PDA

View Full Version : Amare for Jefferson/#6



ESutt7
06-18-2009, 01:28 AM
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/59885/20090618/jefferson_for_stoudemire_in_the_works/


An NBA executive told the Boston Globe that the Timberwolves and Suns are working on a trade that would send Al Jefferson and the Wolves' sixth draft pick to Phoenix in exchange for Amare Stoudemire. David Kahn is looking to make dramatic changes after recently being hired in Minnesota.


Who knows if it will happen. I'd be pissed if I was a Minny fan. He'll bolt after a year and he'll be unhappy there the whole season. Al is a great building block and they could get a very good player at 6. Al is the face of that franchise and is one of the most skilled low post players. I love it for PHX, hate it for MIN. They'll be left with nothing in a year. If it's true of course.

cdash
06-18-2009, 02:05 AM
Wow. I wouldn't deal Jefferson for Amare straight up, and they are talking about trading him and the 6th pick? I understand Kahn wants to put his stamp on the team, but Jefferson is the one guy you have that you need to build around. Trade Love for a true PG or a legit C, but don't trade your best young player just because you think you need to make a splash. The Love-back-to-Memphis-for-the-#2 pick made much more sense than this.

pwee31
06-18-2009, 02:22 AM
The only reason this would make since is if the Wolves don't think Jefferson will recover from the injury. Otherwise they should use the draft to build around Jefferson and Love.

Anthem
06-18-2009, 03:44 AM
"Putting his stamp on it," huh? He could also do that by trading a later pick and deadweight Brian Cardinal for a great PG like, oh I don't know, Jamaal Tinsley.

:signit:

d_c
06-18-2009, 03:47 AM
I guess the Wolves' offer beats those Murphy/Tinsley offers from the trade board.

MillerTime
06-18-2009, 03:48 AM
yikes. I dont know what the T-Wolves are thinking. They have such a solid young core. I think Jefferson and Love would be a great combo. I would love Jefferson to come to Indy but there probably no way we can land him, and he is damn expensive.

Coming off his injury, I think the Suns need to be a little careful with pulling this deal.

If Amare was unhappy in PHX, I wonder how long its going to take him to demand a trade from Minni

Justin Tyme
06-18-2009, 06:12 AM
Both Amare and Al are coming off injuries, and David Kahn has to get Glen Taylors approval to make this deal... it just ain't happ'n.

Jefferson just missed being an Allstar this past year. He's an Allstar in the making with a great attitude, so there is NO reason to trade for Amare? None/nada. He was the main reason/focal point to trade KG to Boston, and to rebuild a team around. As someone else posted, I wouldn't trade them straight up let alone in the 6th. The Suns need to be adding to the trade to get Jefferson and unload Amare not the T-Wolves!!

Kuq_e_Zi91
06-18-2009, 06:13 AM
yikes. I dont know what the T-Wolves are thinking. They have such a solid young core. I think Jefferson and Love would be a great combo. I would love Jefferson to come to Indy but there probably no way we can land him, and he is damn expensive.

Coming off his injury, I think the Suns need to be a little careful with pulling this deal.

If Amare was unhappy in PHX, I wonder how long its going to take him to demand a trade from Minni

Jefferson and Love a great combo? They're both undersized. I'd rather have Jefferson and Mayo. I disagree about Jefferson being expensive. I think when you look at his production, he's being payed accordingly.

I don't even think twice if I'm Kerr. This is too good to be true. You get a younger, better PF plus the 6th draft pick for Amare - who could very easily leave Phoenix after next season anyways. Get value for him now while you can, and it doesn't get much better than this.

He won't demand a trade. He'll enjoy his 16 mil and be the man in Minny for a year then bolt and look for that next pay day.

Minny must be hit really bad by the economy to trade their franchise player and their top draft pick for an expiring.

Trader Joe
06-18-2009, 08:31 AM
Jefferson was better than Amare this year. Much better.

Will Galen
06-18-2009, 08:53 AM
"Putting his stamp on it," huh? He could also do that by trading a later pick and deadweight Brian Cardinal for a great PG like, oh I don't know, Jamaal Tinsley.

:signit:

Actually if Kahn will trade Jefferson for Amare, why not?

count55
06-18-2009, 09:08 AM
This doesn't seem like a particularly wise move for Minnesota.

idioteque
06-18-2009, 09:14 AM
What is Minnesota thinking?

Doddage
06-18-2009, 09:19 AM
What a horrible move by Minnesota if they actually do this. Jefferson is not only a younger player than Amare and thus makes more sense for a rebuilding team, but he's better (imo) on both ends. This is what keeps teams like Minnesota out of the playoffs for years.

jhondog28
06-18-2009, 09:25 AM
Minnesota getting "Mchaled" on this deal

grace
06-18-2009, 09:29 AM
I'm disappointed. When I saw the title of the thread for a minute I thought it meant Milwaukee was getting rid of Richard Jefferson.

jeffg-body
06-18-2009, 09:53 AM
If this goes through it would have to be a huge bonehead move for Minny.

Smoothdave1
06-18-2009, 10:11 AM
Terrible move for Minnesota. Jefferson has another 4 years on his deal at a reasonable salary for a big man. Plus, he's younger than Amare. And you throw in the #6 pick?

I saw that the Wolves may be shopping Love, potentially to Memphis for the 2nd pick. They could grab someone like Rubio or Thabeet to pair next to Jefferson. Plus, they have their 6th, 18th and 28th picks as well. A move for someone like Amare is not the best move for a rebuilding team. They have a lot of holes to fill at the point and center, especially. I think Kahn may come in there and make a few deals as both Miller and Cardinal are expirings and could package some picks.

Justin Tyme
06-18-2009, 10:24 AM
What does anyone know about the type of person David Kahn is when he was with the Pacers? Is he the type of person that would be insulted and take it personally that Jefferson came to him a few weeks ago and asked him to keep McHale as coach? Enough to trade Jefferson b/c of it? If so, Glen Taylor chose another wrong GM!!!

cdash
06-18-2009, 10:44 AM
This deal solves absolutely nothing for Minnesota. It's basically like giving away the 6th pick. Jefferson and Amare extremely similar, I actually prefer Al to Amare, and he is younger. The injury thing is a non-issue, because Amare had the same operation done to his knees, and he now has this eye thing to worry about. Just a bizarre rumor.

Oh, and one more thing...Amare is a free agent after this upcoming season. I'm guessing the chances of him re-signing with Minnesota would be between slim and none. Jefferson is locked into a long term deal at a fair price. Again, what the hell? There's no way this can go down. If it does, then I expect Bird to blow up David Kahn's pager (let's be serious, he has a pager) with Tinsley for Corey Brewer offers.

DrFife
06-18-2009, 11:25 AM
Terrible move for Minnesota. Jefferson has another 4 years on his deal at a reasonable salary for a big man. Plus, he's younger than Amare. And you throw in the #6 pick?

I saw that the Wolves may be shopping Love, potentially to Memphis for the 2nd pick. They could grab someone like Rubio or Thabeet to pair next to Jefferson. Plus, they have their 6th, 18th and 28th picks as well. A move for someone like Amare is not the best move for a rebuilding team. They have a lot of holes to fill at the point and center, especially. I think Kahn may come in there and make a few deals as both Miller and Cardinal are expirings and could package some picks.

I think the Love deal is far more likely. My value analysis suggests that a fair deal is Love + MIN's #18 for the #2. Getting Love still leaves Memphis weak, defensively, so naturally, the negotiating -- if it advances -- will progress from MIN saying something like "Love for #2" to "Okay, Love plus our #28 for #2" to perhaps "Fine, Love plus our #18 for your #2 and your #27". What'll be most interesting to me, here, is whether the T-Wolves pluck Rubio and leave a hole at center, or reach for Thabeet, but then still grab a good PG at #6.

Man, I love this time of year! :happydanc

travmil
06-18-2009, 11:27 AM
They just came over ESPNNews and said this deal is dead. No chance of happening.

count55
06-18-2009, 11:27 AM
I think the Love deal is far more likely. My value analysis suggests that a fair deal is Love + MIN's #18 for the #2. Getting Love still leaves Memphis weak, defensively, so naturally, the negotiating -- if it advances -- will progress from MIN saying something like "Love for #2" to "Okay, Love plus our #28 for #2" to perhaps "Fine, Love plus our #18 for your #2 and your #27". What'll be most interesting to me, here, is whether the T-Wolves pluck Rubio and leave a hole at center, or reach for Thabeet, but then still grab a good PG at #6.

Man, I love this time of year! :happydanc

Supposedly, the plan is to take Rubio, and then pick up Hill at #6.

Trader Joe
06-18-2009, 11:44 AM
They just came over ESPNNews and said this deal is dead. No chance of happening.

Minnesota must have sobered up.

pacergod2
06-18-2009, 12:00 PM
Minnesota would be smart to make that Love deal. I really really really like Love as an NBA player, but no matter what the deal is, if the Twolves pick up that second pick, they absolutely positively should take Thabeet. It puts a big body next to Al, who really is much more of a PF, and takes some of the pressure defensively off Al. This would be a hell of a tandem up front for Minny.

Assuming the Twolves still have their #6 pick, I would have to say that they would then pick a PG. At that point you don't get Rubio, but they would get either Jrue Holiday or Tyreke Evans. If Hill were to fall to six, then they would be fielding a BOATLOAD of offers to move up, especially from the Knicks to bypass GS.

MillerTime
06-18-2009, 12:17 PM
They just came over ESPNNews and said this deal is dead. No chance of happening.

I wonder if we could interest them in something. I doubt theres much they want that we have

Doddage
06-18-2009, 12:26 PM
If Jefferson is indeed on the block, I would seriously think about offering them Granger for him. I'm not sure if they'd be interested to do a big man for wing trade like that, but since they have Love, they can afford to do it. We can afford to do it as well since not only we have Dunleavy, but we can find a scoring wing at any time.

travmil
06-18-2009, 12:29 PM
If Jefferson is indeed on the block, I would seriously think about offering them Granger for him. I'm not sure if they'd be interested to do a big man for wing trade like that, but since they have Love, they can afford to do it. We can afford to do it as well since not only we have Dunleavy, but we can find a scoring wing at any time.

I wish there were a way to un-thank a post.

MillerTime
06-18-2009, 12:33 PM
If Jefferson is indeed on the block, I would seriously think about offering them Granger for him. I'm not sure if they'd be interested to do a big man for wing trade like that, but since they have Love, they can afford to do it. We can afford to do it as well since not only we have Dunleavy, but we can find a scoring wing at any time.

You have to keep in mind that theres a lot more to Granger (and other players) than what they bring the the court. Granger has expressed an interest in staying in Indy. Granger is also great for PR. I would basically be happy to trade anyone on our team except Granger for Jefferson. They could create whatever package. But Granger right now should be untouchable!

Doddage
06-18-2009, 12:40 PM
Before there's a backlash, I did only say that I'd think about it. It's an intriguing possibility to have Al Jefferson on the Pacers, and if there's a way to get him here without trading Granger, then I'd obviously absolutely prefer that. But since I don't think such scenario exists, that's why I brought up Granger. Listen, I love Granger as much as every other Pacers fan, but I'm not going to label him as untouchable. If we can get something for him that would undoubtedly help us more, then it's always something you consider.

In other words, you can't say no if you could land Dwight Howard or Chris Paul for Granger. In running a team, you always have to be open to ideas.

MillerTime
06-18-2009, 12:45 PM
Before there's a backlash, I did only say that I'd think about it. It's an intriguing possibility to have Al Jefferson on the Pacers, and if there's a way to get him here without trading Granger, then I'd obviously absolutely prefer that. But since I don't think such scenario exists, that's why I brought up Granger. Listen, I love Granger as much as every other Pacers fan, but I'm not going to label him as untouchable. If we can get something for him that would undoubtedly help us more, then it's always something you consider.

In other words, you can't say no if you could land Dwight Howard or Chris Paul for Granger. In running a team, you always have to be open to ideas.

Sure theres a way to get Jefferson with trading Granger. Heres a possibility: Foster, Rush, Hibbert, 2009 first rounder, and 2010 first rounder http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=mpnmb3 Quite frankly, I dont think they Pacers would do that trade...

CableKC
06-18-2009, 01:13 PM
If there is any truth to this....you'd think that something else is going on. Jefferson for Amare straight up seems to be a good deal...throwing in the 6th pick seems like overpaying.

I'm merely speculating.....but the Players really seemed to like McHale and they were finally "getting it" under his Coaching where they were doing much better after the start of the year. I thought that they were one of the better Coached Teams in the League from New Years to the end of the season. I find it odd that they would can him after doing so well....unless McHale didn't want to Coach and decided to leave.

Just throwing this out.......but has there been any rumors of the TWolves trying to sell/move the Franchise?

I thought that there was some rumor out there that some Team was trying to do what the Sonics were doing before they were sold to that Group from OKC.

SoupIsGood
06-18-2009, 01:13 PM
Minnesota must have sobered up.

No kidding. And this


(let's be serious, he has a pager)

was amazing. :laugh:

ESutt7
06-18-2009, 01:17 PM
I wish there were a way to un-thank a post.
:laugh:

PR07
06-18-2009, 01:25 PM
This seems like a dumb move for the T-wolves. Jefferson is younger and is signed long-term. Amare is going to be one and done. It's not the like the Wolves are a contender and the talent difference between Amare and Jefferson makes them better. Not only do they lose that, but they lose the #6 overall pick too? Doesn't make much sense.

croz24
06-18-2009, 02:03 PM
I wish there were a way to un-thank a post.

pacers fans just don't know what it takes to build a winner

granger's good for pr? riiight, because fans are just flocking to see him play at conseco, even with $5-10 tickets...

MillerTime
06-18-2009, 02:10 PM
pacers fans just don't know what it takes to build a winner

granger's good for pr? riiight, because fans are just flocking to see him play at conseco, even with $5-10 tickets...

Granger being good in the PR department and selling tickets is totally different. Selling tickets means winning games which we arent doing right now. Granger is good in the community which is PR, IMO

Hitman02
06-18-2009, 02:22 PM
I hope Larry is on the phone right now seeing if there is any way we can get Jefferson.
Seriously, I knew this "deal" would collapse the second I read it, but the fact that there was even a rumor about it makes me wonder about Al's availability. Am I the only one who thinks Jefferson would be a perfect fit here? Or would he contrast with JOB's style of play?

croz24
06-18-2009, 02:28 PM
Granger being good in the PR department and selling tickets is totally different. Selling tickets means winning games which we arent doing right now. Granger is good in the community which is PR, IMO

they go hand in hand when management does nothing but harp on the fact that bad pr is the reason fans stopped attending games...

Coop
06-18-2009, 02:43 PM
pacers fans just don't know what it takes to build a winner

granger's good for pr? riiight, because fans are just flocking to see him play at conseco, even with $5-10 tickets...

And trading Granger for Jefferson would instantly make us worlds better? A wing tandem of a 2nd year Rush and a rehabbing Dunleavy just screams ECF, right?

You've wanted to trade Granger for a long time, so it doesn't surprise me you would support this idea.

croz24
06-18-2009, 02:50 PM
And trading Granger for Jefferson would instantly make us worlds better? A wing tandem of a 2nd year Rush and a rehabbing Dunleavy just screams ECF, right?

You've wanted to trade Granger for a long time, so it doesn't surprise me you would support this idea.

i wanted to trade granger before he was resigned yes...somebody needs to bump that who would you trade granger for pull to show just how blind some of you really are. many people on here wouldn't even trade granger straight up for lebron or paul or howard! would i trade granger straight up for jefferson? probably. sf is the easiest position in the league to fill. there's at least 20 sfs out there who could put up comparable, if not better, numbers to granger if given his minutes and shot attempts...meanwhile, pf and c are the two hardest positions to fill. if we can get an all-star caliber pf for a non-all-nba sf, we do that in a heartbeat.

travmil
06-18-2009, 02:52 PM
pacers fans just don't know what it takes to build a winner

granger's good for pr? riiight, because fans are just flocking to see him play at conseco, even with $5-10 tickets...

And you do? You would have traded Granger for the pick that landed....Jeff Green? You have zero credibility when it comes to discussions on Granger's worth to this franchise. I'll give you one thing. Your absolutely obvious Granger hate takes a real commitment to being wrong. Way to stick with it sport.

Coop
06-18-2009, 02:59 PM
i wanted to trade granger before he was resigned yes...somebody needs to bump that who would you trade granger for pull to show just how blind some of you really are. many people on here wouldn't even trade granger straight up for lebron or paul or howard! would i trade granger straight up for jefferson? probably. sf is the easiest position in the league to fill. there's at least 20 sfs out there who could put up comparable, if not better, numbers to granger if given his minutes and shot attempts...meanwhile, pf and c are the two hardest positions to fill. if we can get an all-star caliber pf for a non-all-nba sf, we do that in a heartbeat.

Of course you have to trade Granger for Lebron, Howard or Paul. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of you because they know how worked up you get about it.

20 SF's that could do the same? Mind making a list for me? Thats nonsense. Jefferson took more shots per game than Granger and averaged less points. How many PF's could do the same if given the same minutes and shots that Jefferson got? I'm almost positive you won't say 20. You're so quick to point out Pacer fans being "blind" with Granger, but you're making the same biased arguments for players not on the Pacers.


And you do? You would have traded Granger for the pick that landed....Jeff Green? You have zero credibility when it comes to discussions on Granger's worth to this franchise. I'll give you one thing. Your absolutely obvious Granger hate takes a real commitment to being wrong. Way to stick with it sport.

He still would trade Granger for Green. I'm pretty sure he made that comment somewhere this season.

DrFife
06-18-2009, 03:02 PM
I think the Love deal is far more likely. My value analysis suggests that a fair deal is Love + MIN's #18 for the #2. Getting Love still leaves Memphis weak, defensively, so naturally, the negotiating -- if it advances -- will progress from MIN saying something like "Love for #2" to "Okay, Love plus our #28 for #2" to perhaps "Fine, Love plus our #18 for your #2 and your #27". What'll be most interesting to me, here, is whether the T-Wolves pluck Rubio and leave a hole at center, or reach for Thabeet, but then still grab a good PG at #6.

Man, I love this time of year! :happydanc

Per Count's suggestion (in response to the above) that Minnesota would jump up to grab Rubio and then select Hill at #6, I thought of yet another alternative; one that truly would qualify as making a "splash": use Love and their three first-round picks to jump up -- twice -- to select Rubio and Thabeet. They've got the "value" to do it; they just need willing trade partners. Yes, they would still be awful next year, yet would still draw fans, I imagine. Moreover, they could market themselves as joining Portland and Oklahoma City as the rising powers in the West.

croz24
06-18-2009, 03:05 PM
And you do? You would have traded Granger for the pick that landed....Jeff Green? You have zero credibility when it comes to discussions on Granger's worth to this franchise. I'll give you one thing. Your absolutely obvious Granger hate takes a real commitment to being wrong. Way to stick with it sport.

i have never said i'd trade granger for jeff green...but for comparisons sake. jeff green's 2nd year in the league was superior to granger's second year. you show an extreme lack of knowledge to imply jeff green is some kid off the streets.

my granger hate? because i would endorse trading granger, who hasn't led this team anywhere, for a younger all-star at a position harder to fill in al jefferson?

croz24
06-18-2009, 03:13 PM
Of course you have to trade Granger for Lebron, Howard or Paul. Anyone saying otherwise is just trying to get a rise out of you because they know how worked up you get about it.

20 SF's that could do the same? Mind making a list for me? Thats nonsense. Jefferson took more shots per game than Granger and averaged less points. How many PF's could do the same if given the same minutes and shots that Jefferson got? I'm almost positive you won't say 20. You're so quick to point out Pacer fans being "blind" with Granger, but you're making the same biased arguments for players not on the Pacers.



He still would trade Granger for Green. I'm pretty sure he made that comment somewhere this season.

lebron
durant
carter
pierce
iguodala
richardson
turkoglu
anthony
jefferson
gay
thornton
lewis
young
green
beasley
wallace
j smith
odom
salmons
butler
mcgrady
artest
...

JayRedd
06-18-2009, 03:14 PM
This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. And this is coming from a guy who has read not one, but two of LG33's posts.

Coop
06-18-2009, 03:23 PM
LOL at some of those guys being able to average 26ppg. I'm done with you.

croz24
06-18-2009, 03:27 PM
LOL at some of those guys being able to average 26ppg. I'm done with you.

considering granger was 6th in the league in fg attempts and shot sub 45% from the field, yes, they can and some of those guys already have.

spreedom
06-18-2009, 03:44 PM
lebron
durant
carter
pierce
iguodala
richardson
turkoglu
anthony
jefferson
gay
thornton
lewis
young
green
beasley
wallace
j smith
odom
salmons
butler
mcgrady
artest
...


Um, what's the word.....

Hicks
06-18-2009, 03:48 PM
What croz24 isn't telling you is that by "sub 45%" he means 44.7%.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/danny_granger/

:unimpress

I guess the NBA coaches are idiots for voting him as an all-star over most of those 20, too. After all, what do they know, right?

travmil
06-18-2009, 03:49 PM
considering granger was 6th in the league in fg attempts and shot sub 45% from the field, yes, they can and some of those guys already have.


Forget it. It's not even worth it. I'd rather go shove my head in a wood chipper...

Hicks
06-18-2009, 03:50 PM
Danny also hit 40.4% of his 3 pointers..... but ignore that.

He also played hurt part of the year, lowering his %'s. Pay no mind.

Hicks
06-18-2009, 03:52 PM
What croz24 isn't telling you is that by "sub 45%" he means 44.7%.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/danny_granger/

:unimpress

I guess the NBA coaches are idiots for voting him as an all-star over most of those 20, too. After all, what do they know, right?

So this doesn't get lost on the end of page 2.....

croz24
06-18-2009, 03:53 PM
Danny also hit 40.4% of his 3 pointers..... but ignore that.

He also played hurt part of the year, lowering his %'s. Pay no mind.

and so do 90% of the players in the nba. injuries are apart of the game. yes, granger shot very well from 3. but a sub 45% shooting for the second consecutive year as our go-to player at the sg or sf position is very weak.

Hicks
06-18-2009, 03:56 PM
travmil, I wish you'd left up your post and included blocks and steals while you were at it.

But you're probably right. I'm arguing with someone who has already made up his mind and thinks he knows it all when it comes to Danny Granger, so why keep doing this to myself.

tadscout
06-18-2009, 04:06 PM
Jefferson staying put with Wolves (http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2009/06/jefferson_stayi.html)

An NBA source said today that Minnesota forward-center Al Jefferson is not being traded to the Suns with the sixth overall pick for Suns All-Star forward Amare Stoudemire. An NBA executive told The Globe on Wednesday that the teams discussed the trade. But another source acknowledged the discussion, but also said the Suns were quickly turned down. The source added that the Wolves new general manager David Kahn has even called Jefferson, an ex-Celtic, to tell him the trade would not happen. As for Stoudemire, the cost-cutting Suns definitely seem interesting in moving him and his hefty salary.

Lance George
06-18-2009, 04:17 PM
I'd say Granger is a slightly better small forward than Jefferson is a center. I also recognize that good-to-great center's are rarer and more valuable than good-to-great small forwards. All in all I'd call it a toss-up with my personal attachment to Granger being the deciding factor.

SoupIsGood
06-18-2009, 04:43 PM
I'd say Granger is a slightly better small forward than Jefferson is a center. I also recognize that good-to-great center's are rarer and more valuable than good-to-great small forwards. All in all I'd call it a toss-up with my personal attachment to Granger being the deciding factor.

I think Al's acl tear swings it decidedly back to granger.

Trophy
06-18-2009, 04:43 PM
The Suns would be getting the better part of this deal I think.

SoupIsGood
06-18-2009, 04:46 PM
lebron
durant
carter
pierce
iguodala
richardson
turkoglu
anthony
jefferson
gay
thornton
lewis
young
green
beasley
wallace
j smith
odom
salmons
butler
mcgrady
artest
...

:laugh:

Trophy
06-18-2009, 04:48 PM
lebron
durant
carter
pierce
iguodala
richardson
turkoglu
anthony
jefferson
gay
thornton
lewis
young
green
beasley
wallace
j smith
odom
salmons
butler
mcgrady
artest
...

Which Wallace?

tadscout
06-18-2009, 04:50 PM
The Suns would be getting the better part of this deal I think.

I feel so ignored... I'll go back into my corner now... :peek:

avoidingtheclowns
06-18-2009, 04:50 PM
Which Wallace?

All of 'em: Ben, Gerald, William

docpaul
06-18-2009, 04:55 PM
There's no way in Hades that Minnesota would even consider getting rid of Jefferson, unless the deal was insane... so can we all move on from this? He's their "Granger"... the only guy they have locked up long term.

OTOH, if they're genuinely interested in getting rid of the #6, they are in dire need of some real PG help. How about Ford for #6, Cardinal, and filler? Cap relief for next year, good potential of landing a pick like Harden if he slips, and a solid commitment to Jack.

Trophy
06-18-2009, 04:58 PM
All of 'em: Ben, Gerald, William

William Wallace. :laugh:

He can probably make his 3 pointers unlike Rasheed.

Hicks
06-18-2009, 05:08 PM
Danny will never be any good until he shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. :D

ESutt7
06-18-2009, 05:31 PM
Kobe is a career 45% shooter...guess he sucks too. Shard shot 44%. Hedo shot 41%. Melo shot 44%. All truly awful wings I'd say. :rolleyes:

Trophy
06-18-2009, 05:43 PM
Kobe is a career 45% shooter...guess he sucks too. Shard shot 44%. Hedo shot 41%. Melo shot 44%. All truly awful wings I'd say. :rolleyes:

These guys can actually make them with a hand in their face. Sheed just would take it whenever.

ESutt7
06-18-2009, 06:02 PM
These guys can actually make them with a hand in their face. Sheed just would take it whenever.

I was just referring to the comment about Danny shooting 44.7%.

JayRedd
06-18-2009, 08:53 PM
All of 'em: Ben, Gerald, William

You forgot Mike.

travmil
06-18-2009, 09:04 PM
Danny will never be any good until he shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. :D

Now that's what you need to build a winner. I should know. I'm a Pacer fan.

Pacersfan46
06-18-2009, 09:16 PM
and so do 90% of the players in the nba. injuries are apart of the game. yes, granger shot very well from 3. but a sub 45% shooting for the second consecutive year as our go-to player at the sg or sf position is very weak.

Here's a newsflash for you ..... when you take more shots, and you're the go-to guy, generally your shooting percentage takes hit to some extent. Your weaknesses are more likey to get exposed and you're probably taking more difficult shots than the rest of the guys on the floor. The defense keys on you. Here's another newsflash ... when you shoot as many 3's as Granger does, your shooting percentage will be skewed towards that number to a greater extent than say, a guy who takes fewer 3's. Mostly because more of his shots are closer to the rim.

For what Granger does and the player he is, his shooting percentage on the year was quite good. That doesn't even account for the fact that the 2 months he was hobbling because of his knee he shot 41%. Without that injury that argument goes beyond the silly realm it's already in, and into some other region I can't even begin to name .....

Hory Cow. What crazyness.

-- Steve --

Smoothdave1
06-18-2009, 10:12 PM
First of all, Granger was 13th in total Field Goals attempted this year; 6th in average per game.

Second, if you look at adjusted field goal percentage, Granger is at .518%, which is ahead of bums like Wade, Kobe, Brandon Roy, Dirk, Al Jefferson and Durant, to name a few.

**Adjusted Field Goal Percentage measures shooting efficiency by taking into account the total points a player produces through his field goal attempts. The intention of this adjustment is largely to evaluate the impact of three-point shooting. For ex: If Shaquille O'Neal has 3-5 FG, all two-point shots for 6 points, then his ADJ FG% = [(6/5)]/2 = .600. Meanwhile, if Ray Allen is 2-5 FG, but his 2 FGM are both three-pointers for 6 points, then his ADJ FG% = [(6/5)]/2 = .600

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/statistics?stat=nbafgpct&qual=true&sort=fga&league=nba&split=0&season=2009&seasontype=2&avg=pg&pos=all

croz24
06-18-2009, 11:21 PM
So this doesn't get lost on the end of page 2.....

only 4 players since 04-05 who have taken at least 19fga/game have not averaged at least 23ppg...

of the 22 players i mentioned who could put up those numbers given similar circumstances to granger (meaning 19fga/gm), which ones don't you think could?

give any nba player enough shots, and he'll get you 25+ppg.

i still don't know when i've ever said granger wasn't a good basketball player. i came on here to support the idea of trade between the t-wolves and pacers involving granger and jefferson. i'm sorry, but any individual who would take the sg/sf over the pf/c given fairly equal talent and age just has no clue what it takes to win in the nba. a healthy, al jefferson is just a more valuable player than granger. the last time a sf led his team to a title was......? why? because the sf position is by far the easiest position to fill in the nba.

Hicks
06-18-2009, 11:31 PM
*waits for response to smoothdave*

SycamoreKen
06-18-2009, 11:58 PM
All of 'em: Ben, Gerald, William

Don't forget this one:

http://images.wallaceandgromit.com/wip/logo.jpg

Though i think Gromit would be a dogged defender.

Oh yea. In the games I saw, i don't think Danny shot the ball enough. He is a much smoother player than half the guys on that list, some of whom would not shoot well eough game to game to stay with Danny.

That trade idea was a joke as well.

Ballerzfan
06-18-2009, 11:59 PM
this thread has been highly entertaining!

SycamoreKen
06-19-2009, 12:01 AM
Hey, its the offseason.

Hicks
06-19-2009, 12:17 AM
*waits for response to smoothdave*

:gossip:

SycamoreKen
06-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Smoothdave had too much math in that response.

kester99
06-19-2009, 01:00 AM
Danny will never be any good until he shoots fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse. :D

That stuff might have been OK back in the Bad Boys era, but anymore that's just foul trouble waiting to happen.

SycamoreKen
06-19-2009, 01:01 AM
Not to mention the flagrant count going up. Imagine how many refs would be piles of cinders now if Sheed could do that.

croz24
06-19-2009, 02:10 AM
:gossip:

maybe i should pull a hicks "not even worth my time" excuse. nobody chickens out of more discussions than you hicks...granger was 6th in fga/game which is clearly the stat i was implying since i was indeed referring to danny's ppg AVERAGE.

as far as any adjusted field goal percentage stat, it's a weak stat. too much value is placed on players who get to the foul line or hit 3pters. you have players like roger mason, rashard lewis, and rasual butler going from .430something fg% to .530+% solely because they jack up a lot of 3s. it's not an indication of anything other than players who can hit 3s at a decent clip.

Hicks
06-19-2009, 10:12 AM
maybe i should pull a hicks "not even worth my time" excuse. nobody chickens out of more discussions than you hicks...granger was 6th in fga/game which is clearly the stat i was implying since i was indeed referring to danny's ppg AVERAGE.

as far as any adjusted field goal percentage stat, it's a weak stat. too much value is placed on players who get to the foul line or hit 3pters. you have players like roger mason, rashard lewis, and rasual butler going from .430something fg% to .530+% solely because they jack up a lot of 3s. it's not an indication of anything other than players who can hit 3s at a decent clip.

:laugh:

Wow. You really are just a troll in an overbearing sheep's clothing, aren't you?

Enough. You're a classic example of what we Admins refer to as a tight rope walker. The kind who tends to push the envelope continuously, while doing enough to not quite be a blatant troll all of the time.

Well, enough. We've been through this at least once before, and you barely deserved to come back then. I'm done.

MillerTime
06-19-2009, 02:26 PM
:laugh:

Wow. You really are just a troll in an overbearing sheep's clothing, aren't you?

Enough. You're a classic example of what we Admins refer to as a tight rope walker. The kind who tends to push and envelope continuously, while doing enough to not quite be a blatant troll all of the time.

Well, enough. We've been through this at least once before, and you barely deserved to come back then. I'm done.

:applaud:

Trophy
06-19-2009, 03:33 PM
maybe i should pull a hicks "not even worth my time" excuse. nobody chickens out of more discussions than you hicks...granger was 6th in fga/game which is clearly the stat i was implying since i was indeed referring to danny's ppg AVERAGE.

as far as any adjusted field goal percentage stat, it's a weak stat. too much value is placed on players who get to the foul line or hit 3pters. you have players like roger mason, rashard lewis, and rasual butler going from .430something fg% to .530+% solely because they jack up a lot of 3s. it's not an indication of anything other than players who can hit 3s at a decent clip.

:crazy:

SoupIsGood
06-19-2009, 06:39 PM
as far as any adjusted field goal percentage stat, it's a weak stat. too much value is placed on players who get to the foul line or hit 3pters.

That's... interesting.

maragin
06-19-2009, 06:50 PM
Well, enough. We've been through this at least once before, and you barely deserved to come back then. I'm done.

This seemed pretty trivial to me. Your board, your rules; I get that. Do whatever you want.

Putnam
06-19-2009, 07:07 PM
Trivial?

The rule is "No Trolling." It doesn't have to be an egregious offense to break the rule.

maragin
06-19-2009, 08:58 PM
Just voicing my opinion.

Seemed like a touch foul compared to a flagrant foul. I enjoy debate, open discussion, and I have thick skin.

That said: Not my court, not my ball, not my rules.

rexnom
06-19-2009, 09:06 PM
Trivial?

The rule is "No Trolling." It doesn't have to be an egregious offense to break the rule.


Just voicing my opinion.

Seemed like a touch foul compared to a flagrant foul. I enjoy debate, open discussion, and I have thick skin.

That said: Not my court, not my ball, not my rules.
I don't know Croz's past offenses (if he'd reached 12 points) and I don't know whether he was saying contrarian things just to **** us off and troll (Obie and Danny are terrible, Joe Alexander is amazing, etc.). So the following may be moot.

However...it does seem like a bunch of people just kinda gange up on croz and then waited a page for him to respond, goating him in the process to say something bad. In those situation, you're supposed to walk away, I guess, but he was just egged on. And, wouldn't know, first thing he says, he's banned.

Obviously, ad hominem attacks are inexcusable (except in the case of JayRedd or LG33) but still, it feels like he was ganged up on and baited.

N8R
06-19-2009, 09:23 PM
Now croz24 is banned. OHHHHHH BURN. Al Jeff is too good to trade period. Boston are stupid for initially doing it and Amare is not even close to Jeffs Talents. Oh and thanks everyone for the insightfull posts.

Hicks
06-19-2009, 09:29 PM
I don't know Croz's past offenses (if he'd reached 12 points) and I don't know whether he was saying contrarian things just to **** us off and troll (Obie and Danny are terrible, Joe Alexander is amazing, etc.). So the following may be moot.

However...it does seem like a bunch of people just kinda gange up on croz and then waited a page for him to respond, goating him in the process to say something bad. In those situation, you're supposed to walk away, I guess, but he was just egged on. And, wouldn't know, first thing he says, he's banned.

Obviously, ad hominem attacks are inexcusable (except in the case of JayRedd or LG33) but still, it feels like he was ganged up on and baited.

He came into PD with his attitude and schtick, had previously been warned, has previously been suspended, and has continued until this thread to keep it up. This wasn't a case of "one strike and you're out."

The ganging up you saw here is a group response to his initial volleys back when he started here.

rexnom
06-19-2009, 09:32 PM
He came into PD with his attitude and schtick, had previously been warned, has previously been suspended, and has continued until this thread to keep it up. This wasn't a case of "one strike and you're out."

The ganging up you saw here is a group response to his initial volleys back when he started here.
Good to know. Thanks. I know he's been "annoying" for a long time but I wasn't sure what action you'd taken - thanks for clarifying. :cool:

Trophy
06-19-2009, 09:44 PM
He came into PD with his attitude and schtick, had previously been warned, has previously been suspended, and has continued until this thread to keep it up. This wasn't a case of "one strike and you're out."

The ganging up you saw here is a group response to his initial volleys back when he started here.

Are you ever allowing him back to PD again?

count55
06-19-2009, 09:48 PM
Now croz24 is banned. OHHHHHH BURN. Al Jeff is too good to trade period. Boston are stupid for initially doing it and Amare is not even close to Jeffs Talents. Oh and thanks everyone for the insightfull posts.

So, if Boston was stupid to trade Jefferson, and the result of the Jefferson trade (Garnett) won them a title, I just have one question:

Where do the Pacers learn to do stupid stuff like that?

vnzla81
06-19-2009, 09:55 PM
This thread is funny, thanks guys for making me laugh..............:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Coop
06-19-2009, 10:24 PM
Are you ever allowing him back to PD again?


Hopefully not.

Dece
06-20-2009, 03:06 AM
Hah, what a ridiculous ban, but I guess I'm not surprised. Croz wasn't popular... neither am I for that matter, but it's a message board for the debate of Pacers related topics, and he's entitled to state and defend his positions the same as anyone else.

If you can't remain objective in a debate, you shouldn't be an admin. I don't believe Hicks is being objective in this case.

Coop
06-20-2009, 03:32 AM
Like it was said, this one act isn't what got him banned. It was croz's continuous commitment to disagree and argue with other posters on the board just for the sake of it. It would be one thing if his arguments had merit and made sense. Most of the time, he would take the most logical, universally accepted point and twist and turn it just because he knew it would aggrivate others. That's what I consider trolling, and I'm surprised he made it around here as long as he did.