PDA

View Full Version : Dunleavy Out Indefinitely



2minutes twowa
02-20-2009, 01:06 PM
http://my.nba.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5700033246

The hits just keep on coming.

On the heels of Thursday's revelation Danny Granger will miss up to three weeks with a foot injury, the Pacers announced today Mike Dunleavy will be out indefinitely due to recurring soreness in his right knee.

Thus, the Pacers will be without their two leading scorers and starters at shooting guard and small forward.

Under team direction, Dunleavy will seek other medical opinions regarding the ongoing soreness in his right knee. Dunleavy missed the first 34 games of the season with the injury and returned to play 18, averaging 15.1 points per game.

Dunleavy left the Feb. 8 game in Washington early in the first quarter and has not returned since, missing the past four full games.

Once the process of gathering additional medical advice is complete, Dunleavy and the Pacers' medical staff will determine the direction of treatment.

Jarrett Jack has been starting at shooting guard. Either Stephen Graham, Marquis Daniels or Brandon Rush could step in for Granger at small forward beginning with tonight's game in Minnesota.

Granger will miss between 10 days and three weeks with a partial tendon tear in the sole of his right foot, the club announced Thursday.

Granger incurred the injury in the second quarter of Wednesday night's 103-94 loss in Charlotte after making a 3-point shot. He said he felt a "pop" in the foot, walked to the bench to let the coaching staff and trainers know, and headed straight to the locker room.

Granger traveled with the team today from Charlotte to Minneapolis, where the Pacers face the Timberwolves Friday night. He underwent an MRI today that revealed the partial tear.

-- Edited by Bruno at 02/20/2009 12:03 p.m.



Here we go lottery, here we go! (clap, clap)

Speed
02-20-2009, 01:11 PM
Unless by some miraculous recovery that Granger and Dunleavy become 100%, they BOTH need to shut it down and make sure everything is good for next year.

Major Cold
02-20-2009, 01:21 PM
So my ESPN text said that he is getting tests. I hope this isn't mirco fracture tests ala TMac.

Shade
02-20-2009, 01:52 PM
I'm really starting to wonder about our medical staff. Seems to me that they keep clearing our players too soon, and they get reinjured before being fully healed.

Just a theory on my part, but recent history seems to give it some credibility.

Major Cold
02-20-2009, 01:53 PM
I would agree with releasing them to play, but I do not think that the cause is their fault.

duke dynamite
02-20-2009, 01:54 PM
I'm going to cry.

Shade
02-20-2009, 01:55 PM
So, where does this leave us?

C - Hibbert/Rasho
PF - Murphy/Foster/McRoberts/Baston
SF - Rush/Graham
SG - Jack
PG - Ford/Diener

Yikes. :giveup:

CableKC
02-20-2009, 01:59 PM
Well, that seals it....I've jumped off the "Compete for Playoffs but give Rush and Hibbert the most minutes they can handle" to the "Let's aim for the Lottery while giving BRush and Hibbert the Starting job and resting Granger until he is 100%" Bandwagon.

Speed
02-20-2009, 02:02 PM
So, where does this leave us?

C - Hibbert/Rasho
PF - Murphy/Foster/McRoberts/Baston
SF - Rush/Graham
SG - Jack
PG - Ford/Diener

Yikes. :giveup:

Daniels?

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Sadly, looking at current records, I'd say the best lottery pick we could hope for is #6 or so.

Of course, the Bulls won the lottery last season with the #9 position, so who knows. :whoknows:

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:02 PM
Daniels?

Is he healthy?

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 02:02 PM
The Bucks seem to be able to compete with 3 of their top players out. Why not the Pacers?

Speed
02-20-2009, 02:03 PM
So, where does this leave us?

C - Hibbert/Rasho
PF - Murphy/Foster/McRoberts/Baston
SF - Rush/Graham
SG - Jack
PG - Ford/Diener

Yikes. :giveup:

No,

Pg Diener
sg Ford
sf jack
pf Rush
c Grahm

Sorry just carry over from yesterday.

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:04 PM
No,

Pg Diener
sg Ford
sf jack
pf Rush
c Grahm

Sorry just carry over from yesterday.

Too bad Eddie Gill is off the market.

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:06 PM
The Bucks seem to be able to compete with 3 of their top players out. Why not the Pacers?

http://www.indy.org/library/2006Docs/Jun/7767541/gill.jpg

CableKC
02-20-2009, 02:10 PM
Of course, the Bulls won the lottery last season with the #9 position, so who knows. :whoknows:
Stern hates the Pacers.......we'll end up with the worst possible pick that we could get.

idioteque
02-20-2009, 02:20 PM
I don't care where we pick as long as we have the ability to draft Jordan Hill. He'd be the perfect compliment to Roy Hibbert. He's got Foster's work ethic and Dale Davis' strength. He could be our enforcer.

Shade
02-20-2009, 02:40 PM
I don't care where we pick as long as we have the ability to draft Jordan Hill. He'd be the perfect compliment to Roy Hibbert. He's got Foster's work ethic and Dale Davis' strength. He could be our enforcer.

I'd be happy with Hill. He does remind me a little of DD. Right down to the poor free throw shooting. :dead:

OakMoses
02-20-2009, 03:10 PM
The Bucks seem to be able to compete with 3 of their top players out. Why not the Pacers?

Ridnour, Bogut, and Redd are the Bucks version of losing Murphy, Dunleavy, and Jack. They've lost nothing that even compares to us losing Granger. Also, losing Ridnour actually gives playing time to a better player in Sessions.

Country Boy
02-20-2009, 03:24 PM
Ridnour, Bogut, and Redd are the Bucks version of losing Murphy, Dunleavy, and Jack. They've lost nothing that even compares to us losing Granger. Also, losing Ridnour actually gives playing time to a better player in Sessions.

You should have this discussion with Dan Dakich and Mark Boyle, as they made the point on Dakich's radio show. Look, were not a playoff team with Granger so don't pretend he is God, he ain't.

NuffSaid
02-20-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm really starting to wonder about our medical staff. Seems to me that they keep clearing our players too soon, and they get reinjured before being fully healed.

Just a theory on my part, but recent history seems to give it some credibility.
I'd really like to be a fly on the wall when it comes to the decision making process for our injured players. It just seems that over the years we've had so many starters come up with serious injuries only to be left with bandaide "treatment", pushed back onto the court quickly only to be sat down again. Only the 2nd inactivation provides a worse storyline that the 1st.

Pacers either need to get better at diagnosing and/or treating their injured players OR they need to find a better medical staff. For upwards of THREE YEARS this has happened - JO, Tinsley and now Dunleavy. ENOUGH!!! :mad:

(Sorry...that was me venting just then...:o)

My vote is to call the season a wash (and I've never opted for this route; even last year when everyone else was saying "tank", I still wanted the team to fight for a playoff spot), sit them both Granger and Dunleavy for the season, and then make whatever trades/draft picks/acquisitions over the summer and come back better, stronger, healthier, ready to compete because no matter what they do, IMO this season is done for the Pacers.

It's not so much that they're w/o three of their starters; it's the fact that they just don't have what it takes right now to get over their two biggest obstacles: road loses and a consistent winning streak (3-games + ). And we won't even talk about their on-again/off-again (more "off" than "on") defense.

As I've said on another board, "stick a fork in them; they're done, folks!"

Speed
02-20-2009, 04:10 PM
I'll choose to call it Accelerated Player Development, instead of Tank. And I am all for APD.

SoupIsGood
02-20-2009, 04:14 PM
Seems to me that they keep clearing our players too soon, and they get reinjured before being fully healed.


Yeah. Maybe it's not fair to the staff, but it definitely seem to be happening a lot.

Speed
02-20-2009, 04:15 PM
It did potentially offer 40 minutes a night as a starting PG. That was the hope, actually. That offer has ended after being extended for what many thought was way to long in the first place. Only thing the contract means is he has to get paid, that's it. You can't make a team alienate their fanbase and poison lockeroom.

As far as JT's right to play, he can tomorrow. He can agree to void the contract and be in someone's uniform tomorrow night.

pacergod2
02-20-2009, 06:28 PM
I think our real depth chart for the rest of the year should be this:

PG - Jack/ Deiner/ Ford

SG - Rush/ Daniels

SF - Graham/ McRoberts

PF - Murphy/ McRoberts/ Baston

C - Hibbert/ Nesterovic (unless bought out)/ Foster

With Tinsley, Granger, and Dunleavy all inactive. I am not kidding either. I know this team would be pretty mediocre. But what this does is a couple of things. It takes the wear off of Foster and Ford to only be playing 20 minutes a night. You put a lot of minutes on Jack, Nesterovic, Baston, and Daniels since they probably won't be with us next year. Deiner probably will, but as a third option, so he has to be included in this group as well.

You play Rush, Graham, McRoberts, and Hibbert extended minutes for developmental purposes. That's pretty simple. If we buy out Nesto, then we could add a young player on a minimum deal and/or ten day contracts and give them some minutes at the forward positions.

You showcase Murphy for trade bait. Let him average 20 and 10 every night on a bad team, which will most likely increase his trade value this off-season. If Jack shows great strides, that is almost a blessing in disguise, because then someone will probably sign him to a deal that we can't match this summer. I like Jack, but if he is the sacrificial lamb in this whole scenario to improve our youth and keep the key Pacers from wearing down and allow them to get healthy, then I am definitely a proponent.

Lord Helmet
02-20-2009, 06:34 PM
AKA Shutting him down because the season is over.

Man, this sure has been a tough stretch, can't wait for what next season brings! :suicide:

clownskull
02-20-2009, 07:32 PM
Is he healthy?
on quis
for now- apparently.
however, i seriously, seriously doubt he can last the rest of this short season before missing some more games.
why some people call for keeping a guy who can't shoot a 3 or stay healthy simply boggles me.

pacerDU
02-20-2009, 08:10 PM
I agree with resting Dunleavy the rest of the season, but not Danny. Keep him out until he's fully/100%/no pain healed - 4 or 5 weeks if needed - but I think it would be bad for his development if he were to sit out the remainder of the season.

Not to mention it would set a bad precedent for the future - "we're out of the playoffs so let's sit all our main players". I don't know about you, but as a fan I want to see the best players play - if they're healthy.

That incident with the Spurs sitting out their "big-3" a few weeks ago against Denver just to give them a rest really annoyed me. What about all those fans who paid for tickets to see a good game?? You're being paid the big-bucks to play.

Overall however this could all be a good thing, as we were most likely missing the playoffs anyway. It'll be good for both Hibbert and Rush to get more time to develop and us to get a better draft-pick, even if it's a weak draft.

Anthem
02-20-2009, 08:20 PM
You can't play McBob at the 3. That's setting him up to fail even more than playing Jack at the 2.

Hicks
02-20-2009, 08:23 PM
Ford/Diener/Jack
Jack/Rush/Daniels
Daniels/Rush/Graham
Murphy/Baston/McRoberts
Hibbert/Nesterovic

Apparently.

Thesterovic
02-20-2009, 10:45 PM
I say trade Dun in the off season. We need young talented players instead of old and more talented players. He is real good, but he does slow us down alot. His defence would have costed us the game today if he was playing. Him and Murph would get us someone pretty dang good, but i'd like to keep Ol' Reliable as a bench player.

BlueNGold
02-20-2009, 11:39 PM
You showcase Murphy for trade bait. Let him average 20 and 10 every night on a bad team, which will most likely increase his trade value this off-season.

:laugh:. I think we are already doing a great job of showcasing Murphy. He should look pretty good on paper with Foster off the court. His rebounding numbers at least will be Dwight-like.

The absolute worst thing we could do is hurry Granger back to the court. If he's 100%, sure have him play. But there is absolutely no reason to take any risks. We just saw our second best player come back and go back down. Let's not ruin Granger's career and have him end up like JO.

pacergod2
02-21-2009, 11:11 AM
That was funny.

Anthem... I guess that is my delusion of grandeur to go big for once, instead of ALWAYS seemingly playing smaller than every team we play. I would love to see McRoberts getting more minutes no matter where he plays. I would rather have McRoberts playing the three than seeing Jack playing even more two. But I just want to see what he can bring to the table with more minutes.

JayRedd
02-21-2009, 02:53 PM
Pacers Basketball: It's FANNNN-tastic.

speakout4
02-21-2009, 04:41 PM
Until I hear that they are resting Dunleavy so he can be completely healed for next season I am going to believe that Dun will be on and off for the next two seasons.

McRoberts definitely needs PT to see what we need next season. I am optimistic that he has some more upside that JOB is simply not taking advantage of. What is Baston doing out there when everyone knows he is gone after the season. Give Graham and Rush big minutes at the 2 with Quis at the 3.
Too many guys making too much money who aren't playing.

d_c
02-21-2009, 05:22 PM
That was funny.

Anthem... I guess that is my delusion of grandeur to go big for once, instead of ALWAYS seemingly playing smaller than every team we play. I would love to see McRoberts getting more minutes no matter where he plays. I would rather have McRoberts playing the three than seeing Jack playing even more two. But I just want to see what he can bring to the table with more minutes.

There isn't a coach in this league who would even consider McRoberts at the 3. Unless he's able to go down court everytime and score or draw fouls at will against a smaller defender in the paint, there is literally no advantage to playing someone like McRoberts at the 3 (to go along with a lot of disadvantages).

CableKC
02-21-2009, 08:27 PM
I would rather have McRoberts playing the three than seeing Jack playing even more two.
Playing McRoberts at the SF spot would be such an Anti-JO'B move. Going really Big...no matter how illogical it would seem.....would probably make JO'Bs head would explode or something. :laugh:


There isn't a coach in this league who would even consider McRoberts at the 3. Unless he's able to go down court everytime and score or draw fouls at will against a smaller defender in the paint, there is literally no advantage to playing someone like McRoberts at the 3 (to go
along with a lot of disadvantages).
I think you're misreading what pacergod2 is saying....I think that he is saying that if he was given a choice between seeing Jack at the 2 spot and McRoberts at the 3 spot, he would have McRoberts play the SF spot simply cuz he dislikes Jack at the SG spot so much. ;)