PDA

View Full Version : Report: Wolves offered Al Jefferson for Danny Granger



Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 05:03 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=AsZIihJ1nJI7HM6ggq_H4m28vLYF?slug=aw-jeffersongranger011010&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 05:06 PM
I think this is very interesting. I love that we declined the deal, especially since they made it sound like it wasn't even close. Its good to know that Bird still wants to build around Granger, obviously showing the T-Mac rumor was a joke - even though we pretty much knew it anway, it still brought up a debate that can now be ended.

Also, I love the fact that the Pacers are making a push for Hickson in a Murphy/Z deal - hopefully Washington tries to keep Jamison, but this whole Arenas debacle probably hurt us in that regard. If the Wizards decide to keep him, the Cavs might panic and give up Hickson.

Kstat
01-10-2010, 05:06 PM
if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.

Naptown_Seth
01-10-2010, 05:09 PM
The Cavs likely are willing to part with young forward J.J. Hickson (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4481/;_ylt=Ap3EzKNqcnWUFLjIezNbGovTjdIF)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/4481/news;_ylt=AmHvIzBUTutjd6FpYtkHi3nTjdIF) in a trade for Jamison, but perhaps less apt to do so for Murphy. So far, the Pacers want more than the expiring contract of center Zydrunas Ilgauskas (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3121/;_ylt=AuAuD_LzlujZZ46MEYSPmAfTjdIF)(notes) (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3121/news;_ylt=ApClvHKAwOCtrtN1gARmGozTjdIF) to make a deal for Murphy, and likely would also require Hickson.
Nooooooooooooooo..............

Drat.


But this slam dunks the Granger-Tmac rumor, dead as Dillinger. Plus Jefferson doubles it because you get rid of one anchor and logjam the other unless they play Jeff at PF.

Now, Kevin Love...I'm listening. Listening, not doing. Just not hanging up instantly.

Pingu
01-10-2010, 05:11 PM
Wait, are you saying that you'd rather have Love than Jefferson for Granger?

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 05:13 PM
if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.

Jefferson is very soft for a PF, think Z-Bo without the red flags and more injuries. As much as he can stuff the stat sheet, he usually doesn't change the game much, where as Granger does - er, used to before be O'Brientized.

JB24
01-10-2010, 05:17 PM
Trading for Jefferson would almost certainly mean trading Hibbert. I can't imagine a scenario in which both would start together and we wouldn't get murdered defensively.

cordobes
01-10-2010, 05:20 PM
Wait, are you saying that you'd rather have Love than Jefferson for Granger?

I would and I like Big Al a lot.

I'd reject this trade as well, Al Jefferson would be a bad fit with the Pacers.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 05:30 PM
Trading for Jefferson would almost certainly mean trading Hibbert. I can't imagine a scenario in which both would start together and we wouldn't get murdered defensively.

Very few Centers in the NBA would look like good defenders while trying to cover for Murphy and Dunleavy's defensive liabilities. I'm not saying he's a great defender by any means, but he's having to try and cover too many people as Dunleavy couldn't stay in front of David Harrison and Murphy is too busy trying to position himself for a rebound while Hibbert has to move over to his man.

Ozwalt72
01-10-2010, 05:30 PM
I would be more willing to listen to this if Jefferson wasn't coming off injury. Also, I think Bird sees Hibbert becoming a Jefferson level scorer in the post. Hibbert and Jefferson would not mesh on the same team.

Bball
01-10-2010, 05:37 PM
"What's Al Jefferson's career 3pt average?" - Jim O'Brien

cdash
01-10-2010, 05:45 PM
Wait, are you saying that you'd rather have Love than Jefferson for Granger?

Absolutely, all day, every day. Love does everything that Jefferson does, plus he's younger, has an outside shot, is a better passer, yeah...I don't see why you why you would prefer Jefferson to Love, really.

As for this deal, I'm glad we rejected it. As mentioned above, Jefferson doesn't seem like the best fit, and he hasn't bounced back 100% from that knee injury he suffered last season.

cinotimz
01-10-2010, 05:49 PM
This almost had to come out of the Indy camp. Morway or one of the PR guys at Conseco couldve almost wrote it.

It addresses any minor concerns Danny might have had with hearing his name mentioned in trade talks as well as laying out their position on the Cleveland trade for all to see-give us Hickson.

Now Kahn is going to have some work to do where Jefferson is concerned after that article. Jefferson isnt going to be too pleased reading that.

Lets hope the Murphy thing doesnt go the way of Tinsley last year where we come in second at the very end and end up stuck.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 05:57 PM
Another Bird blunder! You trade Granger in a heartbeat for Jefferson, and try to get Sessions as well. Geez Bird, use that head for something besides a hat rack. No wonder this team sux so badly, and fans are being turned off by it in droves.

AND yes, I'm a Jefferson fan, and wanted Jefferson when he was in Boston. Jefferson can play C or PF. He's a scorer, a rebounder, and should have made the Allstar team last year. Oops, I forgot he doesn't shoot 3's for Jimmy, and Granger does.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 05:59 PM
Another Bird blunder! You trade Granger in a heartbeat for Jefferson, and try to get Sessions as well. Geez Bird, use that head for something besides a hat rack. No wonder this team sux so badly, and fans are being turned off by it in droves.

AND yes, I'm a Jefferson fan, and wanted Jefferson when he was in Boston. Jefferson can play C or PF. He's a scorer, a rebounder, and should have made the Allstar team last year. Oops, I forgot he doesn't shoot 3's for Jimmy, and Granger does.

I couldn't disagree more. Jefferson is Z-Bo v2.0, he has hollow stats. Its funny, on another forum, about 90% of people from other teams even think this is terrible for the Pacers.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 05:59 PM
he hasn't bounced back 100% from that knee injury he suffered last season.


AND Granger has!?!?

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 06:06 PM
he has hollow stats.


:bs:

pwee31
01-10-2010, 06:08 PM
I'm glad this deal didn't happen, though I like the fact that there's a solid source mentioning the Pacers are talking to teams. The conversations are probably short though if they only involve Granger.

I'm truly interested to see what happens with Murphy. If the Cavs are truly interested in him, I really hope Bird finds a way to make it happen. Now I've heard the Cavs would only trade Z if they are able to resign him this season, meaning the trade partner would have to agree to release/buy out. For this reason I understand wanting to add a piece like Hickson, but if we can get out under Murphy's contract now, by simply doing a Murphy/Z swap.... why hold out and perhaps miss out if Jamison becomes available.

We'll still have expirings of Ford, Dunleavy and Foster to deal with, and it would immediately help our luxury tax situation next year.

MillerTime
01-10-2010, 06:09 PM
I couldn't disagree more. Jefferson is Z-Bo v2.0, he has hollow stats. Its funny, on another forum, about 90% of people from other teams even think this is terrible for the Pacers.

Why would you say that Jefferson is a Z-Bo V2.0? Because Jefferson's numbers look good but the team doesnt win? Doesnt Granger do that same? His numbers are great, but the team isnt winning

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 06:11 PM
Jefferson isnt going to be too pleased reading that..


If indeed there is a problem between Jefferson and Love, maybe Jefferson is pleased to findout he's up for trade!
I can't imagine he'd be turning cartwheels to findout he'd had been traded to the Pacers.... another losing team that is just one step up from the T-Wolves.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 06:16 PM
Why would you say that Jefferson is a Z-Bo V2.0? Because Jefferson's numbers look good but the team doesnt win? Doesnt Granger do that same? His numbers are great, but the team isnt winning

Because he doesn't affect the game, just puts up great stats. He is an awful defender and doesn't make teammates better. I think he would be a great second fiddle, but if we are trading Granger, he becomes our #1 option.

Granger showed last year that he is capable of leading this team to victory - against top teams might I add, O'Brien is just screwing him up by turning him into a jumpshooter only. If Granger continues to be only a jumpshooter, I would say his offensive stats are hollow, but he can still defend - unlike Jefferson.

cdash
01-10-2010, 06:18 PM
AND Granger has!?!?

Granger's injury just happened, and it's not a knee injury. Plus, all things equal, you are not making your fanbase happy trading the face of the franchise.

Love+Rubio's rights, and we're talking.

BlueNGold
01-10-2010, 06:30 PM
I would feel better with the ball in Granger's hands at crunch time. That's more important than just about anything else unless we are talking a top tier defensive player....and we are not. Keep Granger.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 06:42 PM
doesn't make teammates better.


AND Granger does? By his stellar "D", his rebounding, his many assists, his great leadership, his super intangibles? Apparently you aren't remembering Granger's play b4 he got injured with his chippy attitude that reminds me of the child who is unhappy and is playing that way to show people their unhappiness. Have you forgotten all the complaints of those 3's he was shooting b4 the injury? I remember posting about his poor shooting of 41 and 35%. I'd say his points are pretty hollow myself.

duke dynamite
01-10-2010, 06:50 PM
Good call, Bird.

jhondog28
01-10-2010, 06:52 PM
I am utterly and completely dumbfounded why you guys would NOT do this deal. Jefferson is probably about the value you can get for Granger and as far as Jefferson not making his team better Granger really has not done that either so I think that is an empty point. As far as Jefferson not making the Pacers any better lets think about this...he immediately starts at the 4 and Hibbert at the 5 means JOB is forced to play inside out which is what this team should do. Jefferson will not trail behind the 3 pt line looking for shots and will set much better screens than Murph ever did. Not to mention the fact you do this trade because you have faith that Cleveland will be willign to take Murphy away from us which opens us up better system all together. Some people on here just think that Granger is untradeable and to me that is just flat out nuts.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 06:56 PM
AND Granger does? By his stellar "D", his rebounding, his many assists, his great leadership, his super intangibles? Apparently you aren't remembering Granger's play b4 he got injured with his chippy attitude that reminds me of the child who is unhappy and is playing that way to show people their unhappiness. Have you forgotten all the complaints of those 3's he was shooting b4 the injury? I remember posting about his poor shooting of 41 and 35%. I'd say his points are pretty hollow myself.

*Removed*

To start, I suggest you try to improve your reading comprehension as I said Granger's offensive stats have been hollow this year - as a result of O'Briens offense. I find it funny your attacking his leadership after he lead our team to victories against the best teams in the NBA last year. You can't expect Granger to become a better overall player when our coach isn't asking him to be. The only thing O'Brien cares about is shooting the 3 ball. Thats it. There is no offense to run, just shoot. Granger's skill set is better for an actual offense, that doesn't exist with us. I have never seen anyone on this board have as much hate for Granger as you appear to, but your view on him is clearly skewed as it seems like you have no idea what your talking about(on Granger's part, not Jefferson).

If we were to get Jefferson, he would just become Antoine Walker with us. If you have watched Z-Bo play, they are very similar. In a certain situation Al Jefferson could be very, very valuable - but he has to become a team player first. Also, if he is your best player, you are screwed. Granger has proven he can lead a team to tough victories as the best player - thats with no talent around him, if he actually got talent and a coach who knew about the game of basketball, I believe Granger could easily prove you wrong in everything you just said.

For crying out loud, even Wolves fans are sick of Jefferson and are saying they can understand why the Pacers turned the deal down.

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 07:01 PM
Granger is a little overrated around here, some guys think that he is the next coming of MJ, he is a good player, I like the guy, but if you are a bad team like the pacers and have a chance to get a 20/10 guy you do it, the guy is getting those numbers by playing center and playing againts bigger defender imagine what he can do playing PF.

I would ask for AL , 1st round pick plus the rights of Rubio and we have a deal

Hicks
01-10-2010, 07:02 PM
It was good they said no. Granger isn't exactly tearing it up defensively, but he's still better at D than Jefferson is.

jhondog28
01-10-2010, 07:07 PM
Granger is a little overrated around here, some guys think that he is the next coming of MJ, he is a good player, I like the guy, but if you are a bad team like the pacers and have a chance to get a 20/10 guy you do it, the guy is getting those numbers by playing center and playing againts bigger defender imagine what he can do playing PF.

I would ask for AL , 1st round pick plus the rights of Rubio and we have a deal

Holy crap you get offered that and turn that down I dont even know what i would say...probably would be pissed though

pathil275
01-10-2010, 07:08 PM
I'm glad this deal didn't happen, though I like the fact that there's a solid source mentioning the Pacers are talking to teams. The conversations are probably short though if they only involve Granger.


Love that one. Finally some sort of certainty that the FO is awake.

Wouldn't do the deal either, but Minnesotta has some decent pieces to make such a deal happen (as mentioned Sessions, the rights to Rubio, picks, ..)

All in all it doesn't hurt Grangers value when trade discussions are stopped immediately.

Murphy for Z's expiring and Hickson in a heartbeat. Murphy just for Z's expiring? In a heartbeat. Perhaps they'll get a 2nd rounder in that deal.

Pacerized
01-10-2010, 07:09 PM
That's far different the just trading Granger for Jefferson. Granger is a much better overall player then Jefferson. If anyone thinks that's the best we could get for Granger then they're undervaluing him. Granger should net a true all star in a trade.
However, if they really would throw in a first rounder, and the right to Rubio I'd have to lean toward that trade as well.



I would ask for AL , 1st round pick plus the rights of Rubio and we have a deal

CableKC
01-10-2010, 07:14 PM
if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.
I have an idea why....JO'B would have no idea how to run an offense centered around a Low-Post scoring Big Man like Jefferson. Heck, he already has one and he only uses him when our best Player is out.

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 07:16 PM
That's far different the just trading Granger for Jefferson. Granger is a much better overall player then Jefferson. If anyone thinks that's the best we could get for Granger then they're undervaluing him. Granger should net a true all star in a trade.
However, if they really would throw in a first rounder, and the right to Rubio I'd have to lean toward that trade as well.

there are many teams interested in Danny, you could trade him to Memphis for Rudy gay, 1st round pick, conley and other pieces, there are many trade scenarios when you have a guy like him, another trade that I would like them to do is Jeff Green, Maynor and whatever pieces you need to make a deal like this work.

cdash
01-10-2010, 07:18 PM
I would ask for AL , 1st round pick plus the rights of Rubio and we have a deal

Well no ****. :laugh:

jhondog28
01-10-2010, 07:19 PM
That's far different the just trading Granger for Jefferson. Granger is a much better overall player then Jefferson. If anyone thinks that's the best we could get for Granger then they're undervaluing him. Granger should net a true all star in a trade.
However, if they really would throw in a first rounder, and the right to Rubio I'd have to lean toward that trade as well.

Wow I truly think you are undervaluing Jefferson. Defensively I give you that but come on we are just as bad as Minnesota and Jefferson is a 20/10 guy. You got to pull that trigger.

cdash
01-10-2010, 07:19 PM
there are many teams interested in Danny, you could trade him to Memphis for Rudy gay, 1st round pick, conley and other pieces, there are many trade scenarios when you have a guy like him, another trade that I would like them to do is Jeff Green, Maynor and whatever pieces you need to make a deal like this work.

Are you sure it is the rest of this board that is overrating Granger? First you throw out Jefferson+1st round pick (of a team with the second worst record in the league)+Ricky Rubio's rights, and now Gay+1st+Conley?

CableKC
01-10-2010, 07:25 PM
I don't know about you, but I am so past JO'B misusing Murphy alongside Dunleavy and Hibbert or using him as our Center that IF the Cavs are willing to take on a straight forward Murphy for Z straight up deal...I'd be satisfied.

I'd love to get an asset like Hickson....but seriously.....given my preference to acquire the biggest Expiring Contract that we can get BEFORE the 2009-2010 Trade Deadlin while moving one of our Big 4 Contracts along with removing JO'Bs Frontcourt Crutch.....I could care less about acquiring additional assets like Hickson....I'd take it and run.

Hickson is a "nice to have" asset but he SHOULD NOT be a Dealbreaker if we have the chance to do a huge Salary Dump when it comes to Murphy. Think of what of all the celebration that would go on here in PD if Bird removed JO'Bs favorite Big Man from the equation.

duke dynamite
01-10-2010, 07:26 PM
Wow I truly think you are undervaluing Jefferson. Defensively I give you that but come on we are just as bad as Minnesota and Jefferson is a 20/10 guy. You got to pull that trigger.

We've got too many "20/10" guys that can't defend already.

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 07:26 PM
Are you sure it is the rest of this board that is overrating Granger? First you throw out Jefferson+1st round pick (of a team with the second worst record in the league)+Ricky Rubio's rights, and now Gay+1st+Conley?

Remember that the guy is an All Star, teams that already have a guy who they think is their franchise player and are looking for the Robin to their Batman(Lebron, Mayo,Duran,B Roy) and Danny could be that guy, those trade scenarios I just talked about are not to far for what we could get for him(I think)

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 07:31 PM
We've got too many "20/10" guys that can't defend already.

Who is a 20/10 guy?:confused:

jhondog28
01-10-2010, 07:33 PM
Who is a 20/10 guy?:confused:

I think Dukie is referring to Murph

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 07:35 PM
Are you sure it is the rest of this board that is overrating Granger? First you throw out Jefferson+1st round pick (of a team with the second worst record in the league)+Ricky Rubio's rights, and now Gay+1st+Conley?

The first one is absurd, I don't think the Memphis deal is that farfetched though. I believe they have a decent record this year(haven't looked though) and I don't think Conely has near as much value as you think he does.

That said, we would have to send a decent valued filler for it to actually happen. I don't think the Grizzles would do it, but I don't think its terrible either - Grizzles fans have said they don't think Gay and Mayo can coexist together. Some actually sounded up for the idea of Rush and our pick for Mayo - not sure the point of that if we have a top 5 pick though, maybe even top 7.

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 07:39 PM
I think Dukie is referring to Murph

Murphy is only 14.1pts and 9.2rebounds

by the way I just found some clips of Jefferson and this guys looks like the kind of guy who can complement Roy downlow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcT7JTmPPrk

Trophy
01-10-2010, 07:39 PM
I wouldn't give them Danny anyway, but what about Troy and someone else plus a pick if requested.

Brad8888
01-10-2010, 07:58 PM
I don't know about you, but I am so past JO'B misusing Murphy alongside Dunleavy and Hibbert or using him as our Center that IF the Cavs are willing to take on a straight forward Murphy for Z straight up deal...I'd be satisfied.

I'd love to get an asset like Hickson....but seriously.....given my preference to acquire the biggest Expiring Contract that we can get BEFORE the 2009-2010 Trade Deadlin while moving one of our Big 4 Contracts along with removing JO'Bs Frontcourt Crutch.....I could care less about acquiring additional assets like Hickson....I'd take it and run.

Hickson is a "nice to have" asset but he SHOULD NOT be a Dealbreaker if we have the chance to do a huge Salary Dump when it comes to Murphy. Think of what of all the celebration that would go on here in PD if Bird removed JO'Bs favorite Big Man from the equation.

The board might crash under the load of happy posts if we could get both salary dump and Hickson while removing J'OB's crutch. Hopefully we have a good backup in place!

flox
01-10-2010, 08:05 PM
For all the criticism of Z-Bo by Dr.Awesome, I find it ironic a team we thought we would be better than that is currently being lead by Z-Bo is doing much better than our team right now.

Anthem
01-10-2010, 08:12 PM
Hickson's not really a guy we need to target... it's not like we're short on backup PFs.

It would be nice to get an asset out of the trade, though, and not just the cap space. I'd be happier with a pick, even if it's not a great one.

CableKC
01-10-2010, 08:54 PM
Hickson's not really a guy we need to target... it's not like we're short on backup PFs.

It would be nice to get an asset out of the trade, though, and not just the cap space. I'd be happier with a pick, even if it's not a great one.
It'd be better if JO'B didn't depend on Murphy to anchor our Frontcourt at the end of games....but that's not happening any time soon. I'd be happier if we were able to dump Murphy's contract so that we won't end up in the same Financial situation as the Wizards and Jazz next season. Giving JO'B no choice but to play Hansbrough, Foster, McRoberts or Solo in the Frontcourt alongside Hibbert is a plus.....

It's a huge "addition by subtraction" IMHO....

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Hickson's not really a guy we need to target... it's not like we're short on backup PFs.

It would be nice to get an asset out of the trade, though, and not just the cap space. I'd be happier with a pick, even if it's not a great one.

Hickson is only 21 and already starts for the Cavs. He wouldn't be a backup for long.

That being said..I think its asking a bit much for the Cavs to include him in a Murph for Z swap. If it's going to be anything it would probably be just Murph for Z straight up.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 09:10 PM
For all the criticism of Z-Bo by Dr.Awesome, I find it ironic a team we thought we would be better than that is currently being lead by Z-Bo is doing much better than our team right now.

Yea, its not like Z-Bo has any talent around him, I mean Gasol, Gay, Mayo, Conely, psh, they should be in the NBDL. :rolleyes:

To his credit though, he has actually been a team player this year...for the first time in his career. I still wouldn't want Z-Bo anyway near a Pacers uniform though.

I'm not trying even trying to bash Jefferson. I like him and think he's a good player, but not a player you should build a team around - Granger might not be that guy either, but he's closer to it than Jefferson is.

If we get the 5th pick, I'd gladly offer that, Hansbrough, and someone like Foster for Jefferson, but I doubt I'd offer more than that. From the posts of Wolves fans on other boards, thats the type of package they would want from him - might still be a little low, but I'd only want Jefferson next to Granger and Hibbert.

Ballerzfan
01-10-2010, 09:32 PM
If we get the 5th pick, I'd gladly offer that, Hansbrough, and someone like Foster for Jefferson, but I doubt I'd offer more than that.

I wouldn't even offer that much. Besides, I have to work tomorrow so whatever your'e smoking, I don't want any.

Lance George
01-10-2010, 09:35 PM
Hickson's not really a guy we need to target... it's not like we're short on backup PFs.

It would be nice to get an asset out of the trade, though, and not just the cap space. I'd be happier with a pick, even if it's not a great one.

I'd rather have the Cav's 1st round pick than the underwhelming Hickson.

cinotimz
01-10-2010, 09:37 PM
Hickson is only 21 and already starts for the Cavs. He wouldn't be a backup for long.

That being said..I think its asking a bit much for the Cavs to include him in a Murph for Z swap. If it's going to be anything it would probably be just Murph for Z straight up.

To be clear, its actually Murph for cap relief. We wont even keep Z. Im sure Cleveland will give us 3 million to buy Z out so he can return to Cleveland. So all we get is salary relief.

We are probably wanting Hickson but they probably wont do that. Im thinking ultimately if we get anything it might be some kind of 2nd rounder. They know how badly we need to dump him. As many said, it will be a buyers market-especially for those teams that have money.

QuickRelease
01-10-2010, 09:38 PM
AND Granger does? By his stellar "D", his rebounding, his many assists, his great leadership, his super intangibles? Apparently you aren't remembering Granger's play b4 he got injured with his chippy attitude that reminds me of the child who is unhappy and is playing that way to show people their unhappiness. Have you forgotten all the complaints of those 3's he was shooting b4 the injury? I remember posting about his poor shooting of 41 and 35%. I'd say his points are pretty hollow myself.

I still don't think it would be a slam dunk to take Jefferson over Granger. Certainly not to the extent to bash LB for sticking with Danny. I feel much better about Danny long term than I do Jefferson.

Smoothdave1
01-10-2010, 09:41 PM
Yea, its not like Z-Bo has any talent around him, I mean Gasol, Gay, Mayo, Conely, psh, they should be in the NBDL. :rolleyes:

To his credit though, he has actually been a team player this year...for the first time in his career. I still wouldn't want Z-Bo anyway near a Pacers uniform though.

I'm not trying even trying to bash Jefferson. I like him and think he's a good player, but not a player you should build a team around - Granger might not be that guy either, but he's closer to it than Jefferson is.

If we get the 5th pick, I'd gladly offer that, Hansbrough, and someone like Foster for Jefferson, but I doubt I'd offer more than that. From the posts of Wolves fans on other boards, thats the type of package they would want from him - might still be a little low, but I'd only want Jefferson next to Granger and Hibbert.

Fun fact of the day: Z-Bo has better stats this year than Boozer, Amare, KG, Gasol, David West, Al Jefferson and others.

How about a deal involving Jefferson for a package of say Dunleavy and someone else not named Roy or Danny?

MikeDC
01-10-2010, 09:42 PM
To be clear, its actually Murph for cap relief. We wont even keep Z. Im sure Cleveland will give us 3 million to buy Z out so he can return to Cleveland. So all we get is salary relief.

We are probably wanting Hickson but they probably wont do that. Im thinking ultimately if we get anything it might be some kind of 2nd rounder. They know how badly we need to dump him. As many said, it will be a buyers market-especially for those teams that have money.

If everyone knows this, why are we screwing around asking for Hickson? The Cavs could end up changing their minds and waiting for Jamison, who they apparently like more anyway.

If there's any way they can get Murphy out now, they ought to do it and be done with it.

Anthem
01-10-2010, 09:46 PM
Hickson is only 21 and already starts for the Cavs. He wouldn't be a backup for long.
Honest question here... I haven't watched the Cavs at all this year. Do you think Hickson will be a better player next year than Tyler or McRoberts?

Smoothdave1
01-10-2010, 09:47 PM
To be clear, its actually Murph for cap relief. We wont even keep Z. Im sure Cleveland will give us 3 million to buy Z out so he can return to Cleveland. So all we get is salary relief.

We are probably wanting Hickson but they probably wont do that. Im thinking ultimately if we get anything it might be some kind of 2nd rounder. They know how badly we need to dump him. As many said, it will be a buyers market-especially for those teams that have money.

I think the Cavs are more likely to give us a first round pick than Hickson. Hickson provides them with depth, especially if Z is gone for a month sitting out and with a guy like Shaq who may not be the most reliable and healthy guy down the stretch.

The rumor is that the Wizards may not want to deal Jamison for Z. Per Yahoo sports: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=mc-afterthebuzzer010910&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

One NBA executive said the Washington Wizards continue to listen to offers for forwards Caron Butler(notes) and Antawn Jamison(notes). The source said that the Cleveland Cavaliers are willing to give up center Zydrunas Ilgauskas(notes), but Washington doesn’t appear interested in that deal.

cdash
01-10-2010, 09:54 PM
Honest question here... I haven't watched the Cavs at all this year. Do you think Hickson will be a better player next year than Tyler or McRoberts?

McRoberts--yes. Tyler--probably not. He does have more long-term potential than either of them imo.

Cherokee
01-10-2010, 09:56 PM
If we do a Murphy for Z and Hickson deal, how long do we have to keep Z before we can release him back to the Cavs? We would have one too many on our roster, so we'd have to release someone if we have to keep Z very long. Who do we let go?

Unclebuck
01-10-2010, 10:02 PM
if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.

I disagree with that philosophy. Ask the Blazers if they wish they had taken the wing Durant over the big in Oden. (i was advocating that Durant should be the number 1 pick that year. I think that died as a good philsophy about 15 years ago. Now you take the best player regardless of size

Hicks
01-10-2010, 10:03 PM
If we do a Murphy for Z and Hickson deal, how long do we have to keep Z before we can release him back to the Cavs? We would have one too many on our roster, so we'd have to release someone if we have to keep Z very long. Who do we let go?

You can waive him ASAP, but he can't return to the Cavs right away. He'd just be off living his life for 30 days before he could re-join the Cavs. We wouldn't have to cut anyone because we'd be cutting him.

MikeDC
01-10-2010, 10:06 PM
Honest question here... I haven't watched the Cavs at all this year. Do you think Hickson will be a better player next year than Tyler or McRoberts?

I doubt it. Here's a breakdown from Basketball Reference (http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=hansbty01&y1=2010&p2=mcrobjo01&y2=2010&p3=hicksjj01&y3=2010&p4=murphtr01&y4=2010):

Rk Player Season Age G MP PER TS% eFG% ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK% TOV% USG% ORtg DRtg OWS DWS WS
1 Troy Murphy 2009-10 29 26 814 18.4 .612 .585 5.6 26.5 15.8 11.0 1.5 1.3 11.8 18.2 116 104 1.6 1.2 2.7
2 Tyler Hansbrough 2009-10 24 25 474 15.2 .458 .365 12.1 17.0 14.5 8.9 1.7 1.1 7.7 25.1 102 106 0.2 0.5 0.8
3 J.J. Hickson 2009-10 21 38 717 12.6 .562 .537 7.9 16.2 12.2 2.5 1.0 1.9 14.7 17.8 104 104 0.5 1.0 1.5
4 Josh McRoberts 2009-10 22 13 153 11.8 .556 .541 7.6 18.8 13.1 9.4 1.3 2.4 16.2 14.0 106 105 0.1 0.2 0.3

I mean, I wouldn't turn the guy down, for sure, but he really doesn't do much of anything better than McRoberts.

Also, there's a really obvious issue that doesn't show up in the stats. Hickson gets to play with Lebron. Playing with a great player generally creates easier opportunities for a guy, so I tend to think that some of Hickson's "success" is overstated. Put him on an average team and he'd get fewer easy opportunities, and thus, would look worse statistically.

Will Galen
01-10-2010, 10:14 PM
That's far different the just trading Granger for Jefferson. Granger is a much better overall player then Jefferson. If anyone thinks that's the best we could get for Granger then they're undervaluing him. Granger should net a true all star in a trade.
However, if they really would throw in a first rounder, and the right to Rubio I'd have to lean toward that trade as well.

I wouldn't trade Danny straight up for Lebron. Just don't want to!

However, Jefferson, Minny's first, and Rubio?

I'd scream, "No, No, No, No, No!"

But . . . *&^%$#^&&!

With nothing else added or subtracted . . . I'd have to do that deal, but Minny would save me, they wouldn't.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 10:19 PM
That's far different the just trading Granger for Jefferson. Granger is a much better overall player then Jefferson. If anyone thinks that's the best we could get for Granger then they're undervaluing him. Granger should net a true all star in a trade.
However, if they really would throw in a first rounder, and the right to Rubio I'd have to lean toward that trade as well.


What Allstar could Granger get? Don't give me some old on the downside player either. Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

cdash
01-10-2010, 10:24 PM
What Allstar could Granger get? Don't give me some old on the downside player either. Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

And Al Jefferson will? I tend to agree with you about Granger, but I don't think trading him for Jefferson accomplishes a whole lot.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 10:24 PM
I wouldn't trade Danny straight up for Lebron. Just don't want to!

:jules:

pacers_heath
01-10-2010, 10:25 PM
This trade sounds exciting at the moment with how bad the team is doing. Change sounds refreshing and it is exciting to actually hear the Pacers front office discussing some big names for a change. I don't think I could pull the trigger, though. Danny Granger was an all-star and top 5 scorer last season. Even leading his team to 36 wins is more impressive than anything Jefferson has done with the Wolves. I like Jefferson a lot, but he's a step below Granger, maybe equal at best. If they threw in their first round pick and we threw in TJ Ford or Jeff Foster I would say deal.

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2010, 10:25 PM
To be clear, its actually Murph for cap relief. We wont even keep Z. Im sure Cleveland will give us 3 million to buy Z out so he can return to Cleveland. So all we get is salary relief.

We are probably wanting Hickson but they probably wont do that. Im thinking ultimately if we get anything it might be some kind of 2nd rounder. They know how badly we need to dump him. As many said, it will be a buyers market-especially for those teams that have money.


Understood - I was just saying that Cleveland would be reluctant to part with Hickson just to get Murphy..

Will Galen
01-10-2010, 10:26 PM
Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

Who thinks that? Name one person?

Even Lebron, Kobe, MJ, and so forth couldn't do that.

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2010, 10:31 PM
Honest question here... I haven't watched the Cavs at all this year. Do you think Hickson will be a better player next year than Tyler or McRoberts?


Yes and Yes. I really want to have some of what some of these other posters are smoking. Underwhelming? Dude is 21 freakin' years old for crying out loud and in his second year in the league. He came out as a freshman at NC State. He has also started 32 of Cleveland's 38 games. He's played well as an energy guy and has a nice post up game as well. We would be extremely lucky to get him in a Murph for Z deal...

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 10:34 PM
What Allstar could Granger get? Don't give me some old on the downside player either. Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

I don't think you could get another All Star for him, maybe young players who could possibly be All Stars maybe players like J green, Al, Rudy, Mayo, L Aldridge, Westbrook who knows maybe Jennings?

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2010, 10:35 PM
What Allstar could Granger get? Don't give me some old on the downside player either. Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

Granger is the Allstar in the proposed trade...Last time I checked Al Jeff never made the Allstar team. What are you talking about?

Swingman
01-10-2010, 10:35 PM
:jules:

I wouldn't trade Granger for Lebron either. Not because of talent but because Lebron would be gone when his contract was up so it would be nothing more than a temporary borrowing of Lebron.

Mr. Sobchak
01-10-2010, 10:36 PM
Fun fact of the day: Z-Bo has better stats this year than Boozer, Amare, KG, Gasol, David West, Al Jefferson and others.

How about a deal involving Jefferson for a package of say Dunleavy and someone else not named Roy or Danny?


Because the Wolves simply wouldn't part with their 20-10 forward for a broken down under performing Dunleavy...

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 10:40 PM
Who thinks that? Name one person?

Even Lebron, Kobe, MJ, and so forth couldn't do that.

MJ did that more than one time and Lebron took his team to the promise land three years ago, with B gibson as the PG, poplovich as the sg, Ilgauskas as the C and Varejao the PF.:confused:

CableKC
01-10-2010, 10:41 PM
IMHO.....although it's nice to have a 20/10 PF/C......Granger is closer to being a Franchise Player then Jefferson. Well, maybe Franchise Player isn't the right words to describe Granger nor Jefferson....let's just say that Granger is a better player to build around then Jefferson.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 10:49 PM
[QUOTE=Dr. Awesome;942442]*Removed*

To start, I suggest you try to improve your reading comprehension as I said Granger's offensive stats have been hollow this year - as a result of O'Briens offense.

I find it funny your attacking his leadership after he lead our team to victories against the best teams in the NBA last year.


You can't expect Granger to become a better overall player when our coach isn't asking him to be.


The only thing O'Brien cares about is shooting the 3 ball. Thats it. There is no offense to run, just shoot. Granger's skill set is better for an actual offense, that doesn't exist with us.


I have never seen anyone on this board have as much hate for Granger as you appear to, but your view on him is clearly skewed as it seems like you have no idea what your talking about(on Granger's part, not Jefferson). QUOTE]


My reading comprehension is fine.


Oh, O'Brien asked Granger to be better last and the year b4, but not this year? Granger was playing in JO'B's system then as he is now. That statement is ludicrious that JO'B didn't ask Granger to be a better player this year, but did so in the past.


Actually, I like Granger, but Granger has faults that many others just turn their head and look the other way. I find it humorous that when it's pointed out it becomes pure hate by the Granger lovers who have him as the anoited one that how dareth anyone point out his faults. Just b/c I'm not drinking the Granger kool-aide doesn't mean I hate Granger, but I'm being realistic about his faults. Lets face it he didn't make the Allstar team for his leadership, his rebs, assts, or making his teammates better. He made it b/c he was a leading scorer who was shooting the 3 well.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 10:58 PM
[QUOTE=Dr. Awesome;942442]*Removed*

To start, I suggest you try to improve your reading comprehension as I said Granger's offensive stats have been hollow this year - as a result of O'Briens offense.

I find it funny your attacking his leadership after he lead our team to victories against the best teams in the NBA last year.


You can't expect Granger to become a better overall player when our coach isn't asking him to be.


The only thing O'Brien cares about is shooting the 3 ball. Thats it. There is no offense to run, just shoot. Granger's skill set is better for an actual offense, that doesn't exist with us.


I have never seen anyone on this board have as much hate for Granger as you appear to, but your view on him is clearly skewed as it seems like you have no idea what your talking about(on Granger's part, not Jefferson). QUOTE]


My reading comprehension is fine.


Oh, O'Brien asked Granger to be better last and the year b4, but not this year? Granger was playing in JO'B's system then as he is now. That statement is ludicrious that JO'B didn't ask Granger to be a better player this year, but did so in the past.


Actually, I like Granger, but Granger has faults that many others just turn their head and look the other way. I find it humorous that when it's pointed out it becomes pure hate by the Granger lovers who have him as the anoited one that how dareth anyone point out his faults. Just b/c I'm not drinking the Granger kool-aide doesn't mean I hate Granger, but I'm being realistic about his faults. Lets face it he didn't make the Allstar team for his leadership, his rebs, assts, or making his teammates better. He made it b/c he was a leading scorer who was shooting the 3 well.

I've pointed out his faults too, but I have put those faults on O'Brien. O'Brien is asking him to shoot 3's, not drive, not pass, all he wants is for Granger to shoot 3's. Thats holding Granger back from his potential.

Also your wrong about why he made the All-Star team. He made the All-Star team because he was a great leader. All the coaches were saying how they never vote for players whos teams weren't in the playoffs, but Granger was different. KD wasn't in the All-Star game last year and I doubt anyone would claim Granger is a better offensive player than Durant. No, Durant playing in the West wasn't the reason - not one SF made the All-Star team for the West.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 10:59 PM
We've got too many "20/10" guys that can't defend already.


Who would that 20/10 guy be? I didn't realize the Pacers had a 20/10 player.

duke dynamite
01-10-2010, 11:02 PM
Who would that 20/10 guy be? I didn't realize the Pacers had a 20/10 player.
It was an exaggeration. :rolleyes:

Pacersfan46
01-10-2010, 11:04 PM
This seems like a useless move to me. Trading for the sake of trading. It makes sense for the Wolves because of K. Love, and the makeup of their roster. For us however, it's just trading for the sake of trading.

You shouldn't trade a guy who wants to play for your team in a move like this. If they were talking Al Jeff and Rubio's rights or something, I might be inclined to listen. Just straight up though, meh.

-- Steve --

Pacerized
01-10-2010, 11:11 PM
Just based off the East All Star roster from last year I think Granger could net 7 of the players in a trade. You'd throw out Iverson, but as follows: Lewis, Harris, Williams, Allen, Nelson, and probably Joe Johnson. Of course the other teams would have to have a reason to want to make the trade and most wouldn't for chemistry issues at this point in the season. I don't think Granger is close to the level of Lebron, Wade, or Howard, but Jefferson has never even made an all star team and won't this year either. If healthy Granger would most likely be playing in the all star game again even though we have a losing record. Granger hasn't had the type of injuries that would lower his value at to a GM looking to add his talent.


What Allstar could Granger get? Don't give me some old on the downside player either. Too many put too MUCH value on Granger. Yes, he's a nice player, but he's not going to put a team on his back and take you to the promise land like so many think he can.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 11:12 PM
And Al Jefferson will?


Not anymore that Granger will.

SF are a dime a dozen in drafts and finding a good big man in the draft is slim. My feeling is you take the good established big man.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 11:20 PM
I don't think you could get another All Star for him, maybe young players who could possibly be All Stars maybe players like J green, Al, Rudy, Mayo, L Aldridge, Westbrook who knows maybe Jennings?


Aldridge, Mayo, and Gay? NO way their teams trade them for Granger. Talk about over valuing Granger!

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 11:24 PM
Aldridge, Mayo, and Gay? NO way their teams trade them for Granger. Talk about over valuing Granger!

Clearly you are undervaluing Granger.

Every year on RealGM they make a thread and vote for the players with the most value - this is fans from all teams, not just Pacer fans. Granger was much higher than the others listed if I recall right. If you ask any normal fans from different teams, they will all tell you Granger with the exception of Mayo which would probably be split.

Now, I don't know that Portland would trade Aldridge for Granger, but that has more to do with fit than anything else - also Jefferson has more value than Aldridge, so wouldn't the fact that we turned down Jefferson for Granger show he's worth at least Aldridge?

Go to another thread and post about Granger's value, you'll see. I think its funny that other teams value him more than you - a Pacers fan.

vnzla81
01-10-2010, 11:31 PM
Aldridge, Mayo, and Gay? NO way their teams trade them for Granger. Talk about over valuing Granger!

If not those guys who? :confused: Danny is an all star neither one of this guys is. I think that Al's value is higher than any one of this guys and they offered him(Al) for Danny :confused:

Anthem
01-10-2010, 11:31 PM
Yes and Yes. I really want to have some of what some of these other posters are smoking. Underwhelming? Dude is 21 freakin' years old for crying out loud and in his second year in the league. He came out as a freshman at NC State. He has also started 32 of Cleveland's 38 games. He's played well as an energy guy and has a nice post up game as well. We would be extremely lucky to get him in a Murph for Z deal...
If he's THAT good, then it makes sense why Cleveland wouldn't include him. We should probably set our sights a bit lower.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 11:33 PM
If he's THAT good, then it makes sense why Cleveland wouldn't include him. We should probably set our sights a bit lower.

I'd be happy with their late 1st. Shouldn't have much value to them and could potentially help us move up in the draft if needed.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 11:46 PM
I knew when I made my original post I'd catch plenty of flack from the Granger fanboy club, but I stand with my post. There have been numerous other players mentioned I wouldn't trade Granger for b/c he just better than them. I just see a lot of overvaluing of Granger, but that is to be expected from Pacer fans. Homerism has it's place at times, but being realistic has it's place as well. Again, I'm glad Granger is a Pacer, but he's far from being the perfect player some seem to feel he is. AND unlike many, I'd trade him if the right deal came along, and I don't mean for Kobie, LJ, or Wade although I'm surprised someone didn't suggest it. I just don't feel he's untouchable as others do.

Justin Tyme
01-10-2010, 11:49 PM
I'd be happy with their late 1st. Shouldn't have much value to them and could potentially help us move up in the draft if needed.


Ah, we can agree about something.

LJ really likes JJ, so I'd be surprised to see him in a deal. When King James speaks, like EF Hutton, others listen.

Dr. Awesome
01-10-2010, 11:53 PM
I knew when I made my original post I'd catch plenty of flack from the Granger fanboy club, but I stand with my post. There have been numerous other players mentioned I wouldn't trade Granger for b/c he just better than them. I just see a lot of overvaluing of Granger, but that is to be expected from Pacer fans. Homerism has it's place at times, but being realistic has it's place as well. Again, I'm glad Granger is a Pacer, but he's far from being the perfect player some seem to feel he is. AND unlike many, I'd trade him if the right deal came along, and I don't mean for Kobie, LJ, or Wade although I'm surprised someone didn't suggest it. I just don't feel he's untouchable as others do.

Again, your basically saying "Agree with me or your a homer." when its not like that. Fans from other teams agree with Pacers fans, you are in the minority of NBA fans, not just Pacer fans.

Infinite MAN_force
01-10-2010, 11:55 PM
I'd be happy with their late 1st. Shouldn't have much value to them and could potentially help us move up in the draft if needed.

This makes the most sense and will probably end up being the deal. The sooner the better. Murphy is like crack and Jim Obrien is addicted, time for an intervention.

Hicks
01-10-2010, 11:56 PM
I just can't believe that trade (Murphy to CLE) will actually ever happen. I hope it's an irrational fear of mine, but I won't believe it until it's been reported as a done deal

If it DID happen, I'd be pretty satisfied with Murph for Z (to be cut), cash, and their 1st.

Dr. Awesome
01-11-2010, 12:00 AM
I just can't believe that trade (Murphy to CLE) will actually ever happen. I hope it's an irrational fear of mine, but I won't believe it until it's been reported as a done deal

If it DID happen, I'd be pretty satisfied with Murph for Z (to be cut), cash, and their 1st.

Agreed, I'm afraid Bird might be a little too stubborn to get it done and thats only relevent if Washington decides to keep Jamison.

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 12:18 AM
If not those guys who? :confused: Danny is an all star neither one of this guys is. I think that Al's value is higher than any one of this guys and they offered him(Al) for Danny :confused:


Real quick w/o looking it up who is the T'Wolves starting SF? SF is a position of weakness for the T-Wolves. They have Love, so it's not like they don't have another big where as Portland w/o Oden only has Aldridge. Aldridge is more important to Portland than getting Granger would be. Memphis already has Gay so they have no interest in Granger, especially for the suggested trade of Gay, Conley, and a 1st.

Being an Allstar 1 year doesn't mean that other players aren't as good or better. To me Allstar status truly means something when it's won on numerous occassions. AD was an Allstar after leaving the Pacers. Jamal Magloire was as well, and he can't even get PT. Mo Williams only got the status last year b/c LJ complained about about him not being one. I don't ever see Nelson achieving that status again. I don't consider any of them to have Allstar status, but just a player that had a good year. Lets see if Granger makes the Allstar team next year or the years after. If he does then he deserves the Allstar status.

MikeDC
01-11-2010, 12:32 AM
The whole debate about all-stars seems beside the point to me. All-stars are rarely traded for other all-stars, because when teams actually trade all-stars, it's usually due to age, contractual, or knucklehead issues.

And for that matter, there are lots of guys who've made all-star teams that aren't very good. And plenty of guys who haven't that I'd love to have. Being an all-star doesn't really enter into the determination.

MikeDC
01-11-2010, 12:33 AM
I just can't believe that trade (Murphy to CLE) will actually ever happen. I hope it's an irrational fear of mine, but I won't believe it until it's been reported as a done deal

If it DID happen, I'd be pretty satisfied with Murph for Z (to be cut), cash, and their 1st.

How satisfied would you be if it didn't happen because we held out for cash and a pick?

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 12:36 AM
Go to another thread and post about Granger's value, you'll see. I think its funny that other teams value him more than you - a Pacers fan.


Other teams may value Granger, but are they offering anything of quality/value for him? That makes a BIG difference! Jefferson is the 1st what I consider quality player offerred for Granger I've seen.

It's no more funny than the homerism I see about what I feel is the overvaluing of Granger. It reminds me of the great value fans use to put on JO. Now, remind me what Allstar players did the Pacers trade JO for? They were darn lucky they got what they got for him. Fans are notorious for overvaluing their teams players. Granger is a good player, but lets not sweep under the rug his faults as they don't exist and magnify other teams players faults.

Infinite MAN_force
01-11-2010, 12:37 AM
I knew when I made my original post I'd catch plenty of flack from the Granger fanboy club, but I stand with my post. There have been numerous other players mentioned I wouldn't trade Granger for b/c he just better than them. I just see a lot of overvaluing of Granger, but that is to be expected from Pacer fans. Homerism has it's place at times, but being realistic has it's place as well. Again, I'm glad Granger is a Pacer, but he's far from being the perfect player some seem to feel he is. AND unlike many, I'd trade him if the right deal came along, and I don't mean for Kobie, LJ, or Wade although I'm surprised someone didn't suggest it. I just don't feel he's untouchable as others do.

LINK (http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=975709)


"Interesting. Both Jefferson and Granger are best suited to be 2nd options IMO. But between them I think Granger is the better overall player, I wouldn't have done that swap either." -Cavs fan

"good the rejected, why would they do that trade? if granger can stay healhty he'll be as good as durant, if not better w/ his 3pt shooting" - Rockets Fan

"Granger is the better player and Big Al wouldn't be a good fit on the Pacers, considering they already have Hibbert and Murphy." - Spurs fan

"I love Big Al, but I would do that deal in a heartbeat. Granger would do wonders for the wolves" - Timberwolves fan

To be fair, there was one guy who said Pacers were dumb for not doing the trade, otherwise it was pretty much unanimous in the other direction.

I think there is a lot more evidence that you undervalue Granger than that he is overrated around here. In fact other teams fans seem to often have a higher opinion of him than a lot of people around here from what I have seen, part of the whole "Grass is greener on the other side" effect.

Hicks
01-11-2010, 12:48 AM
How satisfied would you be if it didn't happen because we held out for cash and a pick?

I would be disappointed that we couldn't move the "Murphy crutch" away from Jim sooner.

Why?

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 12:48 AM
Again, your basically saying "Agree with me or your a homer."


Absolutely not. I just feel a good many Pacers fans overvalue Granger whereas you feel I'm undervaluing Granger. I've pointed out Granger's faults as to why I don't put as much value on him as others do. What other BB skills besides scoring does Granger excell at? What does he do that makes his team mates better?

MikeDC
01-11-2010, 12:52 AM
I would be disappointed that we couldn't move the "Murphy crutch" away from Jim sooner.

Why?

I Guess I'm just underscoring the point that if we are, in fact, holding out for something more, we shouldn't be.

I think in this case it's pretty important to seal the deal, and we ought not be picky.

CableKC
01-11-2010, 12:54 AM
How satisfied would you be if it didn't happen because we held out for cash and a pick?
Exactly....I'd be extremely disappointed. I'd always hope for more....but would be satisfied with Cash and Z for Murphy. I don't want to undervalue Murphy and what he can bring to the table.....but I do not want to underscore the importance of getting our 2010-2011 SalaryCap situation under control ( which moving Murphy for an Expiring Contract would do ).

This, of course, assumes that there are actually any true interest in Murphy from other GMs.

Dr. Awesome
01-11-2010, 12:58 AM
Exactly....I'd be extremely disappointed. I'd always hope for more....but would be satisfied with Cash and Z for Murphy. I don't want to undervalue Murphy and what he can bring to the table.....but I do not want to underscore the importance of getting our 2010-2011 SalaryCap situation under control ( which moving Murphy for an Expiring Contract would do ).

This, of course, assumes that there are actually any true interest in Murphy from other GMs.

Why would cash make a difference to you as oppose to just getting Z?

I've never understood why fans put such a big deal on cash when its really just going to the other teams owner - doesn't affect the cap or anything and while it could help a buyout, it really doesn't affect the fan at all...or am I missing something?

CableKC
01-11-2010, 01:09 AM
Why would cash make a difference to you as oppose to just getting Z?

I've never understood why fans put such a big deal on cash when its really just going to the other teams owner - doesn't affect the cap or anything and while it could help a buyout, it really doesn't affect the fan at all...or am I missing something?
Thinking about it.....I'd be elated if we could get Hickson or a 1st round pick on top of Z for Murphy.

I'd be happy if we could get some $$$ to help buy out Big Z.....but then I realized that we'd be asking the Cavs to pay an additional $12 mil just to take on a jumpshooting PF that can rebound and hit the 3pt shot but is slower then Shaq. You're right.....I just want to cut my losses with Murphy and move on.

cordobes
01-11-2010, 01:39 AM
I couldn't disagree more. Jefferson is Z-Bo v2.0, he has hollow stats. Its funny, on another forum, about 90% of people from other teams even think this is terrible for the Pacers.

Randolph is playing winning basketball this season in Memphis. They started the season 1-9 with Iverson and are now 18-18. Surround Jefferson with good players and he'll deliver wins. Same for Granger.

Anyway, I agree with you and those people. Insert Jefferson in the current Pacers roster and you'd have a very difficult scenario defensively. Jefferson can't defend the perimeter, can't defend athletes, struggles away from the paint, particularly off the low post and it's not even that good there. Pair him with Hibbert and you have a disaster waiting to happen. Even worse than Murphy/Hibbert. So, the Pacers would need to move Hibbert.

In abstract, I think Granger and Jefferson are players of similar talent. In this concrete situation, trading one for the other doesn't make much sense to me (from the Pacers point of view, I like the trade for the Wolves). You trade away your franchise player who's under a franchise-friendly contract for a guy of similar quality coming off an ACL surgery and then you have to find a trade for the up'n'coming center under a rookie contract. Meh... just not worth the trouble. Maybe Big Al becomes a 22/11/4 assists with average defence in the future and you're wasting a franchise big, but there's too much uncertainty.


McRoberts--yes. Tyler--probably not. He does have more long-term potential than either of them imo.

Do you think JJ Hickson can improve defensively? I like his potential, but he scares me on that side of the ball. Talented offensive player, no doubt.

I think Murphy for Big Z+Hickson is a bad deal for Cleveland. Overpaying for Jamison is by far a better one.


I've pointed out his faults too, but I have put those faults on O'Brien. O'Brien is asking him to shoot 3's, not drive, not pass, all he wants is for Granger to shoot 3's. Thats holding Granger back from his potential.

I don't know that. Granger has been improving since O'Brien arrived there (although he was already improving before JOB). But he just won the MIP award while being coached by O'Brien, saying he's holding Granger back is kind of odd. Do you think Granger still has a great deal of untapped potential? I'd be surprised, I think he can improve in some areas of his game but not at the same rate of the past, not even close.


Love+Rubio's rights, and we're talking.

Ah, certainly. But the way Rubio has been playing this season I very much doubt the Wolves will even consider using his rights as a sweetener.

Zelmo Beatty
01-11-2010, 08:58 AM
MikeDC-

Exactly. The next time the NBA awards an additional win to a
team for having a player make the All-Star team will be the
first time.

Tom White
01-11-2010, 09:50 AM
Because he doesn't affect the game, just puts up great stats. He is an awful defender and doesn't make teammates better. I think he would be a great second fiddle, but if we are trading Granger, he becomes our #1 option.

Granger showed last year that he is capable of leading this team to victory - against top teams might I add, O'Brien is just screwing him up by turning him into a jumpshooter only. If Granger continues to be only a jumpshooter, I would say his offensive stats are hollow, but he can still defend - unlike Jefferson.

I keep wondering if this is the doing of the coach, or the player.

I can't imagine that Granger would be benched for driving to the rim more often, or taking closer shots that would improve on his FG% (currently about 40%).

I'm just not that sure it is all the coach's doing.

xtacy
01-11-2010, 10:23 AM
i would def do this deal. al jefferson is underrated and i started to think that i overvalued granger after last year. shooting 10 3's a game and just making 3-4 of them isn't what a superstar does. i know he came back from injury but it started to be a habit of him. besides finding quality bigs is always one of hardest things in this league.

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 10:28 AM
I'm just not that sure it is all the coach's doing.



I couldn't agree more. If O'Brien is the cause, I'm more apt to feel it is b/c of the contract extension he rec'd from Bird than any coaching problem.

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 10:34 AM
i would def do this deal. al jefferson is underrated and i started to think that i overvalued granger after last year. shooting 10 3's a game and just making 3-4 of them isn't what a superstar does. i know he came back from injury but it started to be a habit of him. besides finding quality bigs is always one of hardest things in this league.


IIRC, Granger was shooting 9 3ptrs per game b4 he went out with the injury, so all he's doing is what he did previously.... doing the same thing Murphy does.

B4 anyone gets over excited, I am in no way comparing Granger to Murphy other than they like to shoot 3's.

Jonathan
01-11-2010, 10:41 AM
Jefferson is not any better than Zach Randolph. He does not play shut down Defense and just scores. I was not very impressed with him when I saw him live here on January 2.

Larry Bird is doing a great job of staying patient and not panicking.

Speed
01-11-2010, 10:43 AM
My quick take-Jefferson is coming off a pretty big injury, not shown ability to be #1 guy on a good team, age isn't that much difference between him and Danny. This would be rearranging the deck chairs to me.

The only argument I can think of is that it's typically easier to find a good wing player vs. a good big.

Otherwise, too many things to not do this trade. Like you Danny can defend and guard his position, you know Danny will work to improve, you know Danny has a pretty reasonable long term contract for his output.

Now if Al Jefferson was completely healthy and still getting better, maybe?

I like Al, it was interesting to see how the Pacers attacked him though with double teams, daring him to pass out of them, to which he was, meh. So I don't think he makes guys around him better, but I don't think Danny does at this moment either.

It's like many have said, it's just trading to trade. It's a lateral move at best, imo. Just not something worth doing at this point.

owl
01-11-2010, 10:59 AM
There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
Things could get very interesting.

Speed
01-11-2010, 11:06 AM
There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
Things could get very interesting.

One enouraging thing, as mentioned before, is the wheels are moving in trade talks. So there might be a chance to drastically alter this team in the next year and half.

90'sNBARocked
01-11-2010, 11:32 AM
How about we make a play for Big Al WITHOUT trading Granger?

It might be possible with a combination of youth, vet, and a draft pick?

I would love a front line of Hibbert, Jefferson, Granger

I think even TJ Ford could rak up some assists!

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 11:49 AM
There will be quite a few rumors flying in the next few weeks. Wait until a year from now.
Things could get very interesting.


The $64,000 question for ownership is, will there be many left in Conseco in a year from now if they just keep waiting and patching the sinking ship with 2nd quality replacement parts? Does ownership think they can fill Conseco by waiting? Sometimes the ship has to be repaired now not later b4 it sinks.

90'sNBARocked
01-11-2010, 11:53 AM
I just can't believe that trade (Murphy to CLE) will actually ever happen. I hope it's an irrational fear of mine, but I won't believe it until it's been reported as a done deal

If it DID happen, I'd be pretty satisfied with Murph for Z (to be cut), cash, and their 1st.

Because :

It makes sense
It has been reported ad nausem as Foster to Denver
Obie has Bird still beliving he can guide his club to the playoffs

Plus it is all something we desperately wan't, but they say becareful what you wish for :eek:

CableKC
01-11-2010, 12:04 PM
How about we make a play for Big Al WITHOUT trading Granger?

It might be possible with a combination of youth, vet, and a draft pick?

I would love a front line of Hibbert, Jefferson, Granger
Is it possible that the Pacers could get Jefferson without giving up Granger and Hibbert?

Technically, yes...it is possible.....just highly unlikely.


I think even TJ Ford could rak up some assists!
You forgot to turn on the green "sarcasm" font.

Justin Tyme
01-11-2010, 12:07 PM
How about we make a play for Big Al WITHOUT trading Granger?

It might be possible with a combination of youth, vet, and a draft pick?

I would love a front line of Hibbert, Jefferson, Granger

I think even TJ Ford could rak up some assists!


I seriously doubt it. Kahn wants Granger. SF is a weak position for the T'Wolves, and Granger would fix that weakness for them.

Heck, maybe Kahn wants the Pacers #1 to make the odds even greater to draft another PG.....John Wall. He seems have a thing for PG's.... if 1 is good a half dozen is better.

In all defense of Bird,:eek:, it might not have been Granger that was the deal breaker, but another player like Hibbert that scuttled the deal since the salaries of Jefferson and Granger don't match. Or maybe Kahn wanting the Pacers having to throw in the 2010 1st was a deal beaker and not the giving up Granger. Who knows. What I do know is I'd love to have Jefferson in a Pacers' uni.

vnzla81
01-11-2010, 12:10 PM
here is more info about this deal
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12188/wolves-kahn-insists-jefferson-not-available


By Marc Stein

Minnesota Timberwolves president David Kahn insists that Al Jefferson has not been made available -- to anyone -- in advance of the Feb. 18 trading deadline.

“As I’ve said publicly,” Kahn told ESPN.com, “I have no intention of trading any of our core players this season.”

It’s a subject we covered in the Weekend Dime after hearing multiple rumbles during last week’s D-League Showcase in Boise, Idaho, that the Wolves were prepared to start exploring the trade market for Jefferson amid questions about Jefferson’s compatibility with Kevin Love and how he fits in Minnesota’s more free-flowing triangle offense under new coach Kurt Rambis.

An excerpt:

“A case can be made that either Jefferson or Love -- undeniably good players individually who are still both developing -- would be helped greatly by playing next to a more athletic sidekick no matter what the system.”

But a source with knowledge of the Wolves’ thinking subsequently dismissed the idea that Kahn would part with Jefferson just a half-season into his recovery from a torn ACL in his right knee that limited him to 50 games in the 2008-09 season.

In a pretty candid recent appearance on ESPN’s NBA Today podcast with Ryen Russillo, Kahn himself conceded that the Wolves aren’t sure if Jefferson and Love can play together in the long term . . . but also said that it’s too early in Jefferson’s comeback for such judgments. The interview sure made it sound as though Minnesota wants to give the tag team an entire season of evaluation before thinking about breaking them up, since Jefferson -- when healthy -- ranks as one of the league’s last true back-to-the-basket forces.

Jefferson speculation, however, isn’t likely to be easily hushed now that it’s out there. Yahoo! Sports reported Sunday that the Wolves recently offered the original centerpiece of Minnesota’s post-Kevin Garnett era to Indiana for a return package headlined by Pacers swingman Danny Granger.

No such discussions have taken place according to Kahn, who said Monday: “I spoke to [Pacers president] Larry Bird in person Friday in between our shootarounds for 20 minutes and neither player’s name was ever mentioned.”

90'sNBARocked
01-11-2010, 02:04 PM
Is it possible that the Pacers could get Jefferson without giving up Granger and Hibbert?

Technically, yes...it is possible.....just highly unlikely.


You forgot to turn on the green "sarcasm" font.


Im learning

I was out for a week on the "in active" list :rolleyes:

jk got it :)

90'sNBARocked
01-11-2010, 02:06 PM
here is more info about this deal
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/12188/wolves-kahn-insists-jefferson-not-available


By Marc Stein

Minnesota Timberwolves president David Kahn insists that Al Jefferson has not been made available -- to anyone -- in advance of the Feb. 18 trading deadline.

“As I’ve said publicly,” Kahn told ESPN.com, “I have no intention of trading any of our core players this season.”

It’s a subject we covered in the Weekend Dime after hearing multiple rumbles during last week’s D-League Showcase in Boise, Idaho, that the Wolves were prepared to start exploring the trade market for Jefferson amid questions about Jefferson’s compatibility with Kevin Love and how he fits in Minnesota’s more free-flowing triangle offense under new coach Kurt Rambis.

An excerpt:

“A case can be made that either Jefferson or Love -- undeniably good players individually who are still both developing -- would be helped greatly by playing next to a more athletic sidekick no matter what the system.”

But a source with knowledge of the Wolves’ thinking subsequently dismissed the idea that Kahn would part with Jefferson just a half-season into his recovery from a torn ACL in his right knee that limited him to 50 games in the 2008-09 season.

In a pretty candid recent appearance on ESPN’s NBA Today podcast with Ryen Russillo, Kahn himself conceded that the Wolves aren’t sure if Jefferson and Love can play together in the long term . . . but also said that it’s too early in Jefferson’s comeback for such judgments. The interview sure made it sound as though Minnesota wants to give the tag team an entire season of evaluation before thinking about breaking them up, since Jefferson -- when healthy -- ranks as one of the league’s last true back-to-the-basket forces.

Jefferson speculation, however, isn’t likely to be easily hushed now that it’s out there. Yahoo! Sports reported Sunday that the Wolves recently offered the original centerpiece of Minnesota’s post-Kevin Garnett era to Indiana for a return package headlined by Pacers swingman Danny Granger.

No such discussions have taken place according to Kahn, who said Monday: “I spoke to [Pacers president] Larry Bird in person Friday in between our shootarounds for 20 minutes and neither player’s name was ever mentioned.”


So, this definitley knocks out Jefferson for the Pacers, as Roy is anything but the above description

pacerDU
01-11-2010, 04:02 PM
I think one thing people who are advocates of the proposed trade (Jefferson for Granger) are forgetting is the marketability of Granger.

I don't mean this as Granger getting endorsements, I mean as a player to market to fans. People like Danny. Obviously only those close to him know what he's really like, but the perception is he's a good, respectful person. I'm not saying Jefferson isn't, but when you get a guy who is very talented, is good in the community (and not a goof on the court) and also *wants* to be here, well I don't think you give that up too easily.

I'm not one of these people who cares only about winning, regardless who's on the team. I want to follow a team of guys who I like, personality-wise, too. Again, obviously I don't know Danny, but from what I've seen in interviews and on the court, he seems like a good guy.

For example, I can't cheer for the Nuggets. Good team obviously, but they're a team with a bunch of really unlikeable, arrogant players. If the Pacers had that team, I wouldn't care that they're winning, I'd still want to get rid of a bunch of those guys because they're just not players I can feel happy for.

Now obviously I want talented players on the Pacers too, and I don't necessarily want a bunch of milk-drinkers either. But I don't want guys I can't be proud of wearing a jersey to support.

I personally feel Granger is the superior player in this case, but there are players out there who are better (or considered better) than Granger who I wouldn't want instead of him.

Granger, I feel, likes being a Pacer, wants to remain a Pacer and appreciates the fans (as evidenced by his brief entries on this very forum). I like having him as a Pacer for more than just what his stats say. Oh and I do feel we can win with him down the road.

cdash
01-11-2010, 06:22 PM
Do you think JJ Hickson can improve defensively? I like his potential, but he scares me on that side of the ball. Talented offensive player, no doubt.

I think Murphy for Big Z+Hickson is a bad deal for Cleveland. Overpaying for Jamison is by far a better one.



Ah, certainly. But the way Rubio has been playing this season I very much doubt the Wolves will even consider using his rights as a sweetener.

I think Hickson can and probably will improve defensively. Will he ever be a great defender? Probably not, but he won't be a sieve either.

I agree that Murphy for Z+Hickson is a bad deal for the Cavs, and I would wager that they feel the same way. This is why I'm hoping that Bird doesn't make Hickson's inclusion a sticking point in the trade.

Yeah, I was kidding with the Love+Rubio thing. Minnesota wouldn't dream of doing anything like that.

Anthem
01-11-2010, 07:15 PM
I agree that Murphy for Z+Hickson is a bad deal for the Cavs, and I would wager that they feel the same way. This is why I'm hoping that Bird doesn't make Hickson's inclusion a sticking point in the trade.
Agreed. I think getting their first (currently #29) is a reasonable request, though.

avoidingtheclowns
01-11-2010, 09:07 PM
How satisfied would you be if it didn't happen because we held out for cash and a pick?


Agreed. I think getting their first (currently #29) is a reasonable request, though.

Quite. I don't think a pick or the cash is unreasonable at all. The cash would be to offset the cost of buying out Z so he can return to Cleveland (wink wink, nudge nudge). I also don't think they'd hesitate throwing Powe and/or Danny Green into the mix if they're looking to move a player so they won't have to cut or trade someone when Z returns.

Dr. Awesome
01-11-2010, 10:49 PM
Justin, can you honestly say you didn't see Granger's leadership tonight? What about his defense?

My point is, though Granger looks different than he did last year, he is capable of stepping up into that role, I just don't believe Jefferson is, maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen nothing that makes me think otherwise...yet.

d_c
01-11-2010, 10:52 PM
Justin, can you honestly say you didn't see Granger's leadership tonight? What about his defense?

My point is, though Granger looks different than he did last year, he is capable of stepping up into that role, I just don't believe Jefferson is, maybe I'm wrong, but I've seen nothing that makes me think otherwise...yet.

Jefferson is a beast in the low post and on the boards, but his passing stinks and he's not much on the defensive end. Sort of a bigman tweener in that he's undersized for a C and a bit slowfooted for PF, but not so much of an issue that this is a huge problem. You can keep him on the court without a problem.

But he's definitely a talent and he does things that are hard to find in this league. If the Warriors had him instead of Andris Biedrins (which they easily could have) on that We Believe team from a few years ago, I think they would've beaten the Jazz and advanced to the conference finals.

IndyProdigy
01-12-2010, 02:48 AM
if that's true, I have no idea why the Pacers didn't jump on that deal. Granger and Jefferson are about on the same talent level, and you almost always take the big man over the wing.

Lebron, Kobe, Melo, Wade, Granger, what do they all have in common?

IndyProdigy
01-12-2010, 02:55 AM
If bird went through with this trade, it would set our team back at least 2 more years. we have personnel around granger, not jefferson.

you guys can hate on granger for shooting 10 threes a game but what else can he do? hes on the pacers? does it really matter? i value the development and progression of team chemistry over 'finding a big man'.

NO NO NO NO to this trade.

d_c
01-12-2010, 03:22 AM
we have personnel around granger, not jefferson.

And in a couple years, that personnel is going to look completely different.

Zelmo Beatty
01-12-2010, 07:18 AM
IP-

They're all Af-Am dudes between 6-5 and 6-9. Other than that,
not much.

McKeyFan
01-13-2010, 12:35 PM
Quite. I don't think a pick or the cash is unreasonable at all. The cash would be to offset the cost of buying out Z so he can return to Cleveland (wink wink, nudge nudge). I also don't think they'd hesitate throwing Powe and/or Danny Green into the mix if they're looking to move a player so they won't have to cut or trade someone when Z returns.

I really like Powe.

As i think about it, he has a game like Tyler's. But I still wouldn't mind having both of them around.

Ryan
01-15-2010, 09:33 PM
Idiotic move by Pacer management. You win from the inside out. Replacing Granger is alot easier to do then finding a big man as dominant as Al Jefferson.

Granger no better then Joe Johnson... and how many teams has he been on.

Tom White
01-15-2010, 09:42 PM
Idiotic move by Pacer management. You win from the inside out. Replacing Granger is alot easier to do then finding a big man as dominant as Al Jefferson.

Granger no better then Joe Johnson... and how many teams has he been on.

You mean Joe Johnson, the all-star? That Joe Johnson? What will this be, his 4th straight all-star game, or 5th?

How many teams? Drafted by the Celtics, traded that year to Phoenix, played for either 3 or 4 years there, traded to the Hawks, been there 5 years.

Ryan
01-15-2010, 09:50 PM
You mean Joe Johnson, the all-star? That Joe Johnson? What will this be, his 4th straight all-star game, or 5th?

How many teams? Drafted by the Celtics, traded that year to Phoenix, played for either 3 or 4 years there, traded to the Hawks, been there 5 years.

Nothing against Joe Johnson. Nothing against Granger. Neither have the upside to Al Jefferson. OH AND HI. HE"S A BIG MAN.

btw, my question of how many teams has he been on was rhetorical.

Anthem
01-16-2010, 06:58 AM
btw, my question of how many teams has he been on was rhetorical.
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/8/128889640032558044.jpg

Regardless, if given the choice between either Al Jefferson and Joe Johnson right now, I'd take Joe Johnson. It would be close, and I admit the surgery has played a part in it. If Al comes all the way back then I might change my mind. But JJ is a sure thing right now.