PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's off-season blue print for the Pacers



Granville
06-29-2010, 12:57 PM
Interesting that he says Pacers don't have any assets then he suggests trading Granger for Paul. I guess that would make Granger an asset.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/news/story?id=5339164

Indiana Pacers
By Chris Broussard

Objective: Develop young talent while using a glut of expiring contracts to upgrade their roster or set the team up to have major cap room/flexibility in the summer of 2011.

Assets: None.

The Plan: Seven players (Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, Jeff Foster, Jamaal Tinsley, Solomon Jones and Josh McRoberts) have expiring contracts worth more than $45 million combined, meaning the Pacers are set up to have major cap flexibility. They could trade some of those guys this summer or at the February trade deadline.

Whether through trades or exceptions, the Pacers want to upgrade the point guard position and add an athletic power forward to play next to center Roy Hibbert. Selecting the talented Paul George in the draft could make Dunleavy expendable, and Ford is certainly trade bait. Murphy was in demand at last year's deadline, and while he's currently penciled in as the starting power forward, he could also be had at the right price.

Alternative Advice: The Pacers' problem ever since they ran out most everyone affiliated with The Malice in the Palace (Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal, Stephen Jackson) has been their lack of star power. Danny Granger is a fringe All-Star, but not a superstar. So let's make a splash -- or at least try to -- and offer Granger and Dunleavy to the Hornets for Chris Paul and James Posey. Dunleavy's expiring contract would save the Hornets more than $11 million next season, while they'd have an All-Star to build around in Granger. And because Granger is a New Orleans native, he would ease the blow of losing the popular Paul. Meanwhile, Paul would give Indiana its star to build around and would attract free agents next summer when the Pacers have major money. He can opt out of his deal in two years, though, so it could be risky.

captainC
06-29-2010, 01:01 PM
I guess cap space and expiring contracts aren't assets either.

btowncolt
06-29-2010, 01:03 PM
Shoot three pointers!

graphic-er
06-29-2010, 01:04 PM
Yeah lets go trade our best player and a guy who wants to be here for a two year rental of the best PG in the league, so he can leave and go play with Lebron James, just as he said last week about his trade rumors.

So then we could trade in at the deadline in in two years for a bunch of middle of the road talent.

Slick Pinkham
06-29-2010, 01:07 PM
I think I would do the Granger for Paul deal, if Chris Paul's injury issues are not too serious.

Does anyone feel comfortable with our team doctors making that assessment, though?

Magic P
06-29-2010, 01:08 PM
Does anyone still take anything from ESPN seriously? With that said, if Paul would want to stay here that trade would be tempting.

microwave_oven
06-29-2010, 01:09 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/news/story?id=5339164


Anymore, I lump Broussard in the same category as Steven A. Smith.

Granville
06-29-2010, 01:10 PM
Yeah lets go trade our best player and a guy who wants to be here for a two year rental of the best PG in the league, so he can leave and go play with Lebron James, just as he said last week about his trade rumors.

So then we could trade in at the deadline in in two years for a bunch of middle of the road talent.

I'd trade Granger for Paul without hesitation. Yes, there is the threat of Paul leaving in two years, but I wouldn't worry about him leaving to play with James, as my guess is the team that signs James won't have much cap room to play with in two years anyway.

Pacersalltheway10
06-29-2010, 01:28 PM
if Paul would come here , do you think he could lure Carmelo here in free agancy if he doesn't re-sign with the nuggets?

Gamble1
06-29-2010, 01:32 PM
I'd trade Granger for Paul without hesitation. Yes, there is the threat of Paul leaving in two years, but I wouldn't worry about him leaving to play with James, as my guess is the team that signs James won't have much cap room to play with in two years anyway.
NO way they trade a top 5 pg for Granger. We would have to take Okafor back.

OakMoses
06-29-2010, 01:52 PM
If trading for Chris Paul is a possibility, Bird will look into it for sure. He loves Chris Paul.

TMJ31
06-29-2010, 02:07 PM
The Plan: Seven players (Troy Murphy, Mike Dunleavy, T.J. Ford, Jeff Foster, Jamaal Tinsley, Solomon Jones and Josh McRoberts) have expiring contracts...


Either I am failing to understand something, or this is just really bad research on the writer's part...

We waived Jamaal, so I am assuming this means (although he is still on the books) we cannot use any part of his "ghost contract" with us as trade material, correct?

I guess he simply meant his contract comes off the books opening up cap space? It sounded a lot like he was saying to trade him/his contract...

Bit of an odd suggestion... Then again, as I said, perhaps I am just overlooking some fine print stuff.

Tom White
06-29-2010, 02:22 PM
Anymore, I lump Broussard in the same category as Steven A. Smith.

That's funny. As I was reading the article, I thought to myself that Smith is who Broussard wants to be when he grows up.

I have no idea who Smith wants to be when he grows up.

Mr_Smith
06-29-2010, 02:27 PM
I'm just really touched that people out there are actually talking about the Pacers other than local outlets.

Hicks
06-29-2010, 03:25 PM
Assets: None.

:rolleyes:

pacers_heath
06-29-2010, 03:49 PM
lol Granger/Dunleavy for Paul/Posey...good joke. i'm sure New Orleans is all over this one. let's get LeBron while we're at it...

Pacergeek
06-29-2010, 05:07 PM
What counts as an asset? Do future draft picks count? How about the recently drafted Paul George, a first rounder? How about Hibbert, a young developing Center? Please tell me how you define what an asset is? What a freaking tool of a man!

naptownmenace
06-29-2010, 05:11 PM
NO way they trade a top 5 pg for Granger. We would have to take Okafor back.

I'd be willing to take Okafor back in exchange for Granger and Murphy.

I don't want the Pacers to trade Danny at all but top-flight PGs are hard to come by and Chris Paul would be able to turn this team around (if healthy).

QuickRelease
06-29-2010, 05:27 PM
Either I am failing to understand something, or this is just really bad research on the writer's part...

We waived Jamaal, so I am assuming this means (although he is still on the books) we cannot use any part of his "ghost contract" with us as trade material, correct?

I guess he simply meant his contract comes off the books opening up cap space? It sounded a lot like he was saying to trade him/his contract...

Bit of an odd suggestion... Then again, as I said, perhaps I am just overlooking some fine print stuff.He listed Jamaal's contract as one coming off the books, not one to be used in trade.

Day-V
06-29-2010, 05:35 PM
I just don't see New Orleans wanting Granger. I mean, they'd want his talent, but not his contract. From what I've gathered about the whole Chris Paul-New Orleans deal, is that he only wants to be traded if they're not going to do what is necessary to win (meaning, they want to be the Pittsburgh Pirates and not spend any money). So, if that's the case, why on Earth do you trade away one of the best players in the league for someone who many would grade a B+ player making relatively the same amount of money?

joew8302
06-29-2010, 05:41 PM
I just don't see New Orleans wanting Granger. I mean, they'd want his talent, but not his contract. From what I've gathered about the whole Chris Paul-New Orleans deal, is that he only wants to be traded if they're not going to do what is necessary to win (meaning, they want to be the Pittsburgh Pirates and not spend any money). So, if that's the case, why on Earth do you trade away one of the best players in the league for someone who many would grade a B+ player making relatively the same amount of money?

This makes me think CP3 would not want to play in Indiana either. I mean he wants to win now, and with no Granger the Pacers would be far from that, so I would think getting Paul for Granger would be a two year rental. As much as I love Paul, putting him on the Pacers with no chance of winning would just insure he would opt out.

Gamble1
06-29-2010, 05:50 PM
I'd be willing to take Okafor back in exchange for Granger and Murphy.

I don't want the Pacers to trade Danny at all but top-flight PGs are hard to come by and Chris Paul would be able to turn this team around (if healthy).
Would you do it for a 2 year rental of Chris Paul? Problem with this trade to me is that we would probably have to take back Posey + Okafor in order to get Paul in which case he may or may not resign here.

IMO, I think in order to keep Paul we would have to be ECF contender so the question is,, Would we be?
pg- Paul
sg- Rush
sf- Paul George/Posey
pf - Okafor
c- Hibbert

Looking at that line up you have 2 very big unknowns. Will Rush be a good sg and will Paul George be Granger in only 2 years?

I hate to say it but I don't think so..

pwee31
06-29-2010, 07:43 PM
I've never liked Broussard. I don't like a lot of ESPN analysts come to think of it.

Return to Glory
06-29-2010, 07:45 PM
First of all Chris Broussard is a complete idiot.

Second, no way this happens. They will want Granger and Hibbert or another young young player and we would have to take on Okafor contract which is crazy. All of this for a Top 5 PG that doesn't want to come here and leave after two years. Then we are left with nothing but alot of average players. Yeah if he signed a new contract with us then that would be nice but chances are he wont.

Third........there is no third

PASS

IndyPacer
06-29-2010, 09:31 PM
Forget it. One of the two years left on Chris Paul's contract would be under Jim O'Brien. I don't see this trade taking us anywhere. It would be a short-sighted move, and we'd end up with an even worse team in a couple of years. You make a trade for a star like this when you are ready to make a push for a championship run or something. We're far from that even with CP.

ksuttonjr76
06-29-2010, 10:15 PM
Forget it. One of the two years left on Chris Paul's contract would be under Jim O'Brien. I don't see this trade taking us anywhere. It would be a short-sighted move, and we'd end up with an even worse team in a couple of years. You make a trade for a star like this when you are ready to make a push for a championship run or something. We're far from that even with CP.

Good observation that one year would be under JOB...

hans023
06-30-2010, 03:23 PM
I would make a drastic move to get any reliable leaders that have proven to lead a team to the playoffs because we obviously don't have 1.

ilive4sports
07-01-2010, 02:41 AM
I would make a drastic move to get any reliable leaders that have proven to lead a team to the playoffs because we obviously don't have 1.

Tell me which one the Pacers can realistically get?