PDA

View Full Version : Now...This would be a reason to fire Bird (if it weren't 99% likely to be nonsense)



ksuttonjr76
01-06-2010, 08:18 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/320976-larry-legend-preparing-to-tear-pacers-apart-with-blockbuster-deal



Larry Legend Preparing To Tear Pacers Apart With Blockbuster Deal
by Jeff Ehman

With the trade deadline quickly approaching, Larry Bird has gotten a clear direction from the Pacers ownership and the fans that he needs to tear the team completely apart this season. Beware Pacer fans, if Bird tears the team up, then you must realize that the entire NBA knows that you only have one bargaining chip and it is time to use it.

The Houston Rockets and Indiana Pacers are beginning to identify if there is a potential trade that can be made between the two teams. The Rockets have come together during a season in which they should have had more adversity due to the Yao injury last season. Plus, they are doing all of this without Tracy McGrady, so kudos to the Rockets. Now, the Rockets are identifying if they could make a run in the playoffs with a true team.

The Pacers are considering sending their blue chip in Danny Granger along with Troy Murphy and Mike Dunleavy for Tracy McGrady, Brian Cook, and a future pick. The Rockets would be taking on salary for the 2010/11 season, but they are still uncertain as to the status of Yao. So, the move works not only short term, but also for the future.

The Pacers ownership is in a no win situation. They want to win, but the team that they have built is unable to win. So, the fans are staying away. If the fans aren't buying the tickets, then they cannot continue to have this high priced talent. By doing the proposed trade, the Pacers are sacrificing their star player for the betterment of the organization.

Starting lineup for the Pacers would be as follows:

Dantay Jones - PG and Price/Watson/Ford - backups

Brandon Rush - SG and Head - backup

Tracy McGrady - SF

Brian Cook - PF and Tyler Hansbrough - backup

Roy Hibbert - C and Jones/Foster


The Rockets recruit a great deal of depth and get a star player in Granger for many years to come.

Some people at the www.espn.com boards are actually considering it. I would do this, AND ONLY DO THIS if it meant we could sign Lebron James, Dwayne Wade, Kobe Bryant (iffy, because he is getting relatively old), or 2-3 good FAs this summer.

McKeyFan
01-06-2010, 08:22 PM
I heard Rick Adelman just signed onto Pacers Digest.

IndySDExport
01-06-2010, 08:23 PM
Since when did Dantay Jones become a point guard?

This is absolute nonsense. Danny is worth a heck of a lot more than TMac and his expiring contract. And what all star free agents are going to come to a gutted Pacers team next year?

Kegboy
01-06-2010, 08:25 PM
HA!

vnzla81
01-06-2010, 08:26 PM
this is not going to happen.:cool: and who the hell is Jeff Ehman? :confused:

d_c
01-06-2010, 08:28 PM
With Bleacherreport, anyone can now be a journalist with inside sources.

Will Galen
01-06-2010, 08:29 PM
Here I thought it was early January and I find out it's April 1st.

The guy is writing pure nonsense.

D-BONE
01-06-2010, 08:29 PM
If this happens I will denounce my loyalty and fanship of this franchise!

This is pure bunk, though! Nobody in their right mind would agree to this from a Pacers' POV.

sportfireman
01-06-2010, 08:33 PM
i like the dun and murphy..............lets throw in t.j. and you got a deal!!!!

MikeDC
01-06-2010, 08:44 PM
i like the dun and murphy..............lets throw in t.j. and you got a deal!!!!

I agree. If you're gonna trade Granger, you absolutely have to move Ford. Murphy or Dunleavy are probably movable on their own?

count55
01-06-2010, 08:45 PM
It's probably twaddle, but...

It would save about $34mm next year.

cinotimz
01-06-2010, 08:50 PM
Lol. Talk about making an all out push for John Wall. But Count is right. The financial implications are huge. And with the Pacers hemorraghing money I dont think anything is a total impossibility.

Seems highly unlikely. But who knows, maybe somewhere up in the Ivory Tower people are saying a choice has to be made. Trade Granger and become financially viable. Or move the franchise.

Now that becomes a doosie.

sportfireman
01-06-2010, 08:57 PM
I agree. If you're gonna trade Granger, you absolutely have to move Ford. Murphy or Dunleavy are probably movable on their own?

noooo nnooooo i mean swap danny for t.j. im not saying trade danny..........

dun, murph and t.j. for mcgrady, cook and a rockets bumper sticker..........the bumper sticker is a deal breaker........gotta have it:laugh:

ksuttonjr76
01-06-2010, 09:00 PM
noooo nnooooo i mean swap danny for t.j. im not saying trade danny..........

dun, murph and t.j. for mcgrady, cardinal and a rockets bumper sticker..........the bumper sticker is a deal breaker........gotta have it:laugh:

LMAO...wife is looking at me crazy now, thanks.

sportfireman
01-06-2010, 09:00 PM
Lol. Talk about making an all out push for John Wall. But Count is right. The financial implications are huge. And with the Pacers hemorraghing money I dont think anything is a total impossibility.

Seems highly unlikely. But who knows, maybe somewhere up in the Ivory Tower people are saying a choice has to be made. Trade Granger and become financially viable. Or move the franchise.

Now that becomes a doosie.

i would highly consider being a rockets fan:hmm:

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2010, 09:01 PM
If this happens I will denounce my loyalty and fanship of this franchise!

This is pure bunk, though! Nobody in their right mind would agree to this from a Pacers' POV.

I never thought there was anything the Pacers could do to make me stop being a fan of them, but I think this would do it. If they honestly went through with a deal like this, I just don't think I could root for them anymore, I'd probably just stop following the NBA all together.

That being said, theres no way the Pacers would consider a deal like this...I hope.

sportfireman
01-06-2010, 09:02 PM
LMAO...wife is looking at me crazy now, thanks.


you're welcome.......... anytime;)

Spirit
01-06-2010, 09:02 PM
:lol: yeah right, this is completely false.

I don't even know what to say, it's not even worth discussing.

Hicks
01-06-2010, 09:03 PM
It's probably twaddle, but...

It would save about $34mm next year.

Is that with or without the property damage I would be inflicting?

ThA HoyA
01-06-2010, 09:04 PM
I just threw up

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2010, 09:14 PM
Is that with or without the property damage I would be inflicting?

They would need every penny after the fans revolt.

Seriously, if they were to make a trade like this, I honestly believe the other team would have more fans at Conseco than the Pacers.

ksuttonjr76
01-06-2010, 09:14 PM
Thanks for the thread title edit, lol. I should have considered the source before posting this.

count55
01-06-2010, 09:15 PM
Is that with or without the property damage I would be inflicting?

Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

Now, I would normally think that everyone in the Pacers organization would consider this a non-starter. It accelerates the finances by the year, but leaves the team needing two players, instead of just somebody to pair with Danny.

However, I have no idea how dire the financial straits are, so I can't say that this is an impossibility.

However, I seriously doubt that a story like this gets broken by bleacher report.

Anthem
01-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Heh. No need to get excited, it's not real.

I can believe that we're trying to get TMac, but there's no way his asking price is that high. They'd do the deal tomorrow if we included a player like Roy, let alone Granger.

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

Now, I would normally think that everyone in the Pacers organization would consider this a non-starter. It accelerates the finances by the year, but leaves the team needing two players, instead of just somebody to pair with Danny.

However, I have no idea how dire the financial straits are, so I can't say that this is an impossibility.

However, I seriously doubt that a story like this gets broken by bleacher report.

How do you expect the team to make money when the fans see the organization caring more about money than winning? I think this sort of move would only make it that much more likely that they would move.

MillerTime
01-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Woww...

I would hate to see Granger leave. While we're at it, we might as well trade Foster to Utah for Korver and get some more money off the books for 2010. (http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ykdb5og)

If we could do that all, we'd only be at about $25,347,418 in salary obligations next season (with options). That would allow us to his the free agency pretty well. I dont see us getting Lebron, Wade, Kobe, Manu or Bosh...but I think we could possibly lure in free agents like Joe Johnson and Boozer

I think we have great role players like Rush, Hibbert and Hansbrough, but we need about 2 All star or border line All Star players to be an effective team.

This would be a bold move by the Pacers and basically tanking the season. This year's draft has a lot of talent...

Hicks
01-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

If this is what it takes, then the cure is worse than the disease and it's time to shut it down.

count55
01-06-2010, 09:18 PM
BTW...this would not be a reason to fire Bird.

A deal like this could only be blessed by ownership.

MillerTime
01-06-2010, 09:19 PM
Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

Now, I would normally think that everyone in the Pacers organization would consider this a non-starter. It accelerates the finances by the year, but leaves the team needing two players, instead of just somebody to pair with Danny.

However, I have no idea how dire the financial straits are, so I can't say that this is an impossibility.

However, I seriously doubt that a story like this gets broken by bleacher report.

Great point Count

MyFavMartin
01-06-2010, 09:39 PM
:onozomg:

Puh-lease...

Granger does not fit on a team that already has Ariza and Battier... and there's no way that the Pacers do this without high draft picks coming back and Houston doesn't have any of those.

This guy has no inside information and has Dahntay listed as a PG.... Hello?

Write up a horrible, one sided trade that doesn't make any sense and drive
people to your website, particularly men, to check out your advertisements...


:bs2:

Unclebuck
01-06-2010, 09:40 PM
The unfortunate thing is the guy has a point, Granger is our only bargaining chip and I maybe could even agree that now is the time to use it, but for T-mac, Cook and a "future pick" No way. Unles the Rockets have another team's high draft pick?

And to think, many of you think Vecsey is a little wacky

Cactus Jax
01-06-2010, 09:58 PM
To me its such a bogus idea to add Granger into this. I could see the deal being Ford + Murphy + Foster + 1st round pick for McGrady and whatever other junk Houston has. If the Rockets want to try and fill out a solid team for this season, and to really protect Yao, this would be a solid way to keep him healthy.

Shade
01-06-2010, 10:01 PM
No way in hell this happens.





...right? :uhoh:

Shade
01-06-2010, 10:02 PM
The unfortunate thing is the guy has a point, Granger is our only bargaining chip and I maybe could even agree that now is the time to use it, but for T-mac, Cook and a "future pick" No way. Unles the Rockets have another team's high draft pick?

And to think, many of you think Vecsey is a little wacky

Granger is our only bargaining chip this season. Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford become infinitely more valuable next year than they are right now.

count55
01-06-2010, 10:03 PM
Granger is our only bargaining chip this season. Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford become infinitely more valuable next year than they are right now.

No. They really don't.

They become more movable, but not much more valuable.

BlueNGold
01-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Talk about tank. If the Pacers ever want to start winning games, this is not the way.

Only way this happens is if they do it to cut costs. It seems totally unlikely, but if the economy never recovers small market teams will simply be gutted. Probably need to create an NBA A and B league...

Anthem
01-06-2010, 10:08 PM
No way in hell this happens.





...right? :uhoh:
Right.

Putnam
01-06-2010, 10:11 PM
The only thing that can be said for this is that it would bring Cook onto the same team with Luther Head. Now I personally never took part in the discussion, but there were those a couple of years ago who found amusement in the Cook for Head thread.

BlueNGold
01-06-2010, 10:13 PM
The only thing that can be said for this is that it would bring Cook onto the same team with Luther Head. Now I personally never took part in the discussion, but there were those a couple of years ago who found amusement in the Cook for Head thread.

I've not cooked in years...:(

sportfireman
01-06-2010, 10:25 PM
With no Batman who is gonna defend Gotham City????????:confused:

BlueNGold
01-06-2010, 10:34 PM
Maybe the plan is to offer Lebron 45M/yr and pay everyone else the minimum to keep under the cap.

That actually sounds like an improvement.

PaceBalls
01-06-2010, 10:36 PM
Danny is our only bargaining chip, and you have to consider the possiblity. But trading him without getting any talent back at all, just a money saver, seems far fetched. I could see this happening if Houston included a few young studs. Mega deal expands to include TJ and we recieve a PG back. I certainly like the idea of being a player in the upcoming free agency more than I do 2011.

Danny is the man and all, but he is also at the peak of his career, even though he has been sidelined with an injury. Will his value ever be higher?

Kemo
01-06-2010, 10:38 PM
Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.
.


If they got rid of Granger.. They may as well leave the city, cause they wouldn't have enough fans left to open the doors to Conseco... You can take THAT to the bank..

Wage
01-06-2010, 10:44 PM
This is absolute nonsense. Danny is worth a heck of a lot more than TMac and his expiring contract.

I absolutely agree.

However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.

Anthem
01-06-2010, 10:48 PM
However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.
A strong point.

Dr. Awesome
01-06-2010, 10:55 PM
I absolutely agree.

However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.

I agree for the most part, but there is a difference between a young player of Granger's caliber and an older guy on a team trying to make the official move torwards a rebuild.

I'm not saying that will be the case, just pointing out there is a difference.

jeffg-body
01-06-2010, 11:06 PM
I agree that this could be interesting if we could have the possibility to sign 1-2 of the bigger name free agents next year. I am not holding my breath on Lebron, Kobe, Wade, but A high quality player or players that are vets but not too old. Add that to possibly getting another 1st round draft pick in it somehow to go along with our high draft pick and I would be very interested. I am a huge Danny fan, but no one is untradable.

MikeDC
01-06-2010, 11:13 PM
I agree for the most part, but there is a difference between a young player of Granger's caliber and an older guy on a team trying to make the official move torwards a rebuild.

I'm not saying that will be the case, just pointing out there is a difference.

But why would next year's Pacers want an older guy? We'd be in the midst of a rebuild ourselves and thus adding a fading player on a longer term deal would be counterproductive.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2010, 11:40 PM
Hey, what can I say? I don't want this to happen, but I'd rather have this happen than see the team leave the city.

Now, I would normally think that everyone in the Pacers organization would consider this a non-starter. It accelerates the finances by the year, but leaves the team needing two players, instead of just somebody to pair with Danny.

However, I have no idea how dire the financial straits are, so I can't say that this is an impossibility.

However, I seriously doubt that a story like this gets broken by bleacher report.
Totally agree. I mean there is a SLIGHT, TINY sense where this almost makes sense to the Pacers. Give to get, and what you get is massive financial relief. If the team can't handle another year and you have ZERO bites on Troy and Dun in any other manner, then you do it.

But otherwise it's one more year only, and maybe not even a full one at that. Troy could still go this year for Big Z, and honestly that makes more sense as a deal for both teams.

Perhaps the Pacers see TMac as both still able to play and a huge ticket bump this year. That POV would also give some reason to buy into this a bit. Then it's not just the savings next year, but also this year in increased ticket sales.


If Troy and Dun had 2 more years after this season I'd buy this deal and consider it reasonable.

To me the ONLY truth to the story is that the Rockets and Pacers talked about the TMac thing and Houston said "we'd only help you that much if we got Granger too" and the Pacers didn't laugh in their face, ie "considered it".

This guy heard about it from the janitor, a sales rep, the bartender at Mo's, whatever, and has run with it.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2010, 11:45 PM
I absolutely agree.

However, I want all of you to remember just how infuriating the thought of trading Danny away for nothing but expirings feels. Then apply that same reasoning to our soon to be expiring contracts and realize we are not realistically trading them away for some other team's all-star.
I've never thought they were, and I'm pretty sure Count has made a similar case. I think he's even less bullish on the idea that they'll do anything other than just save the money when their deals end.

I think they will move them for some tweak help next year, or for an expiring this year to help another team make a tweak.


I don't think anyone that's viewed the Troy/Dun money as a pathway to an all-star is being reasonable at all. But no matter how much the reality of the numbers gets brought up, that kind of "wait till we get cap space" talk continues.

Personally I hope they stay the hell away from the serious FA market. Bad money out in that area.

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2010, 11:49 PM
The unfortunate thing is the guy has a point, Granger is our only bargaining chip and I maybe could even agree that now is the time to use it, but for T-mac, Cook and a "future pick" No way. Unles the Rockets have another team's high draft pick?

And to think, many of you think Vecsey is a little wacky
Um, the nuthouse is full of nuts. This means that if you go visit there's bound to be two standing next to each other, and one of them is bound to be at least a little bit nuttier than the other.

Doesn't mean the saner guy actually is Napoleon. ;)

Naptown_Seth
01-06-2010, 11:56 PM
No. They really don't.

They become more movable, but not much more valuable.
But that's the same thing.

If the value of Troy/Dun is "negative Granger" (you pay a team to take them by handing over Danny) and next year the value is "zero" (Danny no longer required), I'd say that quite an increase in value. Because they are going from deep in the red to neutral, you call it "movable", but it's still an increase in value.

Think about how low this implies their value is btw, that you have to pay with RESIGNED all-star Granger just to get a team to take on their contracts for one year. Worse yet is you are taking on their TMac problem too, so you are paying with Granger and a dash of "no more TMac" just to get them to take Dun and Troy.

Yeesh, is their market really that bad? I can't believe it is.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 12:08 AM
Totally agree. I mean there is a SLIGHT, TINY sense where this almost makes sense to the Pacers. Give to get, and what you get is massive financial relief.

What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?

PaceBalls
01-07-2010, 12:20 AM
What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?

Maybe just being one of the few teams that can actually afford to give a big contract?

imawhat
01-07-2010, 12:23 AM
....Yeesh, is their market really that bad? I can't believe it is.

No, I don't think the market is that bad.

I don't think we have to give up that much. Who holds more leverage in this situation? I realize Tracy's expiring contract is a huge financial asset, but who's looking for the move? Which team wants to gain something for the loss of their star? Which team sent a player home while they actively trade?

We'd basically be leasing 2 quality players to Houston for one year. Then Murphy and Dunleavy are off the books. Outside of making the deal financially workable, I'd think we could give away Lorbek and a future 1st and still have this deal.

Quick, someone hack and delete Daryl Morey's data.

MikeDC
01-07-2010, 12:32 AM
What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?

If you have money, you can sign someone. Just for kicks, suppose they managed to pull a 3 way trade:
Tmac, Lowry, Cook to Pacers
Granger, Ford, Big Z to Rockets
Murphy to Cavs

We push through this year with
1- Lowry, Watson, Price
2- TMac, Head, Rush
3- Dunleavy, D. Jones
4- Tyler, McRoberts, Cook
5- Hibbert, Solo, Foster

(I'd be optimistic about moving Foster for expirings also, but we'll assume the worst)

Under that scenario, we'd have about $20M in cap space this summer. Suppose we spend $4ish to keep Lowry, perhaps less, and $8ish on Rudy gay, who basically replaces Granger for a bit less. We add our first rounder at another $3M or so.

That leaves us with:
1- Lowry, Price
2- Gay, Rush
3- Dunleavy, D. Jones
4- Tyler, McRoberts
5- Hibbert, Solo, Foster
+ a high lottery pick

Total cost = $49M.

Now compare that to where we're headed now. Currently, we're projecting to be at $65M in salary next year so if we add in the cost of our first rounder, we're at about $68M. The luxury tax is supposedly going to be around $64M, so we're projecting to be about $4M over. So in addition to paying that much salary, we fork over another $4M to the league, and we don't get tax (and possibly escrow) distribtions from the league amounting to another $3-5M.

So if we conservatively add it up, making this sort of deal would save:
$19M in salary the Pacers wouldn't have to pay
+ $4M in luxury tax payments they wouldn't have to make
+ $3M in tax and escrow payments they'd get from the league.
= $26M freaking dollars.

That's a huge savings. It dwarfs the amounts they're negotiating on with the CIB for example. Add in the $6.7M we could probably save by dropping Foster for expirings, and we're talking about a $33M turnaround.

That's the kind of thing that would not only turn the team a profit, but it'd set a much more solid stage for keeping them here long run.

And at the end of the day, would that $49M team really be any worse than what we're expecting? It seems like it's very young, but at least we're not waiting around another year to start the rebuilding.

duke dynamite
01-07-2010, 12:40 AM
What about McGrady? You forgot to include him for the remainder of the season, MikeDC.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 12:41 AM
That's the kind of thing that would not only turn the team a profit, but it'd set a much more solid stage for keeping them here long run.
You can't turn a profit without fans. They would lose 80% of the fan base with a Granger for cap relief trade.

MikeDC
01-07-2010, 12:56 AM
What about McGrady? You forgot to include him for the remainder of the season, MikeDC.

Oops! Yup. If he's actually healthy enough to play, and everyone else gets healthy, I daresay the post-trade team wouldn't be any worse than the pre-trade team. And it's possible it could scrap into a playoff berth, though I wouldn't bet on it.


You can't turn a profit without fans. They would lose 80% of the fan base with a Granger for cap relief trade.

Well, a healthy TMac will sell some seats, especially if they win some down the stretch.

Beyond that, I think you overestimate the loss of fan base and underestimate the intelligence of hard core fans.

First, hard core fans are all that remains anyway these days. Every time I've ever been to CFH, it's half-empty. There is no buzz whatsoever about this team and lots of folks that were fans and could be again are already sitting out on the Pacers.

Second, I think fans in general and especially the hard core guys that are crazy enough to still be following this team are generally a smart bunch. They're smart enough to understand that this team needs to be rebuilt and that something has got to give in order to do that.

It's true that folks are going to second-guess those decisions, especially if the Pacers botch their draft picks and free agency. But that's true regardless. If the Pacers make good selections in those areas, they'd be fine. They have a much better chance, I think, of weathering 6 months of fan ire and apathy than they do 18 months of it (they're getting it now and they'll get it through next year without changes) but at $30M in additional expense.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 01:02 AM
Oops! Yup. If he's actually healthy enough to play, and everyone else gets healthy, I daresay the post-trade team wouldn't be any worse than the pre-trade team. And it's possible it could scrap into a playoff berth, though I wouldn't bet on it.



Well, a healthy TMac will sell some seats, especially if they win some down the stretch.

Beyond that, I think you overestimate the loss of fan base and underestimate the intelligence of hard core fans.

First, hard core fans are all that remains anyway these days. Every time I've ever been to CFH, it's half-empty. There is no buzz whatsoever about this team and lots of folks that were fans and could be again are already sitting out on the Pacers.

Second, I think fans in general and especially the hard core guys that are crazy enough to still be following this team are generally a smart bunch. They're smart enough to understand that this team needs to be rebuilt and that something has got to give in order to do that.

It's true that folks are going to second-guess those decisions, especially if the Pacers botch their draft picks and free agency. But that's true regardless. If the Pacers make good selections in those areas, they'd be fine. They have a much better chance, I think, of weathering 6 months of fan ire and apathy than they do 18 months of it (they're getting it now and they'll get it through next year without changes) but at $30M in additional expense.

Trading away a young All-Star for nothing but cap relief does nothing for a rebuild. All it does, is show that the organization cares nothing about winning and just wants to save money. Teams that sell their best players are never going to be competitive.

We would be the league farm, draft a player, make him an All-Star, then trade them for cap relief. Worst. Strategy. Ever.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 01:04 AM
Oops! Yup. If he's actually healthy enough to play, and everyone else gets healthy, I daresay the post-trade team wouldn't be any worse than the pre-trade team. And it's possible it could scrap into a playoff berth, though I wouldn't bet on it.

How on God's green earth could you say a healthy McGrady would make this team just as good as they are with Granger, Murphy, and Dunleavy?

I understand Murphy has his faults, but wow.

MikeDC
01-07-2010, 01:12 AM
Trading away a young All-Star for nothing but cap relief does nothing for a rebuild.

Rebuilding means
a. Tearing down the old
b. Building the new

It certainly accomplishes a, and it allows b, which is currently not possible for another year.


All it does, is show that the organization cares nothing about winning and just wants to save money.

It seems merited to save money when you're losing money past your ability to lose it. As the Pacers clearly appear to be.


Teams that sell their best players are never going to be competitive.

Neither are teams that are bankrupt, paying the luxury tax, and barely scraping 30 wins.


We would be the league farm, draft a player, make him an All-Star, then trade them for cap relief. Worst. Strategy. Ever.

Seems like a better strategy than the "going bankrupt while winning 30 games" strategy.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 01:19 AM
Rebuilding means
a. Tearing down the old
b. Building the new

It certainly accomplishes a, and it allows b, which is currently not possible for another year.



It seems merited to save money when you're losing money past your ability to lose it. As the Pacers clearly appear to be.



Neither are teams that are bankrupt, paying the luxury tax, and barely scraping 30 wins.



Seems like a better strategy than the "going bankrupt while winning 30 games" strategy.

:laugh: I really don't know what else to say honestly.

I wouldn't be completely opposed to trading Granger, I wouldn't like it, but there are a few scenarios that I wouldn't mind. However, trading him for nothing but cap relief is a joke to me. We don't even get a young player or a draft pick out of it, just cap relief that won't help us at all as no one would sign here.

Using your best player as incentive is a terrible idea. If we were going to trade Granger, I certainly wouldn't want to package him with bad contracts and get nothing back, I'd much prefer to get a few young guys/picks.

MillerTime
01-07-2010, 01:24 AM
This would be a total rebuild. To be quite honest guys, I'm not so opposed of the idea. By the looks of the season right now, we would be picking about 5th overall in the 2010 draft. If we do move Granger, Dunleavy, and Murphy for Cook and TMac and then later move Foster to Utah for Korver, we'll have a huge salary dump and we'll be key players in the 2010 free agency. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ykdb5og

Also, by the looks of it, Nets will be picking first overall (but since its not a lottery, its not guaranteed), lets assume they chose Wall. Technically, Harris will be expendable. If we could get under the cap, wouldnt we be able to move out first rounder (hopefully 4th overall pick) to Nets for Harris? We could also consider signing Joe Johnson and Boozer.

That would very well leave us with a team of:

Harris/Ford/Price
Johnson/Head
Rush/D John
Boozer/Hansbrough
Hibbert/S Jones

Can someone please wake me up :(


But overall, the source is not a credible source at all. So we shouldnt get too excited/saddened

MikeDC
01-07-2010, 01:24 AM
How on God's green earth could you say a healthy McGrady would make this team just as good as they are with Granger, Murphy, and Dunleavy?

I understand Murphy has his faults, but wow.

First, In my proposal, I suggested we keep Dunleavy. He's probably the hardest to trade and if he's healthy he's the most valuable of the guys we want to get rid of.

Second, it's not just who's better than who in the abstract, but who's replacing who.

If we can get back Lowry, we upgrade our PG position.
TMac is an obvious upgrade at SG.
Dunleavy is not as good as Granger, of course, but he's a legit NBA 3.
We're fairly iffy at the 4, I concede, but Tyler is at least not getting laughed off the court.

So I look at that team and think, on balance, it's probably a better fit of guys. You've got decent NBA players playing their natural positions, and backed up by guys who can come in and give quality minutes. You've got a guy who can at least theoretically hit your clutch shots. You've got shooting. You've got a dribble drive game. you've got a post game.

Like I said, all that hinges on the slender thread of everyone being healthy and motivated, but the reality is that you're also overselling the current version of this team. With Granger they were pretty terrible. Without Granger they've been fairly terrible.

At best, a fully healthy team with Granger and Dunleavy is somewhat better, but that's somewhat offset by the fact that Granger and Dunleavy aren't, IMO, very good complements on the wings. And our PG options are terrible.

In practice, having a better PG (I like Lowry) and better positional fits would probably mostly offset the loss in pure but abstract talent.

MillerTime
01-07-2010, 01:27 AM
First, In my proposal, I suggested we keep Dunleavy. He's probably the hardest to trade and if he's healthy he's the most valuable of the guys we want to get rid of.

Second, it's not just who's better than who in the abstract, but who's replacing who.

If we can get back Lowry, we upgrade our PG position.
TMac is an obvious upgrade at SG.
Dunleavy is not as good as Granger, of course, but he's a legit NBA 3.
We're fairly iffy at the 4, I concede, but Tyler is at least not getting laughed off the court.

So I look at that team and think, on balance, it's probably a better fit of guys. You've got decent NBA players playing their natural positions, and backed up by guys who can come in and give quality minutes. You've got a guy who can at least theoretically hit your clutch shots. You've got shooting. You've got a dribble drive game. you've got a post game.

Like I said, all that hinges on the slender thread of everyone being healthy and motivated, but the reality is that you're also overselling the current version of this team. With Granger they were pretty terrible. Without Granger they've been fairly terrible.

At best, a fully healthy team with Granger and Dunleavy is somewhat better, but that's somewhat offset by the fact that Granger and Dunleavy aren't, IMO, very good complements on the wings. And our PG options are terrible.

In practice, having a better PG (I like Lowry) and better positional fits would probably mostly offset the loss in pure but abstract talent.

Personally, I think Watson is better than Lowry. Lowry is a good PG off the bench. I wouldnt make him a starter on our team

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 01:30 AM
This would be a total rebuild. To be quite honest guys, I'm not so opposed of the idea. By the looks of the season right now, we would be picking about 5th overall in the 2010 draft. If we do move Granger, Dunleavy, and Murphy for Cook and TMac and then later move Foster to Utah for Korver, we'll have a huge salary dump and we'll be key players in the 2010 free agency. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=ykdb5og

Also, by the looks of it, Nets will be picking first overall (but since its not a lottery, its not guaranteed), lets assume they chose Wall. Technically, Harris will be expendable. If we could get under the cap, wouldnt we be able to move out first rounder (hopefully 4th overall pick) to Nets for Harris? We could also consider signing Joe Johnson and Boozer.

That would very well leave us with a team of:

Harris/Ford/Price
Johnson/Head
Rush/D John
Boozer/Hansbrough
Hibbert/S Jones

Can someone please wake me up :(


But overall, the source is not a credible source at all. So we shouldnt get too excited/saddened

Certainly.

Not one good NBA player will want to sign with a mid-market team when Roy Hibbert is the best player on the team. The Pacers have never made a huge signing and just because we have the money doesn't mean we'll get one. NY, NJ, and Miami are just a few of the teams that will have money and a lot better selling points than us. Then, we are stuck with nothing.

If the Pacers traded Granger for cap space, I couldn't bring myself to root for them. I am a die hard fan, I never thought anything could change that, but if we gave up a young All-Star for nothing, I just couldn't do it.

Yes, cap space is nothing when your in Indiana. If we were in NY or LA, sure, but in Indiana, it doesn't mean anything other than more room to make trades - which wouldn't even be a valid point as we would have no one outside of Hibbert worth anything and even he is still a huge mystery to most teams.

The LA Clippers would be a better franchise than the Indiana Pacers if we made this deal.

Dr. Awesome
01-07-2010, 01:36 AM
No. They really don't.

They become more movable, but not much more valuable.

The fact that they become movable shows that they are more valuable.

Not to mention all of the sources saying a lot of teams want Murphy and Foster.

Trader Joe
01-07-2010, 01:53 AM
The devil's advocate in me wants this to happen just to see the utter melt down that would ensue from everyone (including myself).

The smart person in me says this is bunk, we're gonna give up one of the better young scorers in the league for a 34 million dollar pupu platter? No thanks.

Sookie
01-07-2010, 01:53 AM
I think this falls under the category of
"Please Larry, don't do anything stupid to try and appease the fans.."

Hicks
01-07-2010, 01:54 AM
I think this falls under the category of
"Please Larry, don't do anything stupid to try and appease the fans.."

I'm pretty sure this would do anything BUT appease the fans.

Trader Joe
01-07-2010, 01:55 AM
No. They really don't.

They become more movable, but not much more valuable.

Well Count it seems you're trading both sides of the fence. You're fairly pessimistic about the value Murphy, Dun, and Ford have as expirings, but yeah in the same thread you make the point that this deal which is utterly lopsided from our POV talent wise would save us about 34 million. I think you might underestimate the value of an expiring contract in the NBA especially if the cap moves backward next season.

Trader Joe
01-07-2010, 02:00 AM
I'm pretty sure this would do anything BUT appease the fans.

God, no kidding. It'd be the death knell for me, I mean I know I shouldn't be too attached to one player, but Granger has literally been the only major positive for the Pacers since the brawl, losing him would be a pretty crushing blow after everything else that happens, but still this article is probably utter BS considering anyone can post onto bleacherreport.

Sookie
01-07-2010, 02:08 AM
I'm pretty sure this would do anything BUT appease the fans.

That's why I said try :P

Honestly, when a team is losing, fans like to see change..and that would be the appeasing part..it's just so clearly the bad kind of change.

ksuttonjr76
01-07-2010, 03:53 AM
Certainly.

Not one good NBA player will want to sign with a mid-market team when Roy Hibbert is the best player on the team. The Pacers have never made a huge signing and just because we have the money doesn't mean we'll get one. NY, NJ, and Miami are just a few of the teams that will have money and a lot better selling points than us. Then, we are stuck with nothing.

If the Pacers traded Granger for cap space, I couldn't bring myself to root for them. I am a die hard fan, I never thought anything could change that, but if we gave up a young All-Star for nothing, I just couldn't do it.

Yes, cap space is nothing when your in Indiana. If we were in NY or LA, sure, but in Indiana, it doesn't mean anything other than more room to make trades - which wouldn't even be a valid point as we would have no one outside of Hibbert worth anything and even he is still a huge mystery to most teams.

The LA Clippers would be a better franchise than the Indiana Pacers if we made this deal.

Honestly, I feel the same way. The cap space would be great, but my gut keeps telling me that no free agent would want to sign with the Pacers unless we were their ONLY option available (of couse, Indiana would be in position to lowball the player). Indiana will be one of those team that will always get the table scraps of every big free agent summer. I rather just keep Granger, and take our chances with developing our own players and getting role players like we historically have done.

I'm surprised that this thread is still going strong. I'm so proud of my first thread :D.

Midcoasted
01-07-2010, 05:32 AM
Ford would have to be included.

BIRD LISTEN TO ME!!!! THE IMMOVABLES ARE HIBBERT, RUSH, HANSBORO, and PRICE. NEVER trade these players.

If it takes trading Granger to get rid of Ford Murphy and Dunleavy I would consider it. We MUST get an unprotected first though as well, and should push for two picks.

T-Mac in the lineup of Price, Rush, Hansboro and Hibbert would definitely get us into the playoffs and we may even win a series if t-Mac is healthy. Could you imagine Conseco sold out for 5 straight games at the end of the season going into the playoffs then we sell out another 6 in the next two rounds? That would be AWESOME! And Bird has two first round picks to play with next year as well? Man we would be a REALLY deep team then and PLENTY of money on the books. WHAT A DREAM!

I think Im drinking the Koolaid a little too hard with the young guys but I truly believe they are all that good. HUNGRY HUNGRY HIBBERT FEED HIM!!! Exactly what I've been yelling all year playing NBA Live and Ive been dominating with him on the game for sure.

Bball
01-07-2010, 05:40 AM
I don't think any casual fans are going to care about a Pacer team backing into the playoffs. There won't be sold out games down the stretch and there won't be sold out playoff games either.

One of the problems with the East being so weak that a bad team(s) can get into the playoffs is that it doesn't inspire confidence in anyone that they are seeing anything but fool's gold.

...Unless they go 31-10 down the stretch...

Midcoasted
01-07-2010, 05:49 AM
I don't think any casual fans are going to care about a Pacer team backing into the playoffs. There won't be sold out games down the stretch and there won't be sold out playoff games either.

One of the problems with the East being so weak that a bad team(s) can get into the playoffs is that it doesn't inspire confidence in anyone that they are seeing anything but fool's gold.

...Unless they go 31-10 down the stretch...

You never know my friend, you just never know. If they keep feeding Hibbert like this and he keeps playing like this then I just dont know. Im sure O'Brien will **** it up somehow next game.

Brad8888
01-07-2010, 07:07 AM
I pretty much don't buy it, but...

This deal would be the first of several if it occurs. Other salary dumps would occur as much as possible over the next month and a half. For giggles, the franchise would see if there are any takers for season tickets, while putting out feelers to other potential ownership groups from Indy and other cities, attempting to "sell high" due to the potential to sign players with the cap space that would be available, especially with the franchise moved to other hungrier cities that have not had NBA basketball in many years, if ever, with knowledge that the CIB situation hangs in the balance here, making it more difficult for the Pacers to stay.

Assuming that they are successful in finding an interested buyer, an announcement could come in April.

Otherwise, the franchise gets nearly a true "do over", which might be appealing to a wide cross section of both current hard core fans and quite a few former casual fans who are curious about what might happen, which would make a great soap opera for a while if nothing else.

count55
01-07-2010, 08:22 AM
Well Count it seems you're trading both sides of the fence. You're fairly pessimistic about the value Murphy, Dun, and Ford have as expirings, but yeah in the same thread you make the point that this deal which is utterly lopsided from our POV talent wise would save us about 34 million. I think you might underestimate the value of an expiring contract in the NBA especially if the cap moves backward next season.

I'm not necessarily pessimistic about the value. I simply don't think they will be "infinitely more valuable" next year.

I consider the chances of this reported deal actually happening virtually nil. The fact that I don't dismiss it out of hand only serves to illustrate my uneasiness with the financial state of the Pacers. If this is what it takes to keep them here, then fine.

However, this is an act of extreme desperation...the likes of which we haven't seen since the days of Ted Stepien. I doubt the Pacers are there, and I'd be surprised if another team was there next year. And...even if there was, the Pacers probably will not be in position, financially, to take advantage.

Yes, the payroll drops a ton for the Pacers after the 2011 season. However, they won't fill it all the way back up. I would guess that they're targeting the 2012 payroll in the low- to mid-50's.

Speed
01-07-2010, 08:42 AM
I'd do this trade......... if New Jersey's, Minnesota's, and Golden State's #1 picks this year were included.

I think for the purposes of discussion, T Mac can only be viewed as cap relief. He's not been healthy, he's not the player he was and you wouldn't want to resign him. His time post trade would basically be like Peja. I don't even consider Peja a Pacer, ever.

This is nonsense. Could I write an article saying Ex Pacer Assistant Mike Brown is sure Lebron will not resign and they want to get something for Lebron so it's TJ, Murphy, and Dunleavy for Lebron and would it get published by the site. Oh ya, include Jamario Moon and he would be the Pacers starting Point Guard next year. Just trying to stay consistent with the articles content.

Is that how it works? :D

Speed
01-07-2010, 08:48 AM
However, this is an act of extreme desperation...the likes of which we haven't seen since the days of Ted Stepien.

Wow, I just read a reference to the "Ted Stepien" rule in Bill Simmons book, this morning. I had not heard of it called that until today and now I've seen it referenced twice.

count55
01-07-2010, 08:55 AM
Wow, I just read a reference to the "Ted Stepien" rule in Bill Simmons book, this morning. I had not heard of it called that until today and now I've seen it referenced twice.

Well, while the time frame is probably right, I'd have to do more research to be sure that Stepien was desperate, as opposed to just cheap/greedy/stupid.

However, I have heard a rumor that Sam Nassi tried to sell our 1983 1st round draft pick to Houston for $750k prior to the Ralph Sampson coin flip. It could be apocryphal, but that would have given Houston the top 3 picks in that draft.

The story further went on to say that the league nixed the deal as bad for competition. If this was actually true, then that would be a comparable (perhaps higher) level of desperation.

Justin Tyme
01-07-2010, 09:14 AM
Yeesh, is their market really that bad? I can't believe it is.


Maybe the Pacers finances are truly that bad. It could be a trade for survival.

Everyone knows how I feel about Bird picking up Jimmy's TO on his contract, BUT what if ownership thought the Pacers situation was dire enough to have to do something like this to survive and gave Jimmy the extension knowing it would be hard to find another coach for next season under this circumstance.

I'm just hoping there is no validity to this story, it's hard enough staying a fan of the current team let alone being NJ Nets II. I don't want to have to go thru another Sam N. era again.

Unclebuck
01-07-2010, 09:33 AM
Maybe the Pacers finances are truly that bad. It could be a trade for survival.

Everyone knows how I feel about Bird picking up Jimmy's TO on his contract, BUT what if ownership thought the Pacers situation was dire enough to have to do something like this to survive and gave Jimmy the extension knowing it would be hard to find another coach for next season under this circumstance.



It depends on how the Simons are doing in their other ventures, which I suspect is OK, certainly not great. Sure the Simons are losing a ton of money on the Pacers, but they make there money elsewhere, so it depends a little on how other things are doing. Losing $25M a year on the Pacers isn't sustainable over the long term, but in the short term that shouldn't mean the Simons are going to in effect do a short sale on the Pacers, and start selling off the parts.

Obviously, this is all speculation on my part

31andonly
01-07-2010, 09:45 AM
If something like that is going to happen, then I think I can no longer ba a Pacers fan...I mean, I really really would like to (I've always been), but that is just the ultimate worst thing they could do!

Even if we have all the cap space in the world, we're not going to attract a Lebron James or any other halfway comparable player. As somebody else said, not one top free agent will come to Indiana if Roy Hibbert is the best player on the team.

So it would come down to overpaying the better free agents to attract them, and the last thing I want is being stuck again with overpaid mediocre players (who actually prefer to play somewhere else)!

I don't want the Pacers to rebuild again, if you haven't noticed, we actually ARE rebuilding for years now!

Keep Granger, give him more than enough time to heal his knee, give enough minutes to Hibbert, Hansbrough, Rush, Price and McRoberts, keep O'Brien for the remainder of the season (to make sure we get a higher draft pick) and always try to trade Dunleavy, Murphy and/or Ford (if impossible, then decrease their minutes).

In my opinion we have to wait for summer 2011 (or at least trade deadline february 2011) to get this team back in track again. Everything else is just panic moves!

Anthem
01-07-2010, 10:10 AM
It's not real, people. It's Bleacher Report. It's the only Pacers article the dude has ever written.

He's not a credible source.

EDIT: I kid you not, here is his profile picture.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/users/photos/000/084/944/Chappers_profile_page.jpg?1262818009

Seriously.

http://bleacherreport.com/users/84944-jeff-ehman

DocHolliday
01-07-2010, 10:24 AM
There are quite a few short-sighted "die-hard" fans in this thread. Where has "The Franchise" Danny Granger taken the Pacers? I just don't see him as being 100% necessary to the positive development of the Pacers. Renouncing your fandom because Reggie Miller of 1995 was traded for expiring contracts is one thing, doing so because the cornerstone of a team going nowhere was traded probably makes you more a fan of that player. Good riddance to you, be sure to pick up his new team's jersey next time you're in the mall.

count55
01-07-2010, 10:32 AM
It's not real, people. It's Bleacher Report. It's the only Pacers article the dude has ever written.

He's not a credible source.

EDIT: I kid you not, here is his profile picture.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/users/photos/000/084/944/Chappers_profile_page.jpg?1262818009

Seriously.

http://bleacherreport.com/users/84944-jeff-ehman

Well, he actually wrote a brief "trade Tinsley to NY for Jeffries" thing a year or so ago, but the point holds.

McKeyFan
01-07-2010, 11:01 AM
At first I discounted this story as nutty.

Then I read a couple of fairly persuasive threads regarding what could possibly happen with a trade including Granger. The one where he gets replaced with Rudy Gay was interesting.

Then I thought about the industry our owners are in: commercial real estate, which is on the rocks.

It may not be beyond the pale.

My emotions react strongly like most: Danny has become an all-star, he won most improved, he averaged over 25 ppg last year.

Even stronger in my mind is his dive to the floor for a loose ball that led to his teeth being crushed. And going right back in the game. There's also several game winning or clutch shots the past year or two. And, last but not least, his upright character, maturity, and generally classy representation of the franchise.

On the other hand, he hasn't been good enough to take us to a decent record this year or last. His defense continues to be a little suspect. While he can score and hit clutch shots down the stretch, he isn't that good of a shot creator or playmaker. He isn't much of a vocal leader on the floor.

Another thing to consider: Larry Bird historically did not deal with bottom dwellers. He's enough of a legend not to be intimidated by Danny's fandom while providing losing records in a medium sized market. Bird is used to seeing a franchise become a contender and a champion. He himself appeared in Boston and in his first year took them from a horrible losing record to, like, 50 some wins, if I remember correctly. From that perspective, he's likely not all that impressed with Granger. He has the stones and the background and perspective to make a trade that involves Granger.

But here's my parting thought: a much cheaper, less risky, short term solution would be to fire the coach who can't seem to figure out that the formula of Danny at the four and defensive minded players has so far been way above .500 for us this year. Maybe Danny really is that good and the coach really is that bad.

duke dynamite
01-07-2010, 11:16 AM
Getting rid of Danny just to clean the books looks tantalizing on paper, especially with what we can do next summer with all that extra cash.

BUT, why risk losing the face of the franchise if we can't obtain some good talent with that money? Sure, the chances of landing someone is better, but I don't remain certain that it is 100% possible.

I think the return of Granger could possibly be the saving grace of this season, not necessarily making the playoffs, but finishing with some optimism of a healthy key player moving forward.

I also am very hesitant to ink the sheet with a deal like this because I'm not too optimistic on McGrady's health, and Cook just isn't a solid player. Granted TMac gets off the books at the end of the season, I just can't see us taking peanuts for Danny. Regardless of looking forward financially sound or not.

Taterhead
01-07-2010, 11:40 AM
I think people are missing a key component here. The Pacers could always flip McGrady for someone else. Maybe they just feel if they can get rid of Dunleavy AND Murphy at the same time, plus get a Granger type talent (maybe Igoudala, IDK) from someone else in exchange for McGrady. Plus some draft picks......I think it sounds like a good plan myself.


Getting rid of Danny just to clean the books looks tantalizing on paper, especially with what we can do next summer with all that extra cash.

BUT, why risk losing the face of the franchise if we can't obtain some good talent with that money? Sure, the chances of landing someone is better, but I don't remain certain that it is 100% possible.

I think the return of Granger could possibly be the saving grace of this season, not necessarily making the playoffs, but finishing with some optimism of a healthy key player moving forward.

I also am very hesitant to ink the sheet with a deal like this because I'm not too optimistic on McGrady's health, and Cook just isn't a solid player. Granted TMac gets off the books at the end of the season, I just can't see us taking peanuts for Danny. Regardless of looking forward financially sound or not.

Because this franchise is in serious need of some breathing room. There is no sense in paying out the nose for mediocrity. And Granger is the only guy that could command enough in return to provide that. If they can land a big time player by dealing McGrady to a third team and still get Murphy and Dunleavy off the books, it makes sense.

Justin Tyme
01-07-2010, 11:42 AM
Who ever posted getting Gay for 8ish mil isn't going to get Gay at that price. He wants Granger money. Gay has become a better player than I thought he would when drafted. He does have the length and athleticism the Pacers are lacking. He's now having to share the spotlight with Mayo, so he might be interested in coming to IN to be the big player.

I'd like Carl Landry in the deal instead of Cook, but with the year Landry is having that just isn't going to happen. Neither, is the Pacers paying Landry 8 mil or whatever next year in a new contract. Cook is nothing more than a cheap version of a 3 pt shooting Murphy w/o rebs. Thanks but no thanks.

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2010, 11:44 AM
What good is financial relief when not one player will want to sign with a mid-market team whos best player is Roy Hibbert?
Relief means you remain solvent as a business. I think my postings have made it clear that I have zero interest in the FA market and think that neither does the team.

What good is a team with any players if they go bankrupt and/or move? We don't know how dire the situation is.


I consider the chances of this reported deal actually happening virtually nil. The fact that I don't dismiss it out of hand only serves to illustrate my uneasiness with the financial state of the Pacers. If this is what it takes to keep them here, then fine.
Exactly. Finally Count and I are getting back in lock-step on our opinions. :D

Targaflorio
01-07-2010, 11:50 AM
Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle was just on Tony Kornheiser's radio show and mentioned this rumor. He said the most likely deal involving McGrady would be with the Pacers where we would receive McGrady and a draft pick for Granger. He didn't mention any other pieces to the deal. I hadn't been on here in a few days so this came as a shock because Justice is a very well-respected journalist and doesn't normally throw out BS rumors.

count55
01-07-2010, 11:54 AM
Richard Justice of the Houston Chronicle was just on Tony Kornheiser's radio show and mentioned this rumor. He said the most likely deal involving McGrady would be with the Pacers for Granger and a draft pick. He didn't mention any other pieces to the deal. I hadn't been on here in a few days so this came as a shock because Justice is a very well-respected journalist and doesn't normally throw out BS rumors.

Wait...did he say that the Pacers would be sending a draft pick? That would move it well past the borders of sanity. If we're dumping, then we have to keep the draft pick.

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2010, 11:56 AM
Everyone knows how I feel about Bird picking up Jimmy's TO on his contract, BUT what if ownership thought the Pacers situation was dire enough to have to do something like this to survive and gave Jimmy the extension knowing it would be hard to find another coach for next season under this circumstance.
Good point, makes a deal like this sound really unreasonable, even from a desperation standpoint. If they are bad off enough to do this deal then they were headed that way a few months ago and I'd think they would intentionally trim every bit of fat off they could.

So if you think your at a point to bail out using Granger, then you are close to selling too, and if that's the case you make it easier to sell by not committing the next buyer to any coach. You also don't sign DJones for 4 years.

This puts me back in my main opinion 100%, this option was mentioned by someone, the Pacers didn't hang up, therefore it was suddenly on the table just out of politeness. That's not the same as actually considering it.

Then someone in the system (hmm, agent anyone) rumors it out. So it's a source, it's legit technically, but it's utterly BS in how the story implies it to be unfolding.

Hitman02
01-07-2010, 11:57 AM
I sort of feel insulted as a fan of this team that someone created this rumor(assuming it's completely fabricated).

I really see no advantage to this proposed deal aside from financial relief. And personally, unless we would be able to get a player like Wade, LeBron, Durant, etc., mortgaging the entire team for cap space makes no sense. I know people have brought up the fact that players might not want to come play here as free agents. I can’t see them wanting to if the best player is traded either.

Also, from a purely “wouldn’t that be cool for our team(Houston) if this happened!?” standpoint, I don’t understand what they would do with the players in question. They have Landry and Scola…where would Murph play? And they have Brooks and Lowry, where would TJ play?

Who is this “writer?”

Targaflorio
01-07-2010, 11:58 AM
No, sorry. The Pacers would be receiving the draft pick. He sounded as if he thinks the deal will happen. I was stunned.

MikeDC
01-07-2010, 12:09 PM
Who ever posted getting Gay for 8ish mil isn't going to get Gay at that price. He wants Granger money. Gay has become a better player than I thought he would when drafted. He does have the length and athleticism the Pacers are lacking. He's now having to share the spotlight with Mayo, so he might be interested in coming to IN to be the big player.

I'd like Carl Landry in the deal instead of Cook, but with the year Landry is having that just isn't going to happen. Neither, is the Pacers paying Landry 8 mil or whatever next year in a new contract. Cook is nothing more than a cheap version of a 3 pt shooting Murphy w/o rebs. Thanks but no thanks.

Regarding Gay, $8M to start could wind up being a 6yr, $60M contract. One of the things that'd be good about being able to spend this summer, and next summer too, perhaps, is that it seems like the declining cap and finances are really going to drive down salaries. A guy like Gay who might have gotten a $70M deal a year or two ago might end up only getting a $50-60M deal. I remember reading a report last fall (sorry, don't have the source) he was only asking for $50M from the Griz and they didn't give it to him.


Getting rid of Danny just to clean the books looks tantalizing on paper, especially with what we can do next summer with all that extra cash.

BUT, why risk losing the face of the franchise if we can't obtain some good talent with that money? Sure, the chances of landing someone is better, but I don't remain certain that it is 100% possible.

I think the return of Granger could possibly be the saving grace of this season, not necessarily making the playoffs, but finishing with some optimism of a healthy key player moving forward.

I also am very hesitant to ink the sheet with a deal like this because I'm not too optimistic on McGrady's health, and Cook just isn't a solid player. Granted TMac gets off the books at the end of the season, I just can't see us taking peanuts for Danny. Regardless of looking forward financially sound or not.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I'd think a move like that can only really be considered if you fail at moving anyone and everyone else on their own.

Mourning
01-07-2010, 12:30 PM
My "fandom" would take a wintersleep for sure IF this deal would take place. No kidding they should have done a total rebuild in 2006 or 2007. I understand that the parameters would have been hard then too, but at that time there were enough fans calling for a total rebuild instead of that retarded "retooling" strategy the team said it was following.

As far as I'm concerned the 2005-2009 period would have been a giant waste of my time. Nothing more, nothing less. They made a strategy and I'm under most circumstances fine with adjusting it or changing course. Trading Granger for nothing but cap-relief does not meet those requirements for me.

Going on a total rebuild from 2006 - 2008 would have been totally "ok" for me, instead of this pretending (and failing) to make the playoffs crap. A total rebuild now with us sending our best player away for financial reasons delaying a resurgence of the team for possibly, AGAIN, several more years would make me lose interest in the Pacers for a few years aswell.

I have got great patience, but it's not without an end.

OakMoses
01-07-2010, 12:30 PM
I've never thought they were, and I'm pretty sure Count has made a similar case. I think he's even less bullish on the idea that they'll do anything other than just save the money when their deals end.

I think they will move them for some tweak help next year, or for an expiring this year to help another team make a tweak.


I don't think anyone that's viewed the Troy/Dun money as a pathway to an all-star is being reasonable at all. But no matter how much the reality of the numbers gets brought up, that kind of "wait till we get cap space" talk continues.

Personally I hope they stay the hell away from the serious FA market. Bad money out in that area.

So is your team building philosophy just draft, draft, draft? What you seem to be saying is that we're not going to be able to trade for a good sidekick for Danny and that we shouldn't jump into the free agent market for big names. What's really left other than draft and hope someone exceeds all expectations?

I don't think we're going to get a fantastic player for our expirings, but I think a Richard Jefferson level guy is a possibility. I don't know if a Jefferson level guy is good enough to get us very far, but we could probably snag one.

As for this trade, we're never going to be able to sign a player of Danny's talent to such a reasonable contract in free agency, so what's the point of trading him for cap space? Unless of course the finances are just that bad.

Hicks
01-07-2010, 12:42 PM
There are quite a few short-sighted "die-hard" fans in this thread. Where has "The Franchise" Danny Granger taken the Pacers? I just don't see him as being 100% necessary to the positive development of the Pacers. Renouncing your fandom because Reggie Miller of 1995 was traded for expiring contracts is one thing, doing so because the cornerstone of a team going nowhere was traded probably makes you more a fan of that player. Good riddance to you, be sure to pick up his new team's jersey next time you're in the mall.

Nonsense.

This isn't about some undying love for Danny Granger.

I'm not going to stick around and invest my time, money, and emotions into the Indiana Clippers. Regardless of their motives for doing it, it would be a signal that it's all about the $$$ to the point where competition is irrelevant.

I can handle it when it's a mixture of both, but I don't root for dollar bills, I root for players to try to win games.

If you really want to insinuate that I, of all damn people, am some fair weather fan or some specific player's fanboy as opposed to a loyal Pacers fan, be my guest, but don't expect it to make you look good or more intelligent. That's about the nicest way I can put it without having to censor my own post as an admin.

Mourning
01-07-2010, 12:54 PM
Nonsense.

This isn't about some undying love for Danny Granger.

I'm not going to stick around and invest my time, money, and emotions into the Indiana Clippers. Regardless of their motives for doing it, it would be a signal that it's all about the $$$ to the point where competition is irrelevant.

I can handle it when it's a mixture of both, but I don't root for dollar bills, I root for players to try to win games.

If you really want to insinuate that I, of all damn people, am some fair weather fan or some specific player's fanboy as opposed to a loyal Pacers fan, be my guest, but don't expect it to make you look good or more intelligent. That's about the nicest way I can put it without having to censor my own post as an admin.

:ding:

Trophy
01-07-2010, 01:14 PM
Has Bird forgotten that Danny is the core of the team?

I definitly doubt this is happening anyway.

Tom White
01-07-2010, 01:33 PM
Even if we have all the cap space in the world, we're not going to attract a Lebron James or any other halfway comparable player. As somebody else said, not one top free agent will come to Indiana if Roy Hibbert is the best player on the team.



Unless - You get Lebron and Wade together in a room and say "Look guys, we now have the money to sign BOTH of you, and we have a center who is on the upswing, as opposed to Shaq or Z, who are closer to a retirement home. So, what do you think?"

MrSparko
01-07-2010, 01:42 PM
...or Granger has far worse problems than we believe. Doubt it.

Anthem
01-07-2010, 02:00 PM
Hmm.


Jim is going to be here, that’s one thing the players have to know. The coach is secure. We wouldn’t have picked up his option if we didn’t think he was secure. If the players have a problems with Jim, the players are the ones that are probably going to leave.

McKeyFan
01-07-2010, 02:02 PM
Hmm.

Man, if that's it, Bird needs a lobotomy.

Taterhead
01-07-2010, 02:29 PM
Hmm.

Gotta say you might be onto something if this all turns out to be true. Bird might just have developed a zero tolerance policy on malcontents by now, and with good reason. It's not that far fetched.


Man, if that's it, Bird needs a lobotomy.

But yeah, Obie over Granger makes you scratch your head for sure.

Anthem
01-07-2010, 02:36 PM
Man, if that's it, Bird needs a lobotomy.

Heh. I don't think anything like this is in the works, except maybe as a Houston wishlist. But the quotes line up, and since we're all stirring the pot and complaining about a nonexistent deal I figure we might as well go whole hog.

speakout4
01-07-2010, 02:49 PM
Tmac isn't Tmac anymore; just a guy who looks like him and even the rockets don't want him around so this trade doesn't make sense. Clearly the pacers can wait another year for a salary dump.
Trading Murphy for Brian Cardinal could work.

Tom White
01-07-2010, 02:49 PM
Man, if that's it, Bird needs a lobotomy.

Oh no, not another one!

Infinite MAN_force
01-07-2010, 03:05 PM
Anyone seriously considering trading Granger needs their head examined. Young all stars with reasonable contracts don't grow on trees.

You don't trade Granger because he's not "good enough" to single handedly take us to the mountaintop. If thats the case, you sure as hell aren't getting "that" player back in trade. Granger isn't the problem, Granger needs help. We are much closer to getting somewhere having one all star than having no all stars.

Justin Tyme
01-07-2010, 03:17 PM
Before a deal is consumated, Herb has to sign off on it. If he signs off on it, the proverbial "hand writing is on the wall." The Pacers are in finanical problems, or Herb is trying to make the franchise look as good as possible financially to sell it.

diamonddave00
01-07-2010, 03:27 PM
You'd have to think IF there is anything to the rumor , the Pacers are seeing the shadow of JO signing long term big buck deal then getting injured a lot as it applies to Danny missing 34 of the last 64 games.

IF a replacement sf such as Rudy Gay (20ppg 6.3 reb 47% shooter) and healthy compared to Danny ( 24.4 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 41% shooter) was available to sign with cap space created by the rumored deal , they'd have to think about it. If they are worried about Danny's long term health.

If they then move Jeff Foster for a late #1 and more expiring contracts , the Pacers would have at least 2- #1's and cap money going into this summers free agent period. If the Pacers dealt Granger, Foster, Murphy , Dunleavy or Ford , plus Watson and Dieners expiring deal the would have less than 30 mil against the salary cap this summer.

Not saying I think the deal will happen or Rudy Gay would sign here but I could at least understand the Pacers brass' thinking.

Trader Joe
01-07-2010, 03:42 PM
Hitching our entire wagon onto this deal and having the lynchpin be MAYBE signing Rudy Gay is just about the dumbest strategy I have ever heard for building a team. That just not a sound strategy so many "if's" it would drive me insane. Best case scenario, we sign Gay and somehow luck into the number 1 pick and draft John Wall, suddenly you're looking at a future 5 of,

Wall
Rush
Gay
Hansbrough
Hibbert
And still some more cap space. It's interesting, I'll say that much IF it all happened like that, but is it really worth the risk?

Rockets would be pretty fun to watch though I can tell you that much.

The more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense from the viewpoint of Pacers ownership even if the original source is questionable, and if they really are talking about it on Houston radio then there's something to it I would guess.

Putnam
01-07-2010, 03:48 PM
It may be possible that Bird would let go of Granger for unavoidable bottom line cost-saving reasons. But unless he's had a tremendous change of heart, a Granger trade would have nothing to do with the team's on-court performance or any playing deficiencies on Granger's part.

I think Bird is a Pacers fan, and I think he likes his players. Some of the people on this forum look at the players like faces on a trading card, but I think Bird knows the players and likes them. He doesn't just want to win -- he wants to win with these guys, or as many of them as he can hold together.

Trader Joe
01-07-2010, 03:52 PM
It may be possible that Bird would let go of Granger for unavoidable bottom line cost-saving reasons. But unless he's had a tremendous change of heart, a Granger trade would have nothing to do with the team's on-court performance or any playing deficiencies on Granger's part.

I think Bird is a Pacers fan, and I think he likes his players. Some of the people on this forum look at the players like faces on a trading card, but I think Bird knows the players and likes them. He doesn't just want to win -- he wants to win with these guys, or as many of them as he can hold together.

Well if that's the case, then he needs to be gotten rid of immediately or told that this is a business and it's fine for him to have a good relationship with his players, but that shouldn't keep him from making a move to better the franchise because it might involve moving someone he really likes "as a person". I'm not even speaking directly towards this Granger scenario, I'm just saying that in general Bird shouldn't let personal feelings towards the players impact his judgement.

Will Galen
01-07-2010, 04:08 PM
Doesn't anyone realize that Granger is BYC?

Another reason this rumor is dopey.

speakout4
01-07-2010, 04:15 PM
Doesn't anyone realize that Granger is BYC?

Another reason this rumor is dopey.
Doesn't that mean his salary counts 50% for purposes of a trade?

Bball
01-07-2010, 04:25 PM
But if you carry the 'this is a business' analogy on out... we're right back to trading players for cash dumps and making the bottom line more attractive for ownership...

mrknowname
01-07-2010, 04:39 PM
Doesn't anyone realize that Granger is BYC?

Another reason this rumor is dopey.

it works in realgm trade checker

Anthem
01-07-2010, 04:47 PM
Doesn't anyone realize that Granger is BYC?

Another reason this rumor is dopey.
We traded Jalen while he was BYC. Add enough salary to the trade and it works.

For example, Danny/TJ/Troy works for TMac/Landry.

Putnam
01-07-2010, 05:04 PM
Well if that's the case, then he needs to be gotten rid of immediately.


In saying what I said above, I didn't mean to suggest that Bird is too devoted to any one player. I don't think that is the case and I'm sorry to have implied it. I was trying to suggest that building a winner is different from just "shaking things up" or just "getting better."

What I do know from history is that when a well-trained and well equipped regiment of soldiers comes up against a well-trained and well-equipped enemy, the one with better organizational cohesion wins. That translates in basketball to what we vaguely conceive as "locker room." Until the Colts took their foot off the gas two weeks ago, their season was a textbook proof of what a winning culture can do.

There are people on this forum who think assembling a championship team is a lot like getting a good gin rummy hand -- a little bit relies on what you're dealt (the draft) and the rest is throwing down and picking up cards 'til you get a good combination. I think they are wrong to look at basketball that way.


.

GermanPacersFan
01-07-2010, 05:37 PM
Man that trade would truly suck.

Though, i doubt that there's any truth to it, cause we won't ever give Danny away for something like this, no matter how the financial side of things looks.

I mean, Murphy is someone other teams would like to have and probably would give up an expiring for. Same for Foster, who could really help teams that need some solid low post D and rebounding. Dunleavy might be harder to move, but could still generate some interest, if he stays healthy till the deadline.

That's why you don't just trade them all in such a huge deal, but rather look for seperate deals, cause they'll fetch you more then just an expiring, especially if it's involving Granger, who should bring in more then just some pick in the twenties.

Smoothdave1
01-07-2010, 05:47 PM
The guy that wrote this has no clue what he is talking about. Let's look at the facts:

-- Granger is our franchise player. I know some people may say Roy is slowly becoming that, but Danny is still the face of the franchise. Barring amazing circumstances, the Pacers will not deal Danny unless an amazing offer were to come through.

-- T-Mac is on the wrong side of 30 years old. He will likely never be the same player he once was. He may become a decent role player or starter, but he won't become the T-Mac we knew of 5-10 years ago.

-- The Rockets are pretty loaded at the 3 with Ariza, Battier & Budinger. Could they find room for another 3?

-- The only way I see the Pacers doing a deal with Houston is if they are willing to part with Landry, and they still may not pull the trigger.


How about a Landry/T-Mac/pick for Granger, Ford & Foster?

Pacers shed several contracts and have Landry at a very affordable deal and T-Mac becomes a free agent. Ford gets to come home, they slide Ariza or Danny to the 2 and Foster becomes a quality backup while playing a few hours from home. They go with Brooks, Ariza, Granger, Scola, Yao with a bench of Ford, Budinger, Battier, Foster, Andersen.

We then deal Murphy to Cleveland for Z & 1st round pick. We cut Z immediately and he returns to Cleveland. Cleveland just freed up a roster spot yesterday by waiving Coby Karl too.

Pacers let T-Mac, Diener and Watson all expire and have cap room next summer with only 30 million under contract. Suppose we land a top 5 pick, Houston's 1st rounder and Cleveland's first rounder. Maybe we sign Gay to a 5year/40-45 million dollar deal. What would the team look like?

Wall, Price, rookie
Rush, D. Jones, rookie
Gay, Dunleavy, rookie
Landry, Tyler, McRoberts
Roy, Jones, rookie

Will Galen
01-07-2010, 05:55 PM
it works in realgm trade checker


We traded Jalen while he was BYC. Add enough salary to the trade and it works.

For example, Danny/TJ/Troy works for TMac/Landry.

You guys actually checked to see if it works? :-o

duke dynamite
01-07-2010, 06:07 PM
If you really want to insinuate that I, of all damn people, am some fair weather fan or some specific player's fanboy as opposed to a loyal Pacers fan, be my guest, but don't expect it to make you look good or more intelligent. That's about the nicest way I can put it without having to censor my own post as an admin.
Only fair weather fans stay home and pass up the trip to OKC. :devil:

You know I'm only kidding.

Anthem
01-07-2010, 06:09 PM
You guys actually checked to see if it works? :-o
Nope. I knew it would work, so I hit up the trade machine to prove it. Got it on the first try.

Doug
01-07-2010, 06:11 PM
Why did such a stupid rumor spawn such a huge thread?

duke dynamite
01-07-2010, 06:15 PM
Why did such a stupid rumor spawn such a huge thread?
It's the white death outside, it's warm in the house. What else do we do? :laugh:

vnzla81
01-07-2010, 07:32 PM
I don't think this could happen but at the same time I been thinking that if the pacers really wanted to trade DG they could get a lot of offers, I remember that the trail Blazers wanted him at any cost, the only way I trade him is if we get a package with expiring plus young players something like Lamarcus, Rudy,Blake and 1st round pick for Danny, TJ and filler. The Blazers would get the Robin to their Batman, the pacers get a good pg in blake who is also expiring one of the best young PF in the league in Aldridge

DaveP63
01-07-2010, 08:01 PM
I'm thinkin' crack makes you think funny things...T-Mac is too old, too broken down, I think...

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2010, 09:45 PM
Why did such a stupid rumor spawn such a huge thread?
See the comments by Count and myself. The fact is that from a financial sense this would represent a breathe of life to a team on the verge of going under. We assume that as bad as it is, it's not THAT bad....but you wonder. The empty seats, CIB and cap headed downward, not to mention the real estate industry getting crushed are the reasons this thread has life.



Now as to why anyone is talking about how good or not good TMac still is, I have no idea. You are trading for the SAVINGS, period. That's the only reason. Maybe his name bumps ticket sales this year too, but that's also only about the money. This has zip to do with talent, it would just be a salary clearing where the cost is Granger.


If they aren't in deep trouble then the more financially sound move is to kep Danny and get the Dun and Troy deals off the books later. Less money now but the improved team later earns that money back. Moving Granger now might help in the short term, but it could also work to keep you lingering in the red longer and ironically make things worse in the end.



BTW, it also stayed alive because a 2nd, much more credible source reported hearing it too.

vnzla81
01-07-2010, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;940718]


Now as to why anyone is talking about how good or not good TMac still is, I have no idea. You are trading for the SAVINGS, period.
QUOTE]

I agree with this Seth, like count55 said if making this move means that they can keep the team in town I do it.

Naptown_Seth
01-07-2010, 10:23 PM
So is your team building philosophy just draft, draft, draft? What you seem to be saying is that we're not going to be able to trade for a good sidekick for Danny and that we shouldn't jump into the free agent market for big names. What's really left other than draft and hope someone exceeds all expectations?

I don't think we're going to get a fantastic player for our expirings, but I think a Richard Jefferson level guy is a possibility. I don't know if a Jefferson level guy is good enough to get us very far, but we could probably snag one.

As for this trade, we're never going to be able to sign a player of Danny's talent to such a reasonable contract in free agency, so what's the point of trading him for cap space? Unless of course the finances are just that bad.
No. Trade and draft, minor FA tweaks. But expirings don't necessarily get all-stars, especially now and especially if they expire a year after the big FA class.

You improve by climbing the talent ladder, exchanging guys in deals a bit at a time and more importantly by identifying players that are not appreciated by their current teams or fit better with your roster.

Even the Celtics, who caught a huge break in some deals, had to give talent to get talent. While they wouldn't have a title, imagine a Celtics team with Al Jefferson and Jeff Green playing with Rondo and Pierce and Perkins. The title wouldn't be there...yet. But 4 of those guys are with you for quite some time. Maybe 3, maybe 4 all-stars eventually.

And then you have Detroit who "reloaded" with Gordon and Charlie V.


OKC is a super hot team. Durant, draft. Green, vet player for pick trade. Westbrook, draft. Harden, draft.


The elite Pacers teams were:
Reggie, not even top 10 draft
Detlef, traded for Herb
McKey, traded for Detlef
Dale, not even top 10 draft
Rik, #2 pick but long before team won a playoff series
Chuck, drafted
Chuck and Williams traded for Mitchell and Pooh
Pooh traded for Mark Jackson.
Rose, traded for Jax
Jax, traded for aging vets
Tony, 2nd round draft pick developed in Europe.
Mullin, traded for Dampier (draft)

Who are the FAs?
Scott, Perkins?

Even the 2nd version was JO (for Dale), Ron and Brad (Rose and Best), Tins (draft trade), Jackson (for Al)


And when did things really start to go bad on the court? GSW trade, because in that one we took back players who were no more talented or productive and cost a lot more. The impact was nearly instantaneous on the W-L and they've yet to recover.


My key is you don't swing for the fences. It's overrated because when it works it makes huge news and when it doesn't everyone forgets about it explicitly because it's not working.

Oden should be monster story. Had he been injured for life the day after the draft it would have been. But the long, slow grind of his injuries building up and the play of Roy, Aldridge, etc make this a back burner story relative to how badly it's gone. It's freaking Durant, that's a giant miss.


Go sign a Billups when Detroit did. Trade for Ben Wallace when Detroit did. Trade Vlade for the #13 pick...that's THIRTEEN, and get Kobe.

Seeing value that others don't and making marginal deals for those targets, that's how you grind out a solid winner.


Saving up for Grant Hill or the Duncan that never left SA, that's how you flounder.

Doug
01-07-2010, 10:40 PM
If they trade Granger, I don't think people will want the Pacers to stick around. In the eyes of the general public, he is the lone bright spot on the Pacers.

It's a real 'gift of the magi' situation:

Pacers: We traded Granger so we could stay in town!
Fans: Screw you, we liked Granger, get out of town!

Sure, lots of things might make sense from a financial standpoint. But that doesn't mean they aren't stupid ideas.

Trading your best player, who is also your most 'marketable' player, who is also an outstanding 'role model', who also has a very reasonable long term contract, for cap relief is stupid. The very idea is stupid.

I am dumber for having read this thread.

Doug
01-07-2010, 10:44 PM
And yes, that might be the harshest thing I've ever posted on this board.

It's late, my heels hurt, and I'm tired and cranky.

Now get off my lawn!

Will Galen
01-07-2010, 11:05 PM
[quote=Naptown_Seth;940718]


Now as to why anyone is talking about how good or not good TMac still is, I have no idea. You are trading for the SAVINGS, period.
QUOTE]

I agree with this Seth, like count55 said if making this move means that they can keep the team in town I do it.

Trading Granger is going to effect the bottom line too. Personally I'm not going to continue to follow a team that trades away it's stars, and I wouldn't be the only one.

I'm long suffering, but that would be it for me

KnicksRGarbage
01-07-2010, 11:57 PM
Well I agree with Doug about feeling "dumber" from reading this thread. Trading Granger would be a complete travesty to this organization. If we traded Danny, which I can't believe it's being discussed, that would mean the complete disbanding of the "Brawl Team" happened for no reason. Regardless of how we feel about that group of guys now, you have to admit that they were a highly talented group of guys. Unfortunately, more talented than our current starting roster. What I'm trying to say is that the years of turmoil since the brawl would be of no avail. Danny has clearly emerged as the team leader and is the "stand up guy" that kids can look up to and bring people back to the organization. That's the reason Bird gave him a 5 yr 60 mil contract extension. I was always a big fan of the Pacers growing up. Reggie was, and is, my favorite player. I loved nothing more than hearing Ol' Slick yell "Booooom Babyyyy!!! while I was huddled next to the radio. Years later the brawl happens. The Pacers are always in the news for some sort of confrontation with police. After Reggie retired in 04' I wasn't as a diehard as I was before. But Danny Granger is the sole reason I got back into the Pacers. And I'd imagine he has the same effect on others as well. It was the game against Phoenix where we inbounded the ball with .8 or so sec left and Danny nailed a fadeaway 3 for the win. Instantly I was hooked, again. It's been the same since. Danny is an exciting young player(All-Star) who is fun to watch. He is the cornerstone of this organization. Simon and Bird see the seats on game night. They know fans are upset. It's clear. It's also clear to them that if they were to trade away a player such as Danny Granger the damage may be unrepairable.

Mourning
01-08-2010, 03:49 AM
And yes, that might be the harshest thing I've ever posted on this board.

It's late, my heels hurt, and I'm tired and cranky.

Now get off my lawn!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

DocHolliday
01-08-2010, 07:33 AM
Nonsense.

This isn't about some undying love for Danny Granger.

I'm not going to stick around and invest my time, money, and emotions into the Indiana Clippers. Regardless of their motives for doing it, it would be a signal that it's all about the $$$ to the point where competition is irrelevant.

I can handle it when it's a mixture of both, but I don't root for dollar bills, I root for players to try to win games.

If you really want to insinuate that I, of all damn people, am some fair weather fan or some specific player's fanboy as opposed to a loyal Pacers fan, be my guest, but don't expect it to make you look good or more intelligent. That's about the nicest way I can put it without having to censor my own post as an admin.

You don't find the scenarios outlined early in this thread realistic? Cutting costs now to stay afloat, then bringing in someone like Rudy Gay--that doesn't work for you? You're done with the Pacers if it played out like that? I don't see how that instantly puts us on par with consistently the worst franchise since the 70's. Good thing you weren't around for the 80's Pacers, they would've lost you sometime around '84.

Tom White
01-08-2010, 09:21 AM
BTW, it also stayed alive because a 2nd, much more credible source reported hearing it too.

Are you are talking about the Justice guy on Kornhiser's radio show (as noted by another poster)?

After reading that, I went to the website for that station (ESPN 980 out of D. C.). I was able to find their recording of the broadcast and, frankly, I don't think Justice is as sold on it as was previously posted. Justice is from Texas, and they were talking Houston stuff. He also mentioned a rumor about McGrady and the Knicks.

It wasn't like he was reporting a sure thing, more like "Here is what I have read, or heard." stuff. My guess is, he read the original "blog" and repeated it.

A lot of them do that, you know.

Here is a link to the station.

http://www.espn980.com/audiovault/#

Anthem
01-08-2010, 09:30 AM
You don't find the scenarios outlined early in this thread realistic?
Not even a little bit.

Cutting costs now to stay afloat
Oh, I'm all for cutting costs to stay afloat. But I think we could already have done some of those deals if we wanted. There are other expiring contracts in the world besides TMac, and other ways to get them besides trading Granger.

We've got another thread going about how Foster and Murphy, at the very least, are realistic targets for a playoff team wanting another big. Why not trade those guys for expirings? If that's not enough, maybe you consider Granger... but I wouldn't start there.


then bringing in someone like Rudy Gay
Trading our franchise player for the possibility of maybe aquiring a guy like Rudy Gay would be a dumb decision. Less dumb if you had the guy in hand, but you don't. You're just as likely to get what everybody gets when they shell out big money for a star: an overpaid player who doesn't live up to what you lost.

Look, if the Pacers were really that bad, you'd expect to have heard around the league that we were trying to acquire expiring contracts. That's not what we've been hearing, quite the opposite. Last word on the team's direction was that they wanted to wait it out and get value for our big deals, not give 'em away.

Bottom line: if we really need to cut salary, I expect Granger to be the LAST guy we try to move, not the first.

wintermute
01-08-2010, 09:44 AM
i'm amazed that this thread has gone on for so long based on a fan post. so i dug around on clutchfans to see what they thought.

first, the word from daryl morey (replying to a radio caller):
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=180004



Caller: larry bird is offering granger, etc for tmac, any interest in that?

DM: rumor is not true.


seems definitive, no?

as to why the rumor is still alive, apparently the same bleachereport article that started this thread was posted to clutchfans, where it was picked up by several houston radio stations. to stop this sort of rumors from spreading further, there is now an ongoing discussion to outright ban any future bleachereport articles.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=180033

in other words, there is no second, more reliable source. it's all based on the daydream of some rockets fanboy.

maybe something like this could happen eventually, but as for now can we all agree that this rumor is bogus?

count55
01-08-2010, 09:57 AM
What I would say is this:

Forever is a long time.

The team that we are all currently following is a team that has traded away, sold, or simply allowed their "stars" and good players to walk in the past. It is a franchise that has made, or tried to make, financially-motivated decisions that were catatrophic from a basketball perspective.

Yet, after those decisions were made, and often despite those decisions, they still became one of the most respected organizations in the league. They still played in five ECF's and one NBA final.

I've been pretty clear that I do not want this to happen. I do not like this deal. I do not believe it is a reliable source, in the least. I consider it an absolutely desperate move. However, this franchise has made worse decisions. You could make a pretty solid argument that a move like this wouldn't even be the most damaging one of the last decade.

I do not believe that a move like this is the only way to keep the Pacers here, but I cannot rule it out entirely as a possibility. I can understand the fear and disdain for the idea of the "Indiana Clippers," but in my mind, the only decision that can be made that will permanently guarantee that the Indiana Pacers will never be successful again is the one to move them.

count55
01-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Bottom line: if we really need to cut salary, I expect Granger to be the LAST guy we try to move, not the first.

Again, I completely agree with this, and, as wintermute noted, there seems to be no reality to the report whatsoever.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 12:13 PM
You don't find the scenarios outlined early in this thread realistic? Cutting costs now to stay afloat, then bringing in someone like Rudy Gay--that doesn't work for you? You're done with the Pacers if it played out like that? I don't see how that instantly puts us on par with consistently the worst franchise since the 70's. Good thing you weren't around for the 80's Pacers, they would've lost you sometime around '84.

Before I get into answering your question, I should put the primary beef I have up front: You do not suggest that I or anyone like me is not a true fan. You just don't do that. It's insulting, inaccurate, intolerable, and I resent it.

Danny is the current face of the franchise. He is talented, young, a good character, an all-star, and is making fair money (half of a max contract).

If they're trading him away just to keep the franchise on life support, and then turning around and spending the same amount of money (they hope) 6 months later on a guy no better than him makes no sense for the team or the books (beyond some scenario where they only needed critical relief for a few months stretch).

If they're trading him away just to facilitate a complete rebuilding of the team, then they're looking like fools for putting the fan base through this half-rebuild, half-retool bull**** the past 5 years when they should have torn it completely down after the brawl.

Furthermore, if this is how bad the Pacers have let their finances get, I think it's their own damn fault more than anyone else. Not 100%, but at least 51%. If I, as the paying customer, am expected to pay for their mistakes (not just tickets, but the degradation of the product I'm paying to see) after being jerked around 5 years, they can kiss my ***.

If I (and upon reviewing the thread, others) am feeling this way, I guarantee you the casual fans won't touch this team with a 20 foot pole. Tickets, TV, merchandise, forget it.

I can't speak for how I would have taken the 80's because I wasn't there. It sounds like they just sucked and struggled to find a way to get better. It doesn't sound like the scenario we're discussing.

count55
01-08-2010, 12:18 PM
The scenario we're discussing is far more hopeful than it was in the late-70's, early '80's.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 12:19 PM
However, this franchise has made worse decisions. You could make a pretty solid argument that a move like this wouldn't even be the most damaging one of the last decade.

I'm sorry, was this supposed to make the idea sound better? Because it doesn't. This franchise has made some stupid-*** decisions over the decades. Just because the historical bar is so low doesn't mean that it makes this look like anything other than a horrible idea.


I can understand the fear and disdain for the idea of the "Indiana Clippers," but in my mind, the only decision that can be made that will permanently guarantee that the Indiana Pacers will never be successful again is the one to move them.

If it truly gets that ugly, they don't deserve to "live". Not if the idea is to be a winner. If the idea is to just exist and hope to turn a profit, by all means do this. But don't expect my support. This market isn't going to get much better than it's ever been. If they can't make it work, then it's just not going to work out.

PaceBalls
01-08-2010, 12:27 PM
I can't think of anything worse than losing the team... I don't care if they have all D-leaguers come play here, as long as the Pacers are in Indiana.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 12:28 PM
The scenario we're discussing is far more hopeful than it was in the late-70's, early '80's.

When did they do the equivalent of competing for years, then spending the immediately following years resisting becoming a flat out bad team while preaching to the fans and the press that they were in "win now" mode or that they're "rebuilding on the fly", then had Danny Granger blossom into an all-star in front of them, and THEN right after that trade his *** to save money and reveal that they were full of **** the past half-decade?

I realize the team has had a time where the finances were worse and they damn near left town. I realize they've made myopic trades. I get that. But as I recall, they weren't jerking the fan base around with false hopes of competition for years first and then booting the best thing to happen to them in years just for cash right after he made the all-star team.

Peck
01-08-2010, 12:43 PM
I've stayed out of this thread because frankly I just don't see a point in talking about something that is not based on anything other than someones idea. If one of you guys would have typed the same thing we would have moved it to the trade forum.

Now haveing said that I want to add this.

1. Why does anybody believe for a min. that Rudy Gay would leave his current team that he has been with through bad times now that they are becoming good to go to a team that would be going nowhere. You could say he would come here for astro bucks, but then would we really want to spend astro bucks on Rudy Gay? In other words paying him what you pay Granger or close to it.

2. While I write this entire thought off as nonesense because of the source I do have to remember that we traded away (this decade) an all-star center because we did not want to pay him. Herb Simon said that this was a basketball decision and I did believe him, but I also always believed that there was a huge financial element to this as well.

No I do not consider Brad Miller on the same level as Granger and certainly the circumstances were much different, however the underlying issue is still there.

If and this is such a huge IF that it is not really possible to think, but if the team is to the point of thinking about this then I wonder why in the name of God did they not take the league's offer of a loan last season like other teams did?

I mean it may not be much but as Anthem stated trading Granger for cap relief is the last act of desperation, not the first.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 12:55 PM
Last I knew on Brad Miller, they would have paid him the same money for 4 years, but not 7, and it revolved around his medical concerns (injuries and conditioning) coupled with his drinking habits (and I believe while in SAC he got caught with weed, too).

Dr. Awesome
01-08-2010, 01:10 PM
You don't find the scenarios outlined early in this thread realistic? Cutting costs now to stay afloat, then bringing in someone like Rudy Gay--that doesn't work for you? You're done with the Pacers if it played out like that? I don't see how that instantly puts us on par with consistently the worst franchise since the 70's. Good thing you weren't around for the 80's Pacers, they would've lost you sometime around '84.

Theres a big difference between a team that just isn't very good and a team who has no motive to get better. The Pacers are turrible now, but I'm still a fan as I believe they want to improve. I will always be a fan as long as I know they haven't given up.

If the Pacers traded Granger for nothing but expirings, it would show me they don't care about winning. Anyone out there, who thinks this trade would help the Pacers has either found the most effective drug in the world or is so overly opptimistic that I wouldn't be surprised if they had dreams every night of fluffy bunnies hopping through a meddow full a flowers.

count55
01-08-2010, 01:13 PM
Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along. That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.

Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.

Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?

I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.

I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."

Dr. Awesome
01-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along. That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.

Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.

Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?

I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.

I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."

Have you not seen how many people here have said they would lose all interest in the team if this trade were to happen? The Pacers are having a hard enough time getting fans to show up to the games - hence them losing money. What happens when the only player fans(certain fans) want to see is gone?

If they are having trouble bringing in people now, trading Granger will only make it that much worse and their profit from fans buying tickets, jerseys, hats, ect. will take a hit.

You can look at our payroll all you want, but if they have lost a good bit of the small populazation that cares enough to still go to games, then they have made a huge mistake.

Trading Granger for nothing but capspace is a complete joke. Nothing good comes from it - at all. I don't understand how anyone could even make the slightest argument saying otherwise. I would hate to trade Granger, but I wouldn't be completely against it if we got a very good young prospect and a pick or something along those lines, but for nothing? I couldn't root for a team who trades a young centerpiece in his prime for nothing. That would be ridiculous. We'd be better off having Isiah Thomas making all the calls for our team.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 01:40 PM
Look. You're welcome to react to this any way you want. I certainly will be very unhappy and scared if this happens. (The chances of which are infinitesimal.)

However, I won't consider it the end of the world, because it wouldn't be. The Pacers in the late '70's and early '80's didn't try to win...they just tried to make payroll. There wasn't any real attempt to make things better, until the Simons came along.

Then I guess I wouldn't have cared about the Pacers if I were this age in that era. I'd have never had a reason to come on board.

I mainly take offense to the insinuation (not by you) that because I wouldn't jump at the chance to invest my money and emotions into that kind of a situation that I'm no better than some Jordan fan bandwagoner who now walks around in a James 23 jersey or a Bryant 24.


That's one of the reasons I would be willing to view this as hitting the re-set button, as opposed to throwing their hands up and quitting entirely.

I understand that's what it would be saying, but how do they expect it to get better? We're always going to be the Indiana market. We're not going to "wait it out" until we're a big market. So if they couldn't make it work, what's going to get better after the reset? Especially when they know how much it will turn off what's left of the fanbase.


Also, while the last five years certainly could be classified as a wasted effort, I am at a complete loss to the "they've been full of ****" the past few years. The implication there was that this was the plan all along. That the actual result ends up being different from the intended result isn't evidence of a lie or a con game. It is simply evidence of failure.

I have to believe that if it was truly that bad to where trading Granger was "the right move", that they would have had a clue about those finances long before January 2010.

Why keep messing around when the inevitable is staring them in the face? Why not just let Danny's rookie contract run out? Why give him the extension last fall? Am I supposed to believe (in this hypothetical scenario) that they didn't see the financial writing on the wall in October of '08?


Also, did you honestly never contemplate the possibility that they might fail at what they were trying to do?

Of course I have and I continue to do so. But that was/is from a competition POV. They might not get the guys they want, or they might settle/overpay for the wrong guys.

But what I didn't consider was a situation where they would have known for months or years that this is what needed to happen, only to try to keep it going for a while anyway (hence BSing us/jerking us around), wait until now, THEN pull the trigger on this kind of a reset. Just never give Danny the extension if the money is that bad. Trade the others away for nothing first, if it's that bad.

But if they literally did what this nonsense article suggested, it would just prove their stupidity because it would happen BEFORE dumping someone like Jeff Foster. Which, again, in this scenario, they should have never extended either if it was really that bad.


I'm not trying to make anyone feel better about this move (which almost certainly isn't going to happen.) It is a horrible thing, and people should feel horrible about it.

However, I consider moving worse. The idea that they don't "deserve to live," I would simply ask, "Who is going to be hurt the most by the Pacers leaving?" Sure, Bird, etal, get fired, but the players will still get paid. The Simons will either sell or keep the team, and stop hemorrhaging money. The city and fans like us, on the other hand, will sit here with no team an zero prospects of ever getting another one.

I understand. The thing is, unless you see the economics of having an NBA team in Indianapolis changing significantly, doesn't this suggest our only options are "no team" or "a team that can't afford to ever be good for more than a little while once their talent demands big money?"

And even if, unlike Sterling in LA, they WANT to keep the talent, if they CAN'T keep them, doesn't it amount to a very similar setup to what that LA franchise has been like for a long time? Lately they seem to be spending some cash, but man before that it was just a farm system more than a team IIRC.



I can't help but be reminded of the joke about the guy holding a gun to his own head, and saying, "Don't laugh. You're next."

Maybe the guy with the gun knew the audience would get suicidal themselves eventually. ;)

Putnam
01-08-2010, 02:18 PM
Remember that a new collective bargaining agreement is due soon. Isn't it very likely trim player salaries enough to help the Pacers' bottom line?

It won't change Indy to a big market, but it might made the ground under their feel a bit firmer.

.

Hicks
01-08-2010, 02:33 PM
Remember that a new collective bargaining agreement is due soon. Isn't it very likely trim player salaries enough to help the Pacers' bottom line?

It won't change Indy to a big market, but it might made the ground under their feel a bit firmer.

.

I believe the new CBA needs to be put together prior to the 11-12 season. 11 being the summer we have a ton of contracts ending anyway. As of July 1st 2011 we will already have a very low salary.

count55
01-08-2010, 02:38 PM
I would never imply, intimate, or say that you are a bandwagon fan. That would be utter nonsense. If that's what you thought I said, then I apologize for that.

I am only trying to explain why I would consider moving worse than dumping Danny.

I've lived through the days of the curtains at MSA, and I sat in MSA while the sparse home crowd cheered for the visiting Cavs because they wanted the Pacers to be in the coin flip for Ralph Sampson. I lived through the telethon, and seeing Adrian Dantley traded for spare parts. That is not a better experience than yours, nor does it give me a better view. Is simply makes it different, and it greatly shapes my view on the subject.

To quote Al Swearengen:


Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or ****ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead.

If the Pacers are here, then I can still hope and believe that the bad will change to good, regardless of how foolish that may or may not be.

If they are gone, I can't.

Perhaps the piece I did for JayRedd:

http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/2010/01/were-halfway-there-but-where-exactly-is-there/comment-page-1/#comment-1314

Would move this away from a discussion of the merit of this trade, and people's reactions, and better highlight the other possibilities I see. Not so much, "Would you do this?" but "What happens if...?"

(Putty makes an excellent point about the CBA, but even that requires making it to 2011.)

Hicks
01-08-2010, 02:41 PM
count,


I mainly take offense to the insinuation (not by you)

Hicks
01-08-2010, 02:45 PM
As for the broader point, I just think it's clinging to it for what it once was or could have been as opposed to what it is.

I fear you are Homer and the Pacers in this scenario are the pig:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ZZP0UsRmLk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6ZZP0UsRmLk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Smoothdave1
01-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Let's examine a few of the issues:

-- I don't think anyone here wants Danny traded, if we don't have to. He is the most marketable player on the team, has assumed a leadership role and is an All-Star when healthy. With that said, anyone in the NBA can be traded. Hall of Famers like Garnett, Shaq, Kidd, Allen, etc. have all been traded within the last few years. Sure, they were on the downside of their careers, perhaps. I have no desire to trade Granger. But, if a team like New Orleans calls Larry and offers Chris Paul or Portland offers a guy like Brandon Roy, you cannot honestly say that Bird doesn't stop and listen.

-- Bird, Morway and JOB may not want to trade Granger or anyone else, but they also don't write the checks either. In a perfect world, the Pacers could afford to take on larger deals and contracts. The fact is we're in a smaller market than a lot of NBA teams and with the Colts' popularity, less than stellar record along with 10% unemployment, it's been a little harder for a lot of casual fans to attend games. We're all fans here, but we have to step back at times and also realize that the Pacers are still a business and the bottom line still counts. If my company were losing a lot of money, I guarantee you that they are already looking at any way to trim expenses and that includes salary, bonuses, etc. At the end of the day, the Pacers are no different and Larry still has to answer to Herb Simon.

-- Is McGrady a big downgrade over a healthy Granger? Likely so, unless Tim Grover has worked a miracle in Chicago with T-Mac. The issue isn't so much as us trading Granger as it is to unload other undesirable contracts. As much as Daryl Morey and Larry Bird like each other, there's gotta be an incentive for Houston to pull the trigger in trading the highest paid player in the NBA in the final year of his deal.

-- I like Rudy Gay as a player and think he is a heck of a talent. Why would he leave Memphis, you ask? Perhaps for the fact that they (Grizzlies) may not be willing to sign him to a long-term deal. The Grizzlies, like the Pacers, are having financial issues too. Memphis struggles at the gate and has historically been known as a thrifty spending team. If you recall, the Grizzlies had a chance to re-up Gay before the season and they could not work out a deal. Ultimately, though, I think the Grizzlies will keep Gay for the fact that he is a heck of a talent and a younger core player along with Conley, Mayo, Gasol, Young, Thabeet, etc.


With all of this said, I think the "Granger to Houston" rumor is nothing but that. Houston has one of the largest and greatest bargaining chips in the NBA and a lot of teams would love to have a 23 million dollar deal coming off of their cap. I think Houston may be able to acquire a package of players and/or or picks that they would possibly view as being better from a talent and fiscal than Granger for the expiring T-Mac deal.

Yes, I do expect the Pacers to pull off a trade or two before the deadline for salary cap relief. As was mentioned, unless the Pacers are blown away with an incredible offer, Granger is likely the last player to be dealt. I would expect a guy like Murphy, Diener, Dunleavy, Ford and Foster to be the most likely candidates to be changing addresses. The greater question is: Who would want these players and at what cost?

CableKC
01-08-2010, 04:00 PM
I've stayed out of posting my thoughts on this thread only because I ( like many of you ) think that this trade wouldn't make any reasonable or logical thread. This 7 page thread is a result of Die-Hard Fans that have so much invested in a Team but is so bored by it's mediocrity that many simply over-reacted to what some Blogger with no true source posted on some Sports Web page.

The only thing that this thread has done is to create 7-pages of un-needed antagonism between PD poster. I'm not going to post on this particular thread anymore until someone gives me some more concrete evidence that the Pacers FO have even acknowledged answering any calls from the Rockets FO.

Until then; I'd suggest that you guys gather around the camp-fire, sing Kumbaya, give each other a hug and simply move on. There's nothing to see here......

McKeyFan
01-08-2010, 06:07 PM
I think this thread has been a good exercise in thinking way outside the box.

I'm totally against trading Granger, but it has been interesting to read some ideas that show how in certain circumstances it is not as beyond the pale as we may think.

This is proper fodder for message boards.

Tom White
01-08-2010, 06:54 PM
Until then; I'd suggest that you guys gather around the camp-fire, sing Kumbaya, give each other a hug and simply move on.

Only if we can have marshmallows, too!

Will Galen
01-09-2010, 03:08 AM
Lol. Talk about making an all out push for John Wall. But Count is right. The financial implications are huge. And with the Pacers hemorraghing money I dont think anything is a total impossibility.

Seems highly unlikely. But who knows, maybe somewhere up in the Ivory Tower people are saying a choice has to be made. Trade Granger and become financially viable. Or move the franchise.

Now that becomes a doosie.

I don't think Herb is hurting for money. This was reported in todays Star in an article about Mel's family fighting over his fortune;

Last March, Forbes magazine estimated Melvin Simon's net worth as $1.3 billion, but that amount is likely to have climbed in recent months. Much of Simon's wealth was tied to the company, which has seen its shares soar more than 200 percent from March 2009 lows.

If Mel's shares went up 200 percent so did Herb's. So here's yet another reason the Pacers aren't going to give Granger away. The Simon's didn't make Billions making dumb business decisions.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100108/NEWS/100108023

Brad8888
01-09-2010, 11:36 AM
Only if we can have marshmallows, too!

S'mores, please. And hot dogs, or maybe brats. Maybe we could have the campfire on the beach in Hawaii and call it a luau instead.

Maybe we could have it on a beach, thinking that it is like a luau, after which we can place the pig's head on a stick and choose sides and have our own re-enactment of "Lord of the Flies"!

imawhat
01-09-2010, 07:50 PM
This may have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't seen it (and it's slightly relevant):

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-100108-09/houston-rockets-join-chris-bosh-chase

6.Tax Corner

Fourteen teams still owe a luxury-tax payment in July unless they can make moves before the Feb. 18 trading deadline to get under the tax threshold. The list of taxpayers:

TEAM TAX OWED
Lakers $21,430,778
Mavericks $17,891,714
Celtics $14,324,318
Knicks $14,107,734
Cavaliers $13,011,251
Magic $12,574,601
Spurs $10,185,572
Wizards $8,658,888
Nuggets $5,490,379
Suns $4,887,977
Jazz $4,858,225
Hornets $3,331,809
Heat $2,817,658
Rockets $2,611,747
Footnote No. 1: Atlanta has only 12 players on its roster after waiving Hunter and has until Jan. 19 to sign a 13th to at least a 10-day contract.

Footnote No. 2: With nearly $135 million in the tax pot, non-tax teams are on course to collect a $4.5 million payout in July.

speakout4
01-09-2010, 08:11 PM
I don't think Herb is hurting for money. This was reported in todays Star in an article about Mel's family fighting over his fortune;

Last March, Forbes magazine estimated Melvin Simon's net worth as $1.3 billion, but that amount is likely to have climbed in recent months. Much of Simon's wealth was tied to the company, which has seen its shares soar more than 200 percent from March 2009 lows.

If Mel's shares went up 200 percent so did Herb's. So here's yet another reason the Pacers aren't going to give Granger away. The Simon's didn't make Billions making dumb business decisions.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100108/NEWS/100108023
Whether Herb has enough money is not the issue. What we saw in today's paper is that family members have their own issues and this hobby of the Simon's may just be too expensive to accept more red ink. The Simon's have contributed greatly to their adopted home so they may well feel it is time to cut their losses. This will no doubt depend upon what family members want to do once Herb is unable to make these decisions. I don't understand why people think Herb will keep his interest in the team as long as he is financially able. As always this has to be a family business decision. The key is whether family members have the passion for the team that Mel and Herb did. We'll have to see.

Justin Tyme
01-09-2010, 09:53 PM
This may have been discussed elsewhere, but I haven't seen it (and it's slightly relevant):

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page/dime-100108-09/houston-rockets-join-chris-bosh-chase

6.Tax Corner

Fourteen teams still owe a luxury-tax payment in July unless they can make moves before the Feb. 18 trading deadline to get under the tax threshold. The list of taxpayers:

TEAM TAX OWED
Lakers $21,430,778
Mavericks $17,891,714
Celtics $14,324,318
Knicks $14,107,734
Cavaliers $13,011,251
Magic $12,574,601
Spurs $10,185,572
Wizards $8,658,888
Nuggets $5,490,379
Suns $4,887,977
Jazz $4,858,225
Hornets $3,331,809
Heat $2,817,658
Rockets $2,611,747
Footnote No. 1: Atlanta has only 12 players on its roster after waiving Hunter and has until Jan. 19 to sign a 13th to at least a 10-day contract.

Footnote No. 2: With nearly $135 million in the tax pot, non-tax teams are on course to collect a $4.5 million payout in July.



Another interesting footnote. Every team on that list started out today as having a winning record except the Knicks.

Teams in order of winning record as of this morning.

Lakers
Cleveland
Boston
Dallas
Orlando
Atlanta
Denver
Phoenix
San Antonio
Portland
Houston
Miami
New Orleans
Utah
Memphis


All except Atlanta & Portland are over the LT. The other 13 are which pretty much points out to win in the NBA you have to spend the money going over the LT.

PaceBalls
01-09-2010, 10:45 PM
Knicks and the Wizards

Will Galen
01-09-2010, 11:39 PM
All except Atlanta & Portland are over the LT. The other 13 are which pretty much points out to win in the NBA you have to spend the money going over the LT.

It's more of a sign of paying good players. Our late 90's team had the 2nd highest payroll. It's been said before, owners don't mind paying winners, but they object to paying losers.

PaceBalls
01-10-2010, 12:33 AM
The chances of us getting Gay, are the same with us keeping Granger. That is one of the many things that bugged me about the article. We might as well hope that Carmello Anthony signs with us.

It would be fun to see.. Price, Gay, Head, Rush, Handsbro. A lineup for the ages. All inuendo lineup there.

Peck
01-10-2010, 03:07 AM
Hold on, I'm confused.

Are the pacers going to have to pay the Lux. tax or not? I have been working on the assumption that this summer without some form of trade or something that we are over the tax threshold.

So are we are aren't we?

Will Galen
01-10-2010, 04:02 AM
We are under this years tax. The problem is next years tax. So we actually have this years trade deadline, next Summer, and next years trade deadline to get under next years lux tax. After that we have Foster, Tinsley, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford coming off the books.

If we could trade Murphy to Cleveland for Ilgauskas's and his expiring contract we would be set, but rumor has it Cleveland wants the Bullets . . . er Washington Wizards Jamison. Here's the rumor;
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors?date=20100109&&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20100109
---------------------------------------------------------
According to the newspaper, "Ilgauskas' payment schedule included half of his salary paid last summer and the rest of the $5.75 million spread out over payments during the season. That means a team that would trade for Ilgauskas would be left with a relatively small prorated portion to pay off his remaining salary."
The Cavs would be willing to trade Ilgauskas to Washington for Antawn Jamison (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=385), but the Wizards aren't interested right now. That could change if the Wizards are allowed to void Gilbert Arenas (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=974)' contract.
--------------------------------------------------

The NBA'S waiting to see what the Feds will do before they do anything, and the Wiz are waiting on both. So, if we want to trade Murphy to Cleveland it looks like we will have to wait too. Knowing how slow the Feds are it looks like it will go right up until the Feb. 18, trade deadline before anything happens one way or another.

PaceBalls
01-10-2010, 05:40 AM
Who on Houston would make this deal worth considering? Anyone? How about Carl Landry, Aaron Brooks, or Trevor Ariza?

Danny Granger has sucked serious basketball balls this season. Sure he is "our guy" but he is stinking it up and has since game 1. This is most likely due to our horrible coach. But what type of trade scenario makes Danny expendable and not blaspheme?

sportfireman
01-10-2010, 12:10 PM
Who on Houston would make this deal worth considering? Anyone? How about Carl Landry, Aaron Brooks, or Trevor Ariza?

Danny Granger has sucked serious basketball balls this season. Sure he is "our guy" but he is stinking it up and has since game 1. This is most likely due to our horrible coach. But what type of trade scenario makes Danny expendable and not blaspheme?


yes danny has been struggling slightly this year i think its more because of our inconsistent pg play........... oh yeah and JOB........ this team like i said long ago doesnt like for playing for JOB. maybe not everyone but enough to mess up a team.

MikeDC
01-10-2010, 04:42 PM
We are under this years tax. The problem is next years tax. So we actually have this years trade deadline, next Summer, and next years trade deadline to get under next years lux tax. After that we have Foster, Tinsley, Murphy, Dunleavy, and Ford coming off the books.

If we could trade Murphy to Cleveland for Ilgauskas's and his expiring contract we would be set, but rumor has it Cleveland wants the Bullets . . . er Washington Wizards Jamison. Here's the rumor;
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors?date=20100109&&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba %2ffeatures%2frumors%3fdate%3d20100109
---------------------------------------------------------
According to the newspaper, "Ilgauskas' payment schedule included half of his salary paid last summer and the rest of the $5.75 million spread out over payments during the season. That means a team that would trade for Ilgauskas would be left with a relatively small prorated portion to pay off his remaining salary."
The Cavs would be willing to trade Ilgauskas to Washington for Antawn Jamison (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=385), but the Wizards aren't interested right now. That could change if the Wizards are allowed to void Gilbert Arenas (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=974)' contract.
--------------------------------------------------

The NBA'S waiting to see what the Feds will do before they do anything, and the Wiz are waiting on both. So, if we want to trade Murphy to Cleveland it looks like we will have to wait too. Knowing how slow the Feds are it looks like it will go right up until the Feb. 18, trade deadline before anything happens one way or another.

I'm sort of shocked that the Cavs would want to pay that much more for the much older Jamison. Nonetheless, if the Wiz want to deal Murphy, maybe they should try and figure a way to sweeten the pot.

Just getting him gone would seem to me to get us out of the extreme financial danger zone (of paying the tax next year). Figure out how to do it, then figure out everything else later.