Justin Tyme
10-16-2008, 08:04 AM
Man, I'd be intrigued by a Granger for Love trade. A Hibbert/Love/Dunleavy frontcourt would be pretty interesting. Neither team would do it, though.

What's Love ever done? That's right NOTHING. Yet, you would trade Granger a 20pt & 6 point player with 3 years experience for "potential!" That word is so over used it becomes an albatross when associated with a young player.

At least Aldridge, Horton, and Lee have played and have more than the word "potential" going for them. I'd "love" to have any of the 3 on the Pacers, but as much as I like Lee (a young Foster who has a jump shot) I wouldn't trade Granger for him at the present time.

Doddage
10-16-2008, 08:16 AM
What's Love ever done? That's right NOTHING. Yet, you would trade Granger a 20pt & 6 point player with 3 years experience for "potential!" That word is so over used it becomes an albatross when associated with a young player.

At least Aldridge, Horton, and Lee have played and have more than the word "potential" going for them. I'd "love" to have any of the 3 on the Pacers, but as much as I like Lee (a young Foster who has a jump shot) I wouldn't trade Granger for him at the present time.
Horford ;)

Kuq_e_Zi91
10-16-2008, 08:58 AM
I'm with Kemo on this 100%

You don't trade Granger. Period. You let this team grow together and build chemistry. IMO, it's not about having that one superstar, sure it would be great for marketing and bringing fans back but what it's really about is having a TEAM. Everybody working well together on and off the court. You can't expect that to happen if you keep making changes to the roster. Like Kemo said, Danny doesn't need to carry us. We need to have a group of guys lead us.

Some of these trade proposals make me just :-o

Horford?? Really? You want to trade Danny Granger (the face of your franchise) for 12 pts and 10 rebounds? And let's not talk about stats, let's talk chemistry. You don't think TJ Ford remembers who Horford is? Should he just be like "Oh, hey it's you. You almost ended my career. Let's be good buddies now." ?? No. And then what are you going to do with Hibbert? If given minutes, Hibbert is very capable of 12 and 10. Or are you going to move Horford to PF and move Murphy to the bench. Because I doubt the stingy Hawks would take Murphy's contract. Then you'd be paying somebody on your bench 10-12 M.

Keep the roster together and give them a chance before you want to start shipping the most talented player on the team for "potential" and lottery picks, HOPING to land that one superstar who even if we get one, still might not lead us farther than a TEAM would.

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 09:00 AM
At least Aldridge, Horton . . .

Who?




:D

Major Cold
10-16-2008, 09:17 AM
If Granger is to be traded there better be a great deal in the mix. That trade would have to include a prospect, proven commodity, draft picks, and/or an All-star.

Lets say we trade Danny for Aldridge and Martell Webster. When their rookie scale contracts end we may have to pay them more than what we would have to pay Granger.

If Granger does not improve this year I would be more in favor of a trade this off season than I am right now. I just think that Danny can improve in key areas that will allow him to become more valuable to our team than his global trading value.

Hicks
10-16-2008, 09:46 AM
The bottom line continues to be, and others have said it already, that Granger is more valuable to us than anyone else. Any trade another team would make would be a downgrade for us. Any trade we would make would be seen as a downgrade for the other team.

Our next move to improve will either come from free agency or a good draft.

We have two good point guards with Ford and Jack.

We have a good trio of swingman (it's easy to find a fourth to fill in) with Granger, Dunleavy, and Rush.

We have two centers who are serviceable now with Nesterovic and Hibbert, and you can get away with that long term if we can address what we obviously need more at: Power Forward.

You can get away with having solid, unspectacular players at center or power forward, but not both. Since we have a solid older center, and it looks like we may have a solid young center, what we need now is a power forward who can score in the post, rebound, and defend.

The only way you trade Granger is if you can get that guy in return, which as I said at the top, is probably not going to happen.

If by some chance a good trade does come along that gets us that PF, then you probably look hard at it because it should be easier to replace one of the swingman trio than it is to get the big man.

However, the odds of that happening are so slim, I see it as grasping at straws to push for a Granger trade right now.

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 10:02 AM
If Granger does not improve this year I would be more in favor of a trade this off season than I am right now.

Of course, that's what other teams are thinking too. Right now, his value is high. If he doesn't improve a year from now, we won't be able to trade him as effectively.

I agree that you don't make the trade if there's no one out there to get. But if something emerges, now is the time to strike, IMO.

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 10:09 AM
Let me also add that I think there is less substance than emotion to Danny being "the face of the franchise."

Again, I like and admire Granger. But I don't see him being that outspoken, I don't hear him get interviewed much. He doesn't seem to be much of a spokesman for the team.

With all his issues, JO did talk a good bit. So did Reggie, and Mark Jackson even more so.

Maybe Danny will grow into that role with JO gone this year. We'll see. We also don't know what's going on in the locker room, as I discussed in the initial post.

I think we are all heavily attached to Danny emotionally because he was such a breath of fresh air and refreshment in the midst of our dark night of the soul.

Suspensions, crimes, arrests, and loads of foolishness and immaturity were bombarding our team like grenades and shells coming into a foxhole. All the sudden, we steal a kid in the draft who is religious, almost went to Yale, and is good on both ends of the floor. We felt it was like the jets coming to spray napalm and save the day.

Danny hasn't quite accomplished all that, but in our minds he is the antithesis of all that has gone wrong, and so we are emotionally tied to him in a way that exceeds his actual abilities on the court.

Everything I've just written is probably an excellent reason to keep him for PR reasons. But it also explains why we should consider the right trade, even though it would be difficult.

Hicks
10-16-2008, 10:15 AM
Actually, McKeyFan, I agree with all of that. Placing him as the face is more heart than brain at this point.

However, it won't change the reality that the trading possibilities of Danny Granger as of today are not appealing for this franchise.

Speed
10-16-2008, 10:34 AM
I think at this point "stones" = Panic.

No need to make a bad deal.

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 10:39 AM
I think at this point "stones" = Panic.

No need to make a bad deal.

I wish we would have panicked with Tinsley a few years back.

Major Cold
10-16-2008, 10:49 AM
But a few years from now do you expect Danny to be the next Tinsley?

McKeyFan
10-16-2008, 10:52 AM
Good point.

I doubt he'll get chased around town, getting shot by Jehovah's Witnesses after attending Sunday evening service.

Speed
10-16-2008, 11:14 AM
I can see the reasoning, I hope that tptb, don't hitch the franchise player wagon to him, both as a player, but even moreso as a HUGE salary.

I don't think he'll get a team/cap crippling contract.

I think if anything JO was a very expensive lesson in that regards.

Evan_The_Dude
10-16-2008, 11:39 AM
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we shopped him NEXT summer (sign and trade). His 19 points and 5-6 boards can be duplicated (and have been) by Mike Dunleavy. Not to mention Dunleavy is a much better passer and play maker. What keeps Granger closest to untradeable is his defense and ability to block shots at his position. Take away his defense and he's a lot more replaceable.

His status on this team for 09-10 probably depends on how far Brandon Rush comes along. If Rush shows the ability to be a good productive starter this season, I think Granger or Dunleavy could be sent packing. I say this taking into consideration the amount of $$$ coming off the cap that makes us a lot more flexible. Because of Danny being a little younger, he possibly could be the odd man out. Of course it all depends on what kind of season he has too.

Vince Neil
10-16-2008, 11:43 AM
I think we need to let a little more time pass before Rush becomes a starter...

The Dun Dun kool aid is being drank again by DD!

croz24
10-16-2008, 11:55 AM
Yeah and then as soon as Wright gets old like Granger (25) and proves to not be anywhere close to a franchise player you'll be clamoring to ship him out for some unproven 21 year old athlete. I bet alot of fans can get behind that revolving door mentality. :rolleyes:

Is it seriously that hard for you to think of any other way for the Pacers to improve besides trading Granger and tanking. I bet you saw no future for the Pacers in '93 did you? (I know they never won a championship but that team in '98 would of ended the Bulls dynasty if they refs didn't swallow their whistles when Pippen manhandled Jackson all series)

yea, when a player of jerryd bayless' talent falls to you in the draft, YOU DRAFT HIM, and then of course KEEP HIM. other ways include trading expiring contracts. i thought foster should have been traded last year. rasho imo should be traded this year. daniels can be traded. a new coach is needed. bird needs to go...granger just provides the pacers with the easiest way of acquiring talent. and for as much as you mock me in my desire for high draft picks, how do you think the majority of the teams in the nba get good? through the draft...

and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks. even then, walsh failed miserably in not providing those pacers teams with the one extra talent they needed to get over the hump and win a title.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 12:05 PM
There are a lot of teams that have been picking in the top 10 for years and still can't get it right. Clippers, Bulls, Hawks. Tanking is hardly a proven formula.

I think there is some confusion with the concept of talent... there is more to being a talented basketball player than being a flashy scorer and a good athlete. I also think there is something to be said for aquiring players within a team concept.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 12:13 PM
and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks.

Im asking people that might remember, cause I was too young, but wasn't reggie considered kind of a punk his first few seasons? Hardly a great leader. That came later if I understand correctly.

What has Danny Granger done to so clearly convince you of this? He has only improved, constantly... Even if your right, what is the harm in seeing what he can do this season? Even early in this preseason he is showing an ability to get to the foul line at will, which drew the Dallas broadcasters to compare him to Paul Pierce. Before anyone jumps off a building, Im not saying Granger will be Pierce, but I am saying he is not done improving.

Speed
10-16-2008, 12:31 PM
yea, when a player of jerryd bayless' talent falls to you in the draft, YOU DRAFT HIM, and then of course KEEP HIM. other ways include trading expiring contracts. i thought foster should have been traded last year. rasho imo should be traded this year. daniels can be traded. a new coach is needed. bird needs to go...granger just provides the pacers with the easiest way of acquiring talent. and for as much as you mock me in my desire for high draft picks, how do you think the majority of the teams in the nba get good? through the draft...

and for the most part, reggie miller always showed the desire and leadership abilities danny granger lacks. even then, walsh failed miserably in not providing those pacers teams with the one extra talent they needed to get over the hump and win a title.

How about the Fieldhouse do you like it? Amazing why someone is even a fan of a team that they hate everything about.

Take the name Bayless and insert Granger in your first sentence and its the same thing.

Look at the Bulls, they got high draft picks AND acquired players like Ben Wallace and Larry Hughes, they went nowhere.

Your main mistake is confusing drafting high with drafting well.

Let's take the last several champions. Boston traded for veterans after sucking an inordinate amount of time.

San Antonio kept Duncan and added around him, but not with high picks, instead smart picks.

Detroit drafted Tayshaun the rest they made smart moves to acquire undervalued assets.

You simplistically think you have to tear it down and pin your hopes to a 6'3" two guard who fell to 11 in a mediocre draft.

This is my second point, your like Peter Vescey, say enough things and then only accentuate the few times you are right.

I hate to go off on a rant like this, but your a broken record, BAyless, bayless, bayless, high draft picks, trade Granger, Bayless, I'm always right, always right.

You over simplify things, it's not high draft picks that make a team better, it's good draft picks, it's not constantly chasing the greener grass on the other side by constantly making risky moves, it's making smart good moves.

If you unload Danny, what do you get? A lesser player and a 1st round draft pick, probably in the teens.

How is that not short sighted?

This type of knee jerk superficial reactionism just breeds poor teams

---

Now as for Reggie, you are wrong again. Reggie WAS Danny Granger. He was a solid player who wasn't vocal and actually took a back seat to Chuck Person initially. It wasn't until Larry Brown came that he all of sudden became this great leader, but did he really change or did the team just start winning?

I love Reggie, but in 1992 there were outward questions about his ability and leadership. My point is its all perception and some of it has to do with growth and the dynamics of the team.

For you to say Danny doesn't show the ability in that regard like Reggie did, just shows your frame of reference.

Danny may not develop like that, but the your comparison is just wrong or at best premature.

Lastly, Walsh didn't provide the team with that one extra talent?? Really like Chris Mullin? Or Mark Jackson (twice)? Or Jalen Rose?

I mean come on. The broken record gets annoying.

It's funny how you're always right and go on and on about it, but what happened to Bill White being the next superstar of the league?

Your oversimplification of the situation is wrong and the way you overate Bayless is just crazy.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Putnam
10-16-2008, 12:31 PM
Im asking people that might remember, cause I was too young, but wasn't reggie considered kind of a punk his first few seasons? Hardly a great leader. That came later if I understand correctly.


Absolutely.

The early-90s were spent talking about how to get to the proverbial next level. We had Reggie, but we still needed something. Reggie's greatness developed as he matured and the team around him took shape.

If there had been a forum like this one in the early 90's we'd have had folks advocated for trading Reggie for the missing piece.

Putnam
10-16-2008, 12:44 PM
. . . the draft, . . . DRAFT . . . trading expiring contracts . . . .foster should have been traded . . . rasho imo should be traded this year. . . daniels can be traded . . . . a new coach is needed . . . . bird needs to go . . . easiest way of acquiring talent . . . . high draft picks . . . the draft....


Why don't you just play fantasy basketball leagues? Clearly the real game moves too slowly for you.

EDIT: I'm not even trying to criticize you, croz. But you seem not to have patience or interest in watching players develop, or a speck of loyalty to the players on the team just BECAUSE they are our guys.

I can't imagine staying interested throughout the season if I thought everything was decided during a single evening in June.

Peck
10-16-2008, 01:37 PM
Absolutely.

The early-90s were spent talking about how to get to the proverbial next level. We had Reggie, but we still needed something. Reggie's greatness developed as he matured and the team around him took shape.

If there had been a forum like this one in the early 90's we'd have had folks advocated for trading Reggie for the missing piece.

Actually there was a forum similar to this in the early 90's & yes there were many of us advocating the trade of Reggie.

Speed, you are correct in theory but incorrect in time line. In fact Reggie Miller never truely became the undisputed leader of our team until Isiah Thomas was here. By that time Reggie had changed from Super Reggie to Grandpa Reggie and he was here for the kids.

Let's never forget that the 94 season, great great season btw, Reggie was part of the "dawg pound" side of the locker room. While Mitchell, Thompson, etc. were part of the "old Bulls". Reggie would come out wearing a blue bandana a dark glasses.

Now one thing can be said though. Reggie always always always led by example when it came to practice and keeping himself in shape and there is a lot to be said for that.

I'm going to give Croz the benefit of the doubt here and say that what he wants is for the Pacers to strike gold and get a LeBron or Shaq type player. He thinks the only way you ever get that type of player is to get a super high draft pick and let's be honest. He is right about that.

However as we all know these are generational players that come along only about every 5 years or so.

For every Shaq there is an Olawakandi. For every James there is a Manning.

The draft is a crap shoot, without a doubt. However to ever get that "A" list type player most likely you have to draft him.

Speed
10-16-2008, 02:00 PM
For every Shaq there is an Olawakandi. For every James there is a Manning.



Danny, not Payton. :D

Major Cold
10-16-2008, 02:36 PM
I want a Kobe/Shaq/Lebron personally, but I would rather have average to good players and still have a team.

If we do a Hawk or Chicago tank then we won't have a team in Indiana.

Speed
10-16-2008, 02:47 PM
I agree, if you get a chance at a once in a lifetime player you take it, but it's like playing the lottery instead of getting a job.

It's probably not the best way to go about it and probably doesn't have a very good chance of happening.

"Strike Gold" is the right way to say it.

The thought of Reggie not being a leader until even later in his career makes the Granger not a leader argument even less true.

pacergod2
10-16-2008, 03:49 PM
Look I don't think trading Danny Granger is the worst thing this franchise could do. I really don't. I don't want to see it happen because I really love the kid, but if we are trading him we are getting something monster in return.

PS- croz is the consummate pessimist.

Justin Tyme
10-16-2008, 05:58 PM
Horford?? Really? You want to trade Danny Granger (the face of your franchise) for 12 pts and 10 rebounds? And let's not talk about stats, let's talk chemistry. You don't think TJ Ford remembers who Horford is? Should he just be like "Oh, hey it's you. You almost ended my career. Let's be good buddies now." ?? No. And then what are you going to do with Hibbert? If given minutes, Hibbert is very capable of 12 and 10. Or are you going to move Horford to PF and move Murphy to the bench. Because I doubt the stingy Hawks would take Murphy's contract. Then you'd be paying somebody on your bench 10-12 M.


Ist off I don't see the Pacers trading Granger due to the fact who would you get better than Granger that another team WOULD BE WILLING to trade?
"IF" the Pacers had the unbelieveable opportunity to get Horford for Granger YOU DO IT! It will NEVER happen, but you do it laughing all the way back to Conseco.

Horford was a rookie who averaged a double double. Granger as a rookie averaged 7.5 pts and 5 rebs. Granger plays the same positions that Dun plays, so little loss where as Horford is your PF of the future. He can also play the 5, thus making him a valuable big for the future. What's easier to replace a PF or a SF? What's easier to find a good POWER FORWARD or a good SF?

Let's talk about another issue... salary. Horford is playing on a rookie salary for the next 4 years at a SUBSTANTIALLY less salary than Granger will be the last 3 years of his contract. The savings will allow Murphy to be a rotational player instead of a starter.

Chemistry? Who is to say the trade will hurt the chemistry of this team? Since when did Granger become franchise player and leader? You have to earn it not inherit it... remember the last Pacer that inherited it? He's now playing for another team in Canada!

Now here is a lineup that has future written all over it. Power, outside shooting, speed. and "D".

Hibbert
Horford
Dun
Rush
Ford

Doddage
10-16-2008, 06:17 PM
I'd love Granger for Horford, but unfortunately, Horford's the type of big that the Hawks haven't had in a while. Not to mention, trading him would leave them a hole at the C spot.

Infinite MAN_force
10-16-2008, 07:25 PM
Obviously you trade Granger for Horford, problem is, the Hawks woulden't do that in a million years. its moot.

Justin Tyme
10-17-2008, 10:21 AM
Obviously you trade Granger for Horford, problem is, the Hawks woulden't do that in a million years. its moot.

I guess you must have missed the 1st paragragh of my post, so yes it is moot as to whether the trade would ever happen. Atlanta would be crazy to make the trade! ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!

What I did was express my views to tbabyy924 as to why the trade made sense for the Pacers to trade Granger for Horford when tbabyy924 doesn't believe Horford measures up to Granger. Both Granger and Horford are really nice young players, but I feel Horford will end up being the more valuable player b/c of the positions he plays. JMOAA

Roaming Gnome
10-17-2008, 10:31 AM
J Tyme, I agree with you 100%. Danny Granger isn't the end all, be all. If you get a deal that seems like your fleecing the other side for Grange....You take it.

I like Granger and he is a fan favorite, but that doesn't take him or any Pacer off of the trade block.

BillS
10-17-2008, 10:44 AM
J Tyme, I agree with you 100%. Danny Granger isn't the end all, be all. If you get a deal that seems like your fleecing the other side for Grange....You take it.

I like Granger and he is a fan favorite, but that doesn't take him or any Pacer off of the trade block.

I think the difference is that you don't actively seek to trade Danny. IF something great seems available (and I disagree with the thought that those are out there to be plucked), then you jump on it, but only if it is a clear no-brainer to more than just the hardcore fans.

Everyone is available if the right deal comes along, but I don't think we should be shopping the players we're trying to bond the fan base to. Sending away fan favorites for a wash result is just as damaging as keeping bad apples.

Roaming Gnome
10-17-2008, 10:51 AM
I think the difference is that you don't actively seek to trade Danny. IF something great seems available (and I disagree with the thought that those are out there to be plucked), then you jump on it, but only if it is a clear no-brainer to more than just the hardcore fans.

Everyone is available if the right deal comes along, but I don't think we should be shopping the players we're trying to bond the fan base to. Sending away fan favorites for a wash result is just as damaging as keeping bad apples.

Yes, that is the "reading between the lines" version of what I wanted to say. Thanks :rockon:

Kuq_e_Zi91
10-17-2008, 11:22 AM
I understand Horford is a moot point. My point was that if you trade Danny for a player with "potential" who currently does not measure up to Danny, all you would be seeing is more empty seats. You might think Horford is as good as Granger, but the casual fan might not. When they think Pacers, first player that comes to mind is Granger. Now it's Horford?

Obviously you would do it if it favors us by a LARGE margin, because if you don't it's just being naive. However, trading a player like David Lee or Horford for Granger straight up is not favoring us by a visible large margin.

Your line up of Hibbert, Horford, Dun, Rush and Ford is banking a lot on potential. What if Hibbert and Rush don't show progress? Dunleavy had only one good season, what if he goes back to his GS days? What if Ford gets injured again? Horford has only one season under his belt, how do you know he will improve, instead of maintain that 12 and 10? Danny's the best perimeter defender on this team, what if Rush can't fill that role?

I'm just willing to give this team some time. Give them a chance to grow together and build something special. I'm not with the whole trade for "potential." If we trade Danny, it better be for somebody proven.

pacergod2
10-17-2008, 12:45 PM
Tbaby... I have to disagree with your points about the other players on the roster. There is no justification of not trading Horford for Granger by other players' lack of experience. We have those guys on our roster regardless of whether we give up Granger for Horford. We are still dependent on how they develop as players.

I guarantee every team in the league covets both players... but for us to justify getting the cheaper player that plays a more revered position makes this a trade we would be dumb not to make. We would end up having to probably throw in a first rounder for them to even consider it. We would need to consider the cost to our "future" lineup in that case.

When looking at our current "future" lineup... you are looking at ford, rush, granger, mcroberts(?), hibbert. You know how happy our front office would be with the prospect of having ford, rush, dun/future first, horford, and hibbert. I would say VERY HAPPY. I would rather have a scrub SF than a scrub PF as would any GM in the league.

Justin Tyme
10-17-2008, 01:10 PM
I understand Horford is a moot point. My point was that if you trade Danny for a player with "potential" who currently does not measure up to Danny, all you would be seeing is more empty seats. You might think Horford is as good as Granger, but the casual fan might not. When they think Pacers, first player that comes to mind is Granger. Now it's Horford?

Obviously you would do it if it favors us by a LARGE margin, because if you don't it's just being naive. However, trading a player like David Lee or Horford for Granger straight up is not favoring us by a visible large margin.

Your line up of Hibbert, Horford, Dun, Rush and Ford is banking a lot on potential. What if Hibbert and Rush don't show progress? Dunleavy had only one good season, what if he goes back to his GS days? What if Ford gets injured again? Horford has only one season under his belt, how do you know he will improve, instead of maintain that 12 and 10? Danny's the best perimeter defender on this team, what if Rush can't fill that role?

I'm just willing to give this team some time. Give them a chance to grow together and build something special. I'm not with the whole trade for "potential." If we trade Danny, it better be for somebody proven.


Your opinion is duely noted. I'll just stick with my view about Horford being a more valuable player than Granger, and I like Granger.

pacergod2
10-17-2008, 01:23 PM
Right on Justin.

docpaul
10-17-2008, 03:45 PM
I guess you must have missed the 1st paragragh of my post, so yes it is moot as to whether the trade would ever happen. Atlanta would be crazy to make the trade! ABSOLUTELY CRAZY!

What I did was express my views to tbabyy924 as to why the trade made sense for the Pacers to trade Granger for Horford when tbabyy924 doesn't believe Horford measures up to Granger. Both Granger and Horford are really nice young players, but I feel Horford will end up being the more valuable player b/c of the positions he plays. JMOAA

I think you could argue that Portland might dance with Lamarcus Aldridge... I just was working through this on another thread...

d_c
10-17-2008, 03:58 PM
I think you could argue that Portland might dance with Lamarcus Aldridge... I just was working through this on another thread...

You could argue it, but Portland would never do that.

Aldridge is a very good complement to Oden. He can shoot from mid-range and can play as a perimeter big to complement Oden's inside game. And considering Oden's injury history, Aldridge is very nice to have around because he also has the size to play center on most nights if absolutely neccessary.

Aldridge simply has more value because he plays a position of much greater premium and he'd be much harder for Portland to replace than anyone on their roster not named Greg Oden.

If Portland loses Aldridge, they start hurting at PF and it immediately becomes a huge problem for them. Even without Granger, they're not exactly in desperate straits to have to improve at SF.