PDA

View Full Version : Time to trade Granger



Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 02:56 PM
Sorry, but this team is going nowhere with Granger as the best player, and last night was proof. We should not be losing to the Bucks at home when their best player is out. I don't care if they were a playoff team last year. We got schooled in the fourth quarter by John Salmons and Brandon Jennings. Granger is supposed to be better than those guys, but he didn't do anything in the fourth quarter. If Granger is a leader, he would have willed the Pacers to the win in a close game. Instead, he got out played by inferior competition.

We need to trade Danny while he still has value. Lets build around Hibbert, Collison, and George. We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

trey
11-06-2010, 03:01 PM
Child please!

BringJackBack
11-06-2010, 03:03 PM
No, its not time to trade Granger.

Trophy
11-06-2010, 03:05 PM
Give me a break.

I know you're frustrated with his recent play, but chill out please. We're not trading him.

sportfireman
11-06-2010, 03:06 PM
I believe part of it is not wanting to play for the coach. I could be wrong..... but he also has gotten lazy on offense and defense. But I wouldnt say trade him......

ballism
11-06-2010, 03:10 PM
Wow.

Trophy
11-06-2010, 03:11 PM
I believe part of it is not wanting to play for the coach. I could be wrong..... but he also has gotten lazy on offense and defense. But I wouldnt say trade him......

He has and I think he's just in a "lazy slump".

Danny usually snaps out of it within a week and has a big 25+ point game and steps up defensively.

I might be tough for him to snap out of it against Melo.

Hibbert
11-06-2010, 03:21 PM
I might be tough for him to snap out of it against Melo.

Why? Melo doesn't know how to play defense. The last 2 years Danny has killed Denver, he always has good games against them.

Trophy
11-06-2010, 03:25 PM
Why? Melo doesn't know how to play defense. The last 2 years Danny has killed Denver, he always has good games against them.

I'm not saying Danny won't kill Denver.

I think because he's matching up with Melo, Danny's going to step up big and score over 25 points and also step up the defense.

He must.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm not saying I'm ready to trade him yet, but "lazy slump"? He's getting paid a lot of money to have a lazy slump. He had a lazy slump all summer called the world championships.

Not impressed.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:28 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=57221&highlight=danny+granger

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 03:29 PM
Since this topic has been brought up in the past I will respond with what i have said before. You trade players to get something in return of value. When a player is not going to help your team achieve their desired goal then trade him for pieces that will. If you said I want to trade Granger for Jefferson straight up I would have said no thank you, but if you said here is a young prospect with a smaller contract with a 1st round high draft pick I seriously would think about it.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:31 PM
I think at this point the only person I would consider "untouchable" is Roy, and even then.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 03:31 PM
I'm not saying I'm ready to trade him yet, but "lazy slump"? He's getting paid a lot of money to have a lazy slump. He had a lazy slump all summer called the world championships.

Not impressed.

Exactly. I'm not necessarily ready to trade him yet, either, but I have to admit that I'm beginning to move closer and closer to that idea. How much longer will it be acceptable for him to be in a slump? How much longer can people make excuses for him? If this is what we get out of Danny for the rest of his career, at what point will everyone unanimously begin to complain that we should have traded him when the value was high?

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:35 PM
I believe part of it is not wanting to play for the coach.


i hear ya sfm, but still, agh. part of being a good/great player is adaptability. play the system. you're getting paid to do so. if you don't like the coach then don't sign the extension or contract. nobody is holding a gun to your head.

ReggiesUncle
11-06-2010, 03:36 PM
Sorry, but this team is going nowhere with Granger as the best player, and last night was proof. We should not be losing to the Bucks at home when their best player is out. I don't care if they were a playoff team last year. We got schooled in the fourth quarter by John Salmons and Brandon Jennings. Granger is supposed to be better than those guys, but he didn't do anything in the fourth quarter. If Granger is a leader, he would have willed the Pacers to the win in a close game. Instead, he got out played by inferior competition.

We need to trade Danny while he still has value. Lets build around Hibbert, Collison, and George. We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

this doesn't sound too crazy really....maybe a little far fetched and won't happen but it's not a bad idea

tikitomoka
11-06-2010, 03:38 PM
imo its getting to that point. people need to realize that danny isn't a superstar-caliber player. he's not going to a carry a team to the playoffs on his back, and isn't going to will a team to win close games. now, does he need a little bit more around him? yes. but i don't see danny as even a reggie-type player. there's a reason melo cp3 and amare want to team up this summer and its because they, like danny, aren't able to win a title by themselves so they team up and immediately play on a top-5 team.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:40 PM
Just for fun - any ideas on what player/picks we would expect in return for Danny Granger's "talents"?

That is another tricky part of this equation, I presume you look for a power forward or two guard with the idea of plugging PG into the three spot.

Al Horford?

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 03:43 PM
imo its getting to that point. people need to realize that danny isn't a superstar-caliber player. he's not going to a carry a team to the playoffs on his back, and isn't going to will a team to win close games. now, does he need a little bit more around him? yes. but i don't see danny as even a reggie-type player. there's a reason melo cp3 and amare want to team up this summer and its because they, like danny, aren't able to win a title by themselves so they team up and immediately play on a top-5 team.

Interestingly, you notice that none of these guys mention Danny as a guy they'd like to team up with. Indiana is going to have cap space so if Danny were respected amongst his peers, I would imagine his name would be in the buzz.

I would be curious of what other NBA players think of Danny when the microphone isn't in their faces.

I realize that we aren't a destination city, but back in the 90's, when we were good, there were free agents and the like that were interested in coming here.

tikitomoka
11-06-2010, 03:46 PM
Interestingly, you notice that none of these guys mention Danny as a guy they'd like to team up with. Indiana is going to have cap space so if Danny were respected amongst his peers, I would imagine his name would be in the buzz.

I would be curious of what other NBA players think of Danny when the microphone isn't in their faces.

I realize that we aren't a destination city, but back in the 90's, when we were good, there were free agents and the like that were interested in coming here.
danny simply isn't as good as those guys, but i was using them as examples. if you're any of the three of them, would you rather play with danny granger in indianapolis, indiana or the other two in NYC? no decision even has to be made there.

sportfireman
11-06-2010, 03:49 PM
imo its getting to that point. people need to realize that danny isn't a superstar-caliber player. he's not going to a carry a team to the playoffs on his back, and isn't going to will a team to win close games. now, does he need a little bit more around him? yes. but i don't see danny as even a reggie-type player. there's a reason melo cp3 and amare want to team up this summer and its because they, like danny, aren't able to win a title by themselves so they team up and immediately play on a top-5 team.
I've always said Danny is a Pippen type player. Robin built the Batcave now we need Batman......lol.

McKeyFan
11-06-2010, 03:54 PM
Right now, Robin is laying an egg.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 03:56 PM
Just for fun - any ideas on what player/picks we would expect in return for Danny Granger's "talents"?

That is another tricky part of this equation, I presume you look for a power forward or two guard with the idea of plugging PG into the three spot.

Al Horford?

I would take Horford for Granger in a second. Doubt Atlanta would be willing to make that deal, but they'd probably offer up Smith.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:07 PM
I'm really disappointed. I honestly thought he was going to play with a chip on his shoulder this season; an unmatched intensity.

He's not a bad player. He's just not what I think we thought he was.

To mention him and Scottie Pippen in the same sentence? Deplorable. Its not fair to Pippen.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 04:11 PM
We're a building a TEAM, not a SUPERSTAR.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:13 PM
Rudy Gay?

Presume Brandon Roy, Stephen Curry, Eric Gordon types are out of question. Lamarcus Aldridge? K. Love?

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 04:13 PM
We're a building a TEAM, not a SUPERSTAR.

In the NBA you need a superstar to build a winning team.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 04:19 PM
In the NBA you need a superstar to build a winning team.

Cliche comment coming...

The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:20 PM
In the NBA you need a superstar to build a winning team.


Maybe this is true. Probably this is true.

As far as building a team and not a superstar - I totally agree. I'm just not sold that Danny Granger is the guy to build around. It seems like he might benefit from going to a team with a set style in play where he has to force himself to adjust to that style. Here, being that he's sort of the senior/veteran on the squad, it seems he forces his teammates to adjust to him and make up for his deficiencies.

In other words, here, he has no "accountability".

I love Chuck Person to death. My favorite all time Pacer. But Chuck sort of was a guy who was the senior guy on the squad who ended up having to get traded to make things work out better. Until he got traded, he was the "leader" of the team, and I think Reggie was kind of a sidekick. I think Danny sort of suffers from that same syndrome that maybe Chuckles did. I don't think the Pacers would have had the same success without that trade.

Ksutton, I don't know how long you have been a Pacer fan, but I'm curious to get your thoughts on the Chuck comparison.

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 04:23 PM
Cliche comment coming...

The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...

They had a superstar coach. As most of us have said in another thread a superstar coach can make your team's talent shine through. But there is always the occassional exception to the rule. But yes in the NBA more times than not the champions have a superstar player. Granger is a star player but he is not enough to carry a team through the playoffs. Shoot right now he is not good enough to push us into the playoffs. Until that happens he will always be a very good NBA player but nothing more than that.

Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 04:27 PM
Maybe this is true. Probably this is true.

As far as building a team and not a superstar - I totally agree. I'm just not sold that Danny Granger is the guy to build around. It seems like he might benefit from going to a team with a set style in play where he has to force himself to adjust to that style. Here, being that he's sort of the senior/veteran on the squad, it seems he forces his teammates to adjust to him and make up for his deficiencies.

In other words, here, he has no "accountability".

I love Chuck Person to death. My favorite all time Pacer. But Chuck sort of was a guy who was the senior guy on the squad who ended up having to get traded to make things work out better. Until he got traded, he was the "leader" of the team, and I think Reggie was kind of a sidekick. I think Danny sort of suffers from that same syndrome that maybe Chuckles did. I don't think the Pacers would have had the same success without that trade.

Ksutton, I don't know how long you have been a Pacer fan, but I'm curious to get your thoughts on the Chuck comparison.


I actually like the Chuck comparison, which i didn't even think of. I thought we were crazy for trading "The Rifleman." Clearly the trade worked out in our favor though.

It seems apparent to me that Roy is the guy we need to build around now. It is much easier to build around a big man than a wing player. As long as Granger is around, the pacers will never be Roy's team.

Hicks
11-06-2010, 04:28 PM
Was anyone really this unhappy with Granger before Wednesday? Let's see if he rebounds from these bad games.

I think he's always going to have nights like these, but I do hope that he can have about 2 good ones for every bad one over the course of the year.

Also, Danny will never be a superstar. He is a general 'star' though. Some nights he plays like a very good player, other nights he doesn't. That's just who he is.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:30 PM
The trade worked out but still makes you want to throw up. Chuck and Micheal Williams for Pooh and Sam Mitchell?? I still don't understand it. But the old saying is "addition by subtraction".

xBulletproof
11-06-2010, 04:30 PM
I've always said Danny is a Pippen type player. Robin built the Batcave now we need Batman......lol.

Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.

Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 04:32 PM
Just for fun - any ideas on what player/picks we would expect in return for Danny Granger's "talents"?

That is another tricky part of this equation, I presume you look for a power forward or two guard with the idea of plugging PG into the three spot.

Al Horford?

i actually wouldn't mind Jon Salmons. seems to play more like a man than Danny.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:34 PM
Was anyone really this unhappy with Granger before Wednesday? Let's see if he rebounds from these bad games.

I think he's always going to have nights like these, but I do hope that he can have about 2 good ones for every bad one over the course of the year.

Also, Danny will never be a superstar. He is a general 'star' though. Some nights he plays like a very good player, other nights he doesn't. That's just who he is.

Hicks, I think people were concerned. I think it started over the summer. I certainly was concerned in the preseason.

Yes he is a general star. But is he a star to build around?? I think he's helped keep us afloat for the past few years, great. But I don't see him being a centerpiece part of a championship team. Least of all for the Pacers. We are still at least 5 years away from even talking about that kind of level of squad if things pan out. I think he could be traded for something younger that could be more integral to the kind of team we want if that day comes in the future years.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:35 PM
Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.

:applaud:

xBulletproof
11-06-2010, 04:39 PM
:applaud:

Glad someone agrees.

I found a ton of Pippen YouTube video's in the past. Ones that were made clearly by some crazed fan that separated every video by defense, offense, blocked shots, steals, dunks, 3's .... a several minute video for each. It would clearly illustrate the difference between the two.

Maybe I should make a thread with nothing but those video's put an end to this silly comparison I've seen a LOT of people make on here. I don't put a ton of stock in highlight videos but most of the plays in these video's I've never seen Granger even come close to, and there's a ton of them. Especially the defense, ball handling, and passing.

Most of the people making the comparison I'm going to guess didn't watch Pippen play until he was in Houston.

d_c
11-06-2010, 04:40 PM
Cliche comment coming...

The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...

I would have to disagree with that.

Pistons had Chauncey Billups, taken #3 in the draft 2 spots after Duncan. They had Rasheed Wallace, taken #4 overall and one spot above KG. They had Rip Hamilton taken #7 overall in another strong draft. Those were 3 of their 4 best players.

Pistons weren't a bunch of superstars, but they were also pretty darn talented individually. A lot more talented than people give them credit for. Give credit to Dumars for putting together a bunch of guys who didn't quite cut it in their initial stops in the league, but those guys were pretty darn talented and highly regarded as individual talents.

BlueNGold
11-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Pippen was a Batman. He just never was without Jordan long enough to prove it. Except that the year Jordan retired the Bulls still won 55 games without him. Pippen was a Batman player, Granger is nowhere near Pippens level. Not ..... even ..... close.

Granger is closer to being the Joker or the Riddler these days...:devil:

jeffg-body
11-06-2010, 04:46 PM
It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.

croz24
11-06-2010, 04:46 PM
Cliche comment coming...

The 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons would beg to differ, and our team is younger than they were at the time.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

I would like to think we have a better collection of talent to work with and groom. Only if we had the right coach...

and that was a once in a generation team in a very watered down league. every other team to win a championship since the 70s has been led by a superstar.

Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 04:48 PM
I would have to disagree with that.

Pistons had Chauncey Billups, taken #3 in the draft 2 spots after Duncan. They had Rasheed Wallace, taken #4 overall and one spot above KG. They had Rip Hamilton taken #7 overall in another strong draft. Those were 3 of their 4 best players.

Pistons weren't a bunch of superstars, but they were also pretty darn talented individually. A lot more talented than people give them credit for. Give credit to Dumars for putting together a bunch of guys who didn't quite cut it in their initial stops in the league, but those guys were pretty darn talented and highly regarded as individual talents.

the 03-04 Pistons were the only team without a true "superstar" that has won a title. I still can't figure out how they beat Shaq and Kobe.

Sorry, but you DO need a superstar to win a title.

jhondog28
11-06-2010, 04:48 PM
It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.

Um have you seen the threads on this site? Half the people here are looking off the side of a cliff at the other half of the posters who have already jumped. And the saddest thing is most of them will by game 15.

Strummer
11-06-2010, 04:49 PM
We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

Decent veterans are a dime a dozen. Granger is a unique talent. Smart teams never trade talent for veterans.

Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 04:49 PM
It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.

not when he has been our best player for four years, and we have missed the playoffs every single season during that span.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:51 PM
It's almost crazy to me that in professional sports after someone has a few bad games or starts the year slow people are already jumping ship and yelling for that guy to be traded.

Have you actually read this thread?

Pacergeek
11-06-2010, 04:53 PM
most Pacer fans put all the blame on JOB. I am not saying that he is even a mediocre coach, but when does the star player become accountable for almost half a decade of losing?

Danny would be great on a team where all he had to do was shoot open threes, but to have an actual NBA offense run through him will not work.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:53 PM
Decent veterans are a dime a dozen. Granger is a unique talent. Smart teams never trade talent for veterans.

Agreed. I would be looking for a young moldable talent. A guy with potential. Maybe two guys with a little less individual potential.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 04:56 PM
Glad someone agrees.

I found a ton of Pippen YouTube video's in the past. Ones that were made clearly by some crazed fan that separated every video by defense, offense, blocked shots, steals, dunks, 3's .... a several minute video for each. It would clearly illustrate the difference between the two.

Maybe I should make a thread with nothing but those video's put an end to this silly comparison I've seen a LOT of people make on here. I don't put a ton of stock in highlight videos but most of the plays in these video's I've never seen Granger even come close to, and there's a ton of them. Especially the defense, ball handling, and passing.

Most of the people making the comparison I'm going to guess didn't watch Pippen play until he was in Houston.


The comparison is because made because both:

1) are from smaller schools
2) were not lotto picks (EDIT - this is wrong / thanks dc)
3) wear the same number
4) have similar dimensions
5) kind of look alike

Blink
11-06-2010, 04:58 PM
not when he has been our best player for four years, and we have missed the playoffs every single season during that span.

The dark-sider in me almost wants to give you guys the keys to the car to watch you plow it into a tree.

d_c
11-06-2010, 04:59 PM
The comparison is because made because both:

1) are from smaller schools
2) were not lotto picks
3) wear the same number
4) have similar dimensions
5) kind of look alike

Pippen was a lotto pick. #5 overall.

idioteque
11-06-2010, 05:00 PM
I would wait until next year and see how he reacts to us having a coach who presumably knows what the heck he's doing.

But I don't think concerns with Granger necessarily have to do with the last couple of games. Is it not true our record is about the same with him as it is without him?

If I had to consider trading him now I'd look at Denver, with them losing Carmelo all but inevitable we can offer them Danny and increased salary relief (for players other than Carmelo, who obviously won't be traded here). Something like Nene, Afflalo, a contract for a decent player they want to shed, and a first for Danny and salary relief. May we could take back Baby Al for a third go at it ;)

That being said it would take a lot for me to be happy with getting rid of Danny right now.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 05:12 PM
and that was a once in a generation team in a very watered down league. every other team to win a championship since the 70s has been led by a superstar.

So lightning can't strike twice? The Pacers will never win a championship, if we're always too busy looking to trade for a Superstar. We have a good collection of young players that could end up being a talented group in 2-3 years, IF we stopped trying to shake boat every year.

Lance George
11-06-2010, 05:13 PM
Streakiness is common even amongst top-tier scorers. If you don't believe me just talk to Kevin Durant about his 37% shooting. As Hicks said, the hope is that the good nights significantly outweigh the bad nights, say, 3 :1. I've seen enough of Danny to feel confident that they will. With that said, I'm not so attached to him (or any Pacer, past, present or future) that I wouldn't move him if the price was right; i.e. a highly skilled power forward. A David Lee S&T would've worked for me, but that ship has obviously sailed.

Hicks
11-06-2010, 05:22 PM
Yes he is a general star. But is he a star to build around??

No. But I don't think that necessarily means he's a star you can't build with, so to speak.

6 years ago, you wouldn't have built a team around Rip Hamilton, but you sure didn't mind if he started for you, you know?


We are still at least 5 years away

If that's true, then we probably should trade him. If we're capable of being a contender in 2-3 years, then I'd look at keeping him around for that team.

SoupIsGood
11-06-2010, 05:22 PM
Trading Danny while his value is high could actually be a pretty savvy move if Bird is really convinced that Paul George is going to be a good player. Swap him for a young prospect and a high draft pick, and in a few years our overall talent level could be pretty nice.

Eleazar
11-06-2010, 05:24 PM
In my opinion there are two things hold Danny back from being the best he can be.

First is JOB. Ever since JOB has been here Danny has looked worse an worse on defense as well as became more and more of a chucker. We all know Danny can play good defense, and we all know Danny can shoot lights out.

Second is Danny just plays better as second fiddle or in tandem with another star player. With another star Danny would be able to be more picky with his shot selection. While I would expect him to shoot less, I would also expect his shooting percentage to rise and he would still score 20 to 24 points per game.

Put those together and you get what we have in Danny.

If we got a good coach I would expect people's opinion to be something similar to what it was after Danny averaged 25ppg because I would expect Danny to play smarter and harder. Honestly I do wonder sometimes if part of the reason is Danny just doesn't like JOB, which I wouldn't blame him. I'm sure he would be a much better coach than JOB is.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 05:28 PM
If that's true, then we probably should trade him. If we're capable of being a contender in 2-3 years, then I'd look at keeping him around for that team.



don't you kind of agree though? how the heck are we going to come together in the next 2-3 years?? Playoffs, maybe. Conference finals, ugh.

vnzla81
11-06-2010, 05:29 PM
I have always seen Danny as our own Rashard Lewis, he just need a Vince carter and a Dhoward and we will be in business.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 05:33 PM
In my opinion there are two things hold Danny back from being the best he can be.

First is JOB. Ever since JOB has been here Danny has looked worse an worse on defense as well as became more and more of a chucker. We all know Danny can play good defense, and we all know Danny can shoot lights out.

Second is Danny just plays better as second fiddle or in tandem with another star player. With another star Danny would be able to be more picky with his shot selection. While I would expect him to shoot less, I would also expect his shooting percentage to rise and he would still score 20 to 24 points per game.

Put those together and you get what we have in Danny.

If we got a good coach I would expect people's opinion to be something similar to what it was after Danny averaged 25ppg because I would expect Danny to play smarter and harder. Honestly I do wonder sometimes if part of the reason is Danny just doesn't like JOB, which I wouldn't blame him. I'm sure he would be a much better coach than JOB is.

A couple of things. They may be unfair, so call me out if you think I need to be called out.

Coaching. Coach K was and is world class. He didn't shine for him this summer. And he's getting paid to play for JOB. It wouldn't make sense for Danny to lose his own leaguewide value and laze it bc he doesn't like his coach. He shouldn't damage his brand bc he doesn't like the coach.

Defense. You either play it or you don't. Danny doesn't, and he doesn't by choice. I don't think you can blame this on coach.

As far as being a sidekick. Yes. I don't think Danny would be able to be a #2 guy on this Indiana Pacer team now or ever. I think this has to do with ego and pride. I can't see him stepping aside, for instance, to a guy like Paul George, if he proves to be the real deal. Maybe.

avoidingtheclowns
11-06-2010, 05:39 PM
Pippen was a lotto pick. #5 overall.

Yeah but with inflation that's nearly a second rounder today.

Gamble1
11-06-2010, 05:45 PM
A couple of things. They may be unfair, so call me out if you think I need to be called out.

Coaching. Coach K was and is world class. He didn't shine for him this summer. And he's getting paid to play for JOB. It wouldn't make sense for Danny to lose his own leaguewide value and laze it bc he doesn't like his coach. He shouldn't damage his brand bc he doesn't like the coach.

Defense. You either play it or you don't. Danny doesn't, and he doesn't by choice. I don't think you can blame this on coach.

As far as being a sidekick. Yes. I don't think Danny would be able to be a #2 guy on this Indiana Pacer team now or ever. I think this has to do with ego and pride. I can't see him stepping aside, for instance, to a guy like Paul George, if he proves to be the real deal.
I can't stand it that there is no middle ground with posters on this forum. Seriously, We just watched one of the most egotistical guys in the NBA give up being the only number one on a team.

IF we win then Danny won't care IMO.

PacersPride
11-06-2010, 05:46 PM
Sorry, but this team is going nowhere with Granger as the best player, and last night was proof. We should not be losing to the Bucks at home when their best player is out. I don't care if they were a playoff team last year. We got schooled in the fourth quarter by John Salmons and Brandon Jennings. Granger is supposed to be better than those guys, but he didn't do anything in the fourth quarter. If Granger is a leader, he would have willed the Pacers to the win in a close game. Instead, he got out played by inferior competition.

We need to trade Danny while he still has value. Lets build around Hibbert, Collison, and George. We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

this is absurd.. i havent had a chance to read this entire thread, but trading Granger makes very little sense in my opinion. thanks for at least stating what you want in return. if all you want is two decent veterans that can help the team win.. we have the cap space to offer that in the offseason.. whats the point in trading granger.

granger is a solid player and makes a very reasonable salary. the only reason to deal Granger would be for two high lottery draft picks, and i dont see a team giving that much in exchange. its not entirely Grangers fault he has turned into a 3 point bomber.. if Carlisle were still here his game would be much more well rounded. i'd just rather see O'brien let go at the end of the season and see how Granger plays in a different system and with better supporting cast which will happen with time than dealing him for two decent vets.

Hicks
11-06-2010, 05:50 PM
don't you kind of agree though? how the heck are we going to come together in the next 2-3 years?? Playoffs, maybe. Conference finals, ugh.

2-3 years is a long time in this league. In 3 years it will be Paul George's 4th year. This is only Roy's 3rd, and he's come quite a long way. I would imagine Darren Collison will be a better and/or more consistent player.

Plus, we will be trying to improve the team by throwing cash at the problem this summer. That could backfire, or it could instantly make us a notch (two at best) better if we get the right vets.

A lot can change in 2-3 seasons.

sportfireman
11-06-2010, 05:51 PM
It was an analogy to Danny needing an All star not a comparison to Grangers talent level. Granger is not and probably will not be as good as Pippen. BUT Dannys game is compariable to Pippens game.... not as good but similar.... NO DANNY IS NOT AS GOOD AS PIPPEN.:buddies:

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 05:56 PM
I can't stand it that there is no middle ground with posters on this forum. Seriously, We just watched one of the most egotistical guys in the NBA give up being the only number one on a team.

IF we win then Danny won't care IMO.

I figured that LeBron might be a fair rebuttal to the stance of ego. That said, I'm not really sure LeBron's ego isn't more out of control now than previous. I'm not certain that really you can make a comparison though. My sense is that Danny has a bit of an ego. Its just my opinion though.

Throwing out the idea of ego though, for fairness sake, I think that Danny might better benefit from a change in scenery. I still think DG has a ton of asset and would be a great player somewhere, I just think its not really happening here right now.

Also with that said, I think its not unreasonable to see him play for another coach before throwing in the final towel. But still, I just don't see him being an integral part of a championship team here.

As far as middle ground goes. You might be right, but I think I am a pretty fair guy but my opinion has been one that has been building for the past two years.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 06:03 PM
2-3 years is a long time in this league. In 3 years it will be Paul George's 4th year. This is only Roy's 3rd, and he's come quite a long way. I would imagine Darren Collison will be a better and/or more consistent player.

Plus, we will be trying to improve the team by throwing cash at the problem this summer. That could backfire, or it could instantly make us a notch (two at best) better if we get the right vets.

A lot can change in 2-3 seasons.

caution: this is a possible thread de-rail and if it is, we can start another thread.

i am worried that we will be a team with a lot of money but that won't attract players worthy of the kind of money we will have. i hope we don't try to overextend ourselves and sign people to big contracts for the sake of making a small splash.

my question is this: who was the last BLUE CHIP or TEAM DYNAMIC changing free agent to sign with the Indiana Pacers?

my memory is fading but i think it was probably byron scott (a guy who i think was good for the dynamic of this team). i might be totally wrong but just curious if anyone has anyone else in mind?

croz24
11-06-2010, 06:05 PM
curious as to why people are suddenly allowed to discuss trading granger on pacersdigest when just a season or two ago it would have been considered blasphemy.

croz24
11-06-2010, 06:12 PM
So lightning can't strike twice? The Pacers will never win a championship, if we're always too busy looking to trade for a Superstar. We have a good collection of young players that could end up being a talented group in 2-3 years, IF we stopped trying to shake boat every year.

considering it's happened just ONCE, and in a very down season no less, no it will not happen again. the pacers would have to defeat teams like the lakers, heat, magic, etc over the next few years to win a title. highly doubt we'd be able to defeat a star ladened team like that without a hall of famer of our own.

Kemo
11-06-2010, 06:45 PM
What really grinds my gears , is that in less than 10 games into the season, people are already showing their fickle , wishy washy selves on alot of our players.. including our main guy Danny ... So what's next?? After Roy or DC has 3 or 4 stinker games in a row.. are they next to jump ship on?!?!? For heaven's sake.. It is ok to discuss disappointment , but come on.. This is the #1 trait that makes me ashamed of my fellow Indiana Pacer's fans.. It's like ya'll enjoy sitting on the middle of the fence.. and one minute you jump to one side saying/thinking a player is the best thing since sliced cheese... Then the next minute, if one of our players play subpar , they are the great satan himself , and should be traded or packaged as a sweetener , and run out of town.. For someone else's crap or unknown/unproven draft picks.


The intent of my post is NOT to call anyone out or offend... But it just bothers me quite a bit .. Also , knowing the fact that Pacers players , read PD , it makes me ashamed...


If I were Danny , and I saw this thread , I wouldn't know what to think..

Give the man a break.....




While unlikely ...

Also.. what if? What if he was very unhappy with Coach JOB? He is just standing up for what 90% of what the fans want ... and that is JOB replaced....

And what kinda gratitude does he receive?

A thread about trading him..


I am not even saying any of this is the case.. but it makes one think..




Even if he was trying to make a point , and show his unhappiness.. I dont think it is the right way to go about it , afterall he IS getting payed to play well...

I dunno , but all these threads about trading players or whatnot every time they have a few bad games is getting tiring....
..
.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 06:55 PM
What really grinds my gears , is that in less than 10 games into the season, people are already showing their fickle , wishy washy selves on alot of our players.. including our main guy Danny ... So what's next?? After Roy or DC has 3 or 4 stinker games in a row.. are they next to jump ship on?!?!? For heaven's sake.. It is ok to discuss disappointment , but come on.. This is the #1 trait that makes me ashamed of my fellow Indiana Pacer's fans.. It's like ya'll enjoy sitting on the middle of the fence.. and one minute you jump to one side saying/thinking a player is the best thing since sliced cheese... Then the next minute, if one of our players play subpar , they are the great satan himself , and should be traded or packaged as a sweetener , and run out of town.. For someone else's crap or unknown/unproven draft picks.


The intent of my post is NOT to call anyone out or offend... But it just bothers me quite a bit .. Also , knowing the fact that Pacers players , read PD , it makes me ashamed...


If I were Danny , and I saw this thread , I wouldn't know what to think..

Give the man a break.....




While unlikely ...

Also.. what if? What if he was very unhappy with Coach JOB? He is just standing up for what 90% of what the fans want ... and that is JOB replaced....

And what kinda gratitude does he receive?

A thread about trading him..


I am not even saying any of this is the case.. but it makes one think..




Even if he was trying to make a point , and show his unhappiness.. I dont think it is the right way to go about it , afterall he IS getting payed to play well...

I dunno , but all these threads about trading players or whatnot every time they have a few bad games is getting tiring....
..
.

You do realize that some of the people on this thread that are humoring the idea of trading Granger, myself included, have been bringing up the idea of it since before the season began. I remember people wanting to jump on the alleged trade of Granger and the #10 for Harris and Favors around draft time, and that was after Danny's stretch of really good games. It's a mistake to assume that people are only demanding he be traded based only on his recent play.

QuickRelease
11-06-2010, 07:03 PM
The trade worked out but still makes you want to throw up. Chuck and Micheal Williams for Pooh and Sam Mitchell?? I still don't understand it. But the old saying is "addition by subtraction".Firepower for Fire! Hoops for Heart! Talent for Toughness!

Dee-Squared
11-06-2010, 07:13 PM
We have three players on the team now that I very much hope we resign. Collison, Hibbert and George. Other players that I hope turn a corner and deserve to be resigned.
We have a while before George's contract comes up, but I want to be in a position to throw money at Collison and Hibbert, if they pan out as we hope.

I think Danny is a valuable piece to a team that you don't trade for a star or high pick much less both.

He has the potential to be an all-star efficient scorer every year for a decent contract. Please see below from Hoopshype, best I could find.

We have young players that seem poised to have break out years soon. At which time we will need to pay them.
Trading Danny for a max type player and a high pick (rookie contract but still a chunk of change to a small market team) both of whom may be
higher maintenance and need more touches. Potentially taking touches and time from our young crop of potential play makers in George, Collison and Hibbert.
To say nothing of taking time from Brandon, Tyler and McRoberts who have contracts that will be up and I hope we keep.

I think Danny would be able to defer and share possessions with Collison, Hibbert and/or George. Especially if the team has the time to grow and develop chemistry.
Chemistry would also be an argument to not bring in a B. Roy or Horford.
Both max contracts that put a team in a win now position more so than Danny from purely a payroll and ego view.
If we get Horford and overpay him to keep him here and that results in us not having the money to resign McRoberts and/or Hibbert or keep one of Hibbert or Collison;
I would prefer Danny.

He has a reasonable contact for his production and does not seem a headcase or a prima donna.

You mention his play or lack thereof on the World Team. He got to see that on a team of second tier all stars he didn't start due to his lack of playing defense at a high level.
Good, hopefully that deflates his ego and he improves his all around game to be more than the best scorer on a below average Eastern conference team.
Thus far I have seen some evidence of him improving and some regression to trying to carry the team with quick long distance shots.

Mostly I think for his contract a player of his ability, toughness (broken shattered teeth) in game and on his commitment to getting better in the off seasons Danny Granger is someone you keep around a franchise.

All above is purely my humble opinion of course.

D2

Source Hoopshype Read more: http://hoopshype.com/salaries/indiana.htm#ixzz14XyNkZKO

Danny Granger

2010/11 $10,973,202

2011/12 $12,015,904

2012/13 $13,058,606

2013/14 $14,021,788

Hicks
11-06-2010, 07:18 PM
caution: this is a possible thread de-rail and if it is, we can start another thread.

i am worried that we will be a team with a lot of money but that won't attract players worthy of the kind of money we will have. i hope we don't try to overextend ourselves and sign people to big contracts for the sake of making a small splash.

my question is this: who was the last BLUE CHIP or TEAM DYNAMIC changing free agent to sign with the Indiana Pacers?

my memory is fading but i think it was probably byron scott (a guy who i think was good for the dynamic of this team). i might be totally wrong but just curious if anyone has anyone else in mind?

Well first of all, I'm not sure we've ever been in this good of a financial situation before, so there's really no precedent.

Secondly, I doubt we'll get a major player. I'm expecting us to target 1-3 non-star (but good and talented) players who are also experienced. Glue/support guys.

Don't get me wrong, there's always a chance for a pleasant surprise where we DO get someone better than that, but I'm expecting complimentary additions with experience to accelerate the growing process of the team. Guys who know how to win.

Chuck Chillout
11-06-2010, 07:20 PM
Just last week he carried the team on his back for both of our wins. He's had 2 bad games. He's a 24 ppg veteran. He'll bounce back.

Hicks
11-06-2010, 07:22 PM
curious as to why people are suddenly allowed to discuss trading granger on pacersdigest when just a season or two ago it would have been considered blasphemy.

Two years ago he was having the best season of his career and made the all-star team while being named the NBA's most improved player.

Sookie
11-06-2010, 07:27 PM
Two years ago he was having the best season of his career and made the all-star team while being named the NBA's most improved player.

And last year he was injured.
And this year, he's had 3 good games, and two bad ones.

I want to see Danny play under a good coach before we think about getting rid of him.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 07:31 PM
Well first of all, I'm not sure we've ever been in this good of a financial situation before, so there's really no precedent.

Secondly, I doubt we'll get a major player. I'm expecting us to target 1-3 non-star (but good and talented) players who are also experienced. Glue/support guys.

Don't get me wrong, there's always a chance for a pleasant surprise where we DO get someone better than that, but I'm expecting complimentary additions with experience to accelerate the growing process of the team. Guys who know how to win.

Agreed.

I do think that if Danny was a more skilled player you would hear more buzz about players wanting to come here and play with him.

I hope we don't overpay someone.

to answer a few others, including kemo - I'm not throwing dg under the bus. i just don't think he is the right guy for this team at this time. i think he'd fit fantastically in a few other places - New Orleans maybe, New York maybe, the Clippers even. He just needs a change in scenery. He's very skilled. He just needs some different discipline.

croz24
11-06-2010, 07:31 PM
Two years ago he was having the best season of his career and made the all-star team while being named the NBA's most improved player.

but it was as obvious then as it is now that he's not the type of player that makes his teammates better, brings it 100% every game, or one that could lead the pacers to a title. having a killer instinct is rarely developed in players. they either have it or they don't. granger never had it at bradley or new mexico, and he's never had it as a pacer. is he a supporting piece? he could be. but as i said two years ago, and my opinion is the same today, the pacers need a franchise player in order to take us over the top. if granger is a means to possibly obtain that franchise player, then we better consider trading him.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 07:34 PM
but it was as obvious then as it is now that he's not the type of player that makes his teammates better, brings it 100% every game, or one that could lead the pacers to a title. having a killer instinct is rarely developed in players. they either have it or they don't. granger never had it at bradley or new mexico, and he's never had it as a pacer. is he a supporting piece? he could be. but as i said two years ago, and my opinion is the same today, the pacers need a franchise player in order to take us over the top. if granger is a means to possibly obtain that franchise player, then we better consider trading him.

Maybe not the best example, but you need a Dale Davis - JO :eek: type of trade. We need to trade with a team on the brink for a young player getting old on the bench.

dlewyus
11-06-2010, 07:36 PM
I've been thinking for awhile now that trading Granger while he's at his peak might be good for the Pacers and Granger also. We're not close to contending for anything for awhile yet. Danny could really help a good team. Pacers could accumulate some more assets. The trade would have to be a darn good one, or it should not be done. It has nothing to do with the last two games though.

I like our young core, but there are bound to be some growing pains for awhile. What I like is that the team is exciting and you can see the potential. It will take awhile before they learn how to close out a game against a good team.

Hicks
11-06-2010, 07:38 PM
but it was as obvious then as it is now that he's not the type of player that makes his teammates better, brings it 100% every game, or one that could lead the pacers to a title. having a killer instinct is rarely developed in players. they either have it or they don't. granger never had it at bradley or new mexico, and he's never had it as a pacer. is he a supporting piece? he could be. but as i said two years ago, and my opinion is the same today, the pacers need a franchise player in order to take us over the top. if granger is a means to possibly obtain that franchise player, then we better consider trading him.

Obviously you feel it was obvious, but I (and I think many others) did not.

To go beyond that, for one thing I don't think we're ever likely to get a guy much better than Danny in here. I think our best chance is to try to get 2-4 guys of Danny's talent level to play together. So trading Danny doesn't help you there.

Lastly, if Danny isn't your franchise player, you have 0% chance of trading him for someone who is. So once again, trading Danny doesn't help you.

Build WITH Danny, but not AROUND Danny.

cinotimz
11-06-2010, 08:08 PM
Alot of you crack me up. Trade your best player because hes not a superstar. Trade your best player because hes not Scottie Pippen. Trade your only All-star because he has had a bad game or 2. Trade your Team USA player because your team has lost a couple of games in a row. Im sure if the Pacers want to trade Danny, they will have at least 25 teams that are interested. Should be no problem especially given his contract is thought to be one of the better values for non-rookie contracts.

Seriously, some of you need to step back from the ledge. Better yet, step back from the computer. These are not likely going to be the only ugly or heartbreaking losses we have this year. Just like any other year. Every team has them. Every team. Even the championship teams lose games you would never think they would lose. Our record alone against the Lakers and Celtics the last couple of years should be evidence enough of that fact.

Yea. We want to be better so lets trade our best player. Makes perfectly good sense.

Not.

McKeyFan
11-06-2010, 08:13 PM
Well first of all, I'm not sure we've ever been in this good of a financial situation before, so there's really no precedent.

Secondly, I doubt we'll get a major player. I'm expecting us to target 1-3 non-star (but good and talented) players who are also experienced. Glue/support guys.

Don't get me wrong, there's always a chance for a pleasant surprise where we DO get someone better than that, but I'm expecting complimentary additions with experience to accelerate the growing process of the team. Guys who know how to win.

Like who?

Not the actual guys we would get, but the "kind" of players you are talking about.

Like McKey? Rip? Boozer? Mark Pope?

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:21 PM
Sorry, but this team is going nowhere with Granger as the best player, and last night was proof. We should not be losing to the Bucks at home when their best player is out. I don't care if they were a playoff team last year. We got schooled in the fourth quarter by John Salmons and Brandon Jennings. Granger is supposed to be better than those guys, but he didn't do anything in the fourth quarter. If Granger is a leader, he would have willed the Pacers to the win in a close game. Instead, he got out played by inferior competition.

We need to trade Danny while he still has value. Lets build around Hibbert, Collison, and George. We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

I agree, It has been 3 years now since Danny blew up and since then he has simply been a poor D player, a non vocal LEADER, and strictly a 3 pt shooter.

He simply got paid and now plays as if he does not care whether Indiana wins or loses. Hibbert is out there making mistakes but it is obvious HE is the leader of this team.

I would like to see Indiana trade him for anything, let PG play and learn at least he tries.

PacersPride
11-06-2010, 08:21 PM
but it was as obvious then as it is now that he's not the type of player that makes his teammates better, brings it 100% every game, or one that could lead the pacers to a title. having a killer instinct is rarely developed in players. they either have it or they don't. granger never had it at bradley or new mexico, and he's never had it as a pacer. is he a supporting piece? he could be. but as i said two years ago, and my opinion is the same today, the pacers need a franchise player in order to take us over the top. if granger is a means to possibly obtain that franchise player, then we better consider trading him.

i dont think we discovered Reggies "killer instinct" until the guy actually got to play in the playoffs. im not making a comparison to Miller in this regard, but pointing out that Granger has not really had an opportunity to show if he has this or not...

moreover, DG has hit some big shots in his career, the PHX game last season comes to mind.

i dont think DG is untouchable, but unless were getting equal value you do not trade him, and it would most likely be a team in contention that would want DG's services the most.

when folks make suggestions like this i wish they would go into more detail and specify exactly what they are looking for and who would be interested.

if we were to deal DG the minimum i would take back is a young PF with potential.. and a 1st rounder in the mid teens. i dont know who fits that criteria but its not a player like anthony randolph.

trading Granger for "decent veterans" seems like a step in the wrong direction. what exactly constitutes a decent vet anyways.. james posey is a decent vet..

thank goodness Larry Legend is running this team and not some of the PD members, no offense; but i want to see us win and trading away an allstar for decent vets accomplishes this how.?

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:22 PM
Alot of you crack me up. Trade your best player because hes not a superstar. Trade your best player because hes not Scottie Pippen. Trade your only All-star because he has had a bad game or 2. Trade your Team USA player because your team has lost a couple of games in a row. Im sure if the Pacers want to trade Danny, they will have at least 25 teams that are interested. Should be no problem especially given his contract is thought to be one of the better values for non-rookie contracts.

Seriously, some of you need to step back from the ledge. Better yet, step back from the computer. These are not likely going to be the only ugly or heartbreaking losses we have this year. Just like any other year. Every team has them. Every team. Even the championship teams lose games you would never think they would lose. Our record alone against the Lakers and Celtics the last couple of years should be evidence enough of that fact.

Yea. We want to be better so lets trade our best player. Makes perfectly good sense.

Not.


He is NOT Indiana's best player....... and it is not close...

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:25 PM
i dont think we discovered Reggies "killer instinct" until the guy actually got to play in the playoffs. im not making a comparison to Miller in this regard, but pointing out that Granger has not really had an opportunity to show if he has this or not...

moreover, DG has hit some big shots in his career, the PHX game last season comes to mind.

i dont think DG is untouchable, but unless were getting equal value you do not trade him, and it would most likely be a team in contention that would want DG's services the most.

when folks make suggestions like this i wish they would go into more detail and specify exactly what they are looking for and who would be interested.

if we were to deal DG the minimum i would take back is a young PF with potential.. and a 1st rounder in the mid teens. i dont know who fits that criteria but its not a player like anthony randolph.

trading Granger for "decent veterans" seems like a step in the wrong direction. what exactly constitutes a decent vet anyways.. james posey is a decent vet..

thank goodness Larry Legend is running this team and not some of the PD members, no offense; but i want to see us win and trading away an allstar for decent vets accomplishes this how.?

Reggie ALWAYS played with killer intensity. Granger plays with none, he is hopeless on D, he settles for 3's rather than take his man to the rack, he IS NOT A LEADER. He is "glorifed Pippen" on a GOOD team.

Indiana would do no worse without him.

PacersPride
11-06-2010, 08:27 PM
I would like to see Indiana trade him for anything, let PG play and learn at least he tries.

ya.. lets bring in Gilbert Arenas

:confused::confused::confused:

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:28 PM
but it was as obvious then as it is now that he's not the type of player that makes his teammates better, brings it 100% every game, or one that could lead the pacers to a title. having a killer instinct is rarely developed in players. they either have it or they don't. granger never had it at bradley or new mexico, and he's never had it as a pacer. is he a supporting piece? he could be. but as i said two years ago, and my opinion is the same today, the pacers need a franchise player in order to take us over the top. if granger is a means to possibly obtain that franchise player, then we better consider trading him.

Spot On.....

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:31 PM
ya.. lets bring in Gilbert Arenas

:confused::confused::confused:

Picks, or a Stud interior defender, maybe even a "defensive stopper".....

Granger has went from the "most improved" to the "most overrated"....

He does not help this team in any way unless he is drilling 3's...

Granger for Horford?

Eleazar
11-06-2010, 08:33 PM
A couple of things. They may be unfair, so call me out if you think I need to be called out.

Coaching. Coach K was and is world class. He didn't shine for him this summer. And he's getting paid to play for JOB. It wouldn't make sense for Danny to lose his own leaguewide value and laze it bc he doesn't like his coach. He shouldn't damage his brand bc he doesn't like the coach.

Defense. You either play it or you don't. Danny doesn't, and he doesn't by choice. I don't think you can blame this on coach.

As far as being a sidekick. Yes. I don't think Danny would be able to be a #2 guy on this Indiana Pacer team now or ever. I think this has to do with ego and pride. I can't see him stepping aside, for instance, to a guy like Paul George, if he proves to be the real deal. Maybe.

Sorry but I don't find playing on Team USA for a summer as an adequate comparison.

While you right that a player either does or doesn't play defense is true. The problem is why isn't he playing defense? Is it because he doesn't care, or is it because JOB isn't pushing him to play defense? Because of what else I have seen on the court while he has been the coach I lean towards JOB not pushing him to play defense.

cinotimz
11-06-2010, 08:34 PM
He is NOT Indiana's best player....... and it is not close...

Lol. You are right. How could I forget Solomon Jones. My mistake.

Im sure if you polled the 30 GMs in the league, the 30 head coaches, and the 400 plus players in the league they would all say the same thing as you. Hes not the best player and its not close.

:rolleyes:

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:34 PM
When is the last time anyone seen Granger dive after a loose ball? Hibert did it at least 4 times against Milwaukee.

It is the little things that make Granger ..... "just average"

JMO

PacersPride
11-06-2010, 08:35 PM
Reggie ALWAYS played with killer intensity. Granger plays with none, he is hopeless on D, he settles for 3's rather than take his man to the rack, he IS NOT A LEADER. He is "glorifed Pippen" on a GOOD team.

Indiana would do no worse without him.

Miller also had alot of stability around him, a good supporting cast with good coaching.

what has Granger had the last 3 years? Earl effing Watson.. a couple second year players.. Troy Murphy.. O'brien as coach.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:35 PM
Lol. You are right. How could I forget Solomon Jones. My mistake.

Im sure if you polled the 30 GMs in the league, the 30 head coaches, and the 400 plus players in the league they would all say the same thing as you. Hes not the best player and its not close.

:rolleyes:

Bro, I guarantee you if we did... they would all say Hibert, then Collison....

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 08:36 PM
considering it's happened just ONCE, and in a very down season no less, no it will not happen again. the pacers would have to defeat teams like the lakers, heat, magic, etc over the next few years to win a title. highly doubt we'd be able to defeat a star ladened team like that without a hall of famer of our own.

Who says that it won't happen again? Also and sorry to tell you this, but the Pacers are not the only team that has to climb that hill against the Lakers, Heat, Magic, and Celtics. Real talk...until those teams lose some key players, the ENTIRE league is just a bunch of squirrels trying to get a nut. I would be happy just watching our team battle it out in the Playoffs year after year.

Instead of busting our butts to trade for a stupid high lottery pick, or to gut our team for ONE Superstar, how about we focus on and develop what we got now?

PacersPride
11-06-2010, 08:39 PM
Picks, or a Stud interior defender, maybe even a "defensive stopper".....

Granger has went from the "most improved" to the "most overrated"....

He does not help this team in any way unless he is drilling 3's...

Granger for Horford?

i dont know if i can really take the posts of a 4 year old seriously. for the sake of argument.. your right. Bird make Granger available and trade for unknown draft prospects. this is the issue i have with folks who make these suggestions, nothing specified.

please provide me with one realistic trade that you want to see made for Granger. Horford is not realistic.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 08:43 PM
Alot of you crack me up. Trade your best player because hes not a superstar. Trade your best player because hes not Scottie Pippen. Trade your only All-star because he has had a bad game or 2. Trade your Team USA player because your team has lost a couple of games in a row. Im sure if the Pacers want to trade Danny, they will have at least 25 teams that are interested. Should be no problem especially given his contract is thought to be one of the better values for non-rookie contracts.

Seriously, some of you need to step back from the ledge. Better yet, step back from the computer. These are not likely going to be the only ugly or heartbreaking losses we have this year. Just like any other year. Every team has them. Every team. Even the championship teams lose games you would never think they would lose. Our record alone against the Lakers and Celtics the last couple of years should be evidence enough of that fact.

Yea. We want to be better so lets trade our best player. Makes perfectly good sense.

Not.

I have the same mentality. Everyone is too busy trying to find the next Kobe Bryant or Lebron James in the lottery, or hope that a GM is stupid enough to give us theirs.

cinotimz
11-06-2010, 08:43 PM
Bro, I guarantee you if we did... they would all say Hibert, then Collison....

Lol. Because those two guys games against the Sixers and Bucks were so stellar. :rolleyes:

Theres not a GM, head coach or player in the league that would put Hibbert or Collison in the same tier as Granger, let alone say they are better.

But if it helps you feel better after the losses, then go ahead Bro.

Meanwhile, Pacers management will continue to try and find another Danny to add to the team versus getting rid of their best player and making the task of making the Pacers better even more difficult.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:43 PM
i dont know if i can really take the posts of a 4 year old seriously. for the sake of argument.. your right. Bird make Granger available and trade for unknown draft prospects. this is the issue i have with folks who make these suggestions, and not specified.

please provide me with one realistic trade that you want to see made for Granger. Horford is not realistic.

hehe... I am the most intelligent 4 year old you will ever come across. My point is Danny simply does not do anything for this team that PG can't... and PG brings effort on D and O.... Indiana has some great young talent that "tries hard" ... and then we have our best player standing around waiting to hoist up another 3, and not even trying to guard anyone.

Just like stocks.. trade high, not low...

Major Cold
11-06-2010, 08:45 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3nNY0Zkixjk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3nNY0Zkixjk?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:46 PM
I have the same mentality. Everyone is too busy trying to find the next Kobe Bryant or Lebron James in the lottery, or hope that a GM is stupid enough to give us theirs.

no, no, no... "I" want players that "try"... and want to win... Granger just does not bring the winning intensity. Roy does, Ty does, Mac does, Collison does.... but our best player is just.......... Danny.... he sets a stellar example every night out.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 08:48 PM
when folks make suggestions like this i wish they would go into more detail and specify exactly what they are looking for and who would be interested.

if we were to deal DG the minimum i would take back is a young PF with potential.. and a 1st rounder in the mid teens. i dont know who fits that criteria but its not a player like anthony randolph.



dude no offense - read the whole thread. i and others made suggestions and tried to specify what is being sought.

Eleazar
11-06-2010, 08:49 PM
Bro, I guarantee you if we did... they would all say Hibert, then Collison....

And I guarantee you are wrong. See how easy it is to guarantee, that doesn't mean you are right.

Anyways there is more evidence to say that people outside of Indiana believe that Granger is the best than there is that say he isn't.

Now if you asked who is more important you will probably get a lot of Hibberts, but in no way would anyone say Collison to either of those. It is still debatable whether or not Collison is the best PG on the team. So unless you are ready to say that Price may be better I would leave Collison out of any talks of him being better than Granger.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:49 PM
Dan Dakich made a great point in the pre season... "your best player should set the "tone" in practice and on the court, on D and O"

Does Danny do this?

BBQ
11-06-2010, 08:49 PM
Did anyone else think Danny played a lot better on defense last night? I thought I saw quite a bit of effort and positive results on that end of the floor. Turn overs were the problem were they not?

tsm612
11-06-2010, 08:50 PM
i dont know if i can really take the posts of a 4 year old seriously. for the sake of argument.. your right. Bird make Granger available and trade for unknown draft prospects. this is the issue i have with folks who make these suggestions, nothing specified.

please provide me with one realistic trade that you want to see made for Granger. Horford is not realistic.

Can't people have opposing views without their intelligence being brought into question? Why do so many threads have to turn into this?

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 08:52 PM
hehe... I am the most intelligent 4 year old you will ever come across. My point is Danny simply does not do anything for this team that PG can't... and PG brings effort on D and O.... Indiana has some great young talent that "tries hard" ... and then we have our best player standing around waiting to hoist up another 3, and not even trying to guard anyone.

Just like stocks.. trade high, not low...

Hmmm...21.4 PPG, 1.8 APG, 5.8 RPG, 1.20 BPG, 1.00 SPG, 42.7 FG%, and 37.5 3PT%.

So, why not keep both players then? Of course, we could always trade for more players who would steal minutes from our current young players. What's that...you don't want to decrease the minutes of our young players? Then WTF...why trade Granger then if we're not planning to use the new players?

croz24
11-06-2010, 08:52 PM
Who says that it won't happen again? Also and sorry to tell you this, but the Pacers are not the only team that has to climb that hill against the Lakers, Heat, Magic, and Celtics. Real talk...until those teams lose some key players, the ENTIRE league is just a bunch of squirrels trying to get a nut. I would be happy just watching our team battle it out in the Playoffs year after year.

Instead of busting our butts to trade for a stupid high lottery pick, or to gut our team for ONE Superstar, how about we focus on and develop what we got now?

calm down. even in this thread i never said we should trade granger. but i think everyone can agree that if we have a chance to land a franchise or potential franchise player for granger, the pacers should consider it. if you're the pacers, you can't sit around and hope that once in a lifetime opportunity strikes again and you win a title with nothing but a core of very good players.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 08:54 PM
no, no, no... "I" want players that "try"... and want to win... Granger just does not bring the winning intensity. Roy does, Ty does, Mac does, Collison does.... but our best player is just.......... Danny.... he sets a stellar example every night out.

Well, d*mn. 21.4 PPG, 1.8 APG, 5.8 RPG, 1.20 BPG, 1.00 SPG, 42.7 FG%, and 37.5 3PT% is not trying :confused:???? Explain that one to me.

cinotimz
11-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Can't people have opposing views without their intelligence being brought into question? Why do so many threads have to turn into this?

Hmmm...where did he question his intelligence?

BBQ
11-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Can't people have opposing views without their intelligence being brought into question? Why do so many threads have to turn into this?

If you have to ask you are obviously the stupidest person to ever exist... ever.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 08:54 PM
Sorry but I don't find playing on Team USA for a summer as an adequate comparison.

While you right that a player either does or doesn't play defense is true. The problem is why isn't he playing defense? Is it because he doesn't care, or is it because JOB isn't pushing him to play defense? Because of what else I have seen on the court while he has been the coach I lean towards JOB not pushing him to play defense.

Fair enough - but if I may equate - pushing him to play defense is like asking a waiter to serve his/her customer a beverage. Does he really need to be pushed to do 100% of his job?

He should take pride in his game and his brand. There was sooo much buzz about Danny league wide 3 years ago, and there is a reason it has gone away.

Another coach might push him. Sure. Larry Brown I'm sure would, for instance. But why does DG lack the self motivation?

tsm612
11-06-2010, 08:55 PM
Hmmm...21.4 PPG, 1.8 APG, 5.8 RPG, 1.20 BPG, 1.00 SPG, 42.7 FG%, and 37.5 3PT%.

So, why not keep both players then? Of course, we could always trade for more players who would steal minutes from our current young players. What's that...you don't want to decrease the minutes of our young players? Then WTF...why trade Granger then if we're not planning to use the new players?

Because there's a huge gaping hole at the power forward spot? George could be Danny's replacement while Danny lands us a young power forward with upside, and maybe a 1st rounder. As Kaufman said earlier, go for a Dale Davis - JO type trade.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:55 PM
Hmmm...21.4 PPG, 1.8 APG, 5.8 RPG, 1.20 BPG, 1.00 SPG, 42.7 FG%, and 37.5 3PT%.

So, why not keep both players then? Of course, we could always trade for more players who would steal minutes from our current young players. What's that...you don't want to decrease the minutes of our young players? Then WTF...why trade Granger then if we're not planning to use the new players?
Lets see him do it for a 50 win team....... hmmmm?

Losing teams are full of stat stuffer s... esp when they never get benched.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 08:57 PM
Fair enough - but if I may equate - pushing him to play defense is like asking a waiter to serve his/her customer a beverage. Does he really need to be pushed to do 100% of his job?

He should take pride in his game and his brand. There was sooo much buzz about Danny league wide 3 years ago, and there is a reason it has gone away.

Another coach might push him. Sure. Larry Brown I'm sure would, for instance. But why does DG lack the self motivation?

outstanding post...

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 08:57 PM
i dont know if i can really take the posts of a 4 year old seriously. for the sake of argument.. your right. Bird make Granger available and trade for unknown draft prospects. this is the issue i have with folks who make these suggestions, nothing specified.

please provide me with one realistic trade that you want to see made for Granger. Horford is not realistic.


I made a few suggestions - maybe on the second page - but let me ask you this - who would you find to be realistic to consider in a trade?

Kuq_e_Zi91
11-06-2010, 08:58 PM
Yes, let's trade him for Jeff Green.

On a serious note, how do you justify trading Granger to the fans? You spend three years selling a "three-year plan" only to trade the face of the franchise in year three? "Hey, thanks for your patience. Give us three more years? (at least)"

What do you think you can get for Danny? Wing players are a dime a dozen.

You're putting a serious amount of pressure on Paul George. You better hope and pray he develops like you think he will or the franchise is sunk for another decade.

You trade Granger this season, before we have an opportunity to work the free agent market, and you kill whatever little hope we had of landing a significant piece. If anyone would come Indy, it wouldn't be for the location. A Granger-less Pacers doesn't sound very attractive, unless you severely overpay.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 08:58 PM
Hmmm...where did he question his intelligence?


i dont know if i can really take the posts of a 4 year old seriously.

.

ChristianDudley
11-06-2010, 09:00 PM
1 bad game (@ Philly) and one average game (last night), and someone's calling for Granger's head. Gimme a break. I guess they didn't watch the 3 games before that in which Granger has played amazingly in.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:00 PM
calm down. even in this thread i never said we should trade granger. but i think everyone can agree that if we have a chance to land a franchise or potential franchise player for granger, the pacers should consider it. if you're the pacers, you can't sit around and hope that once in a lifetime opportunity strikes again and you win a title with nothing but a core of very good players.

Realistically speaking, we'll be waiting longer for a team to offer their franchise player, then for the Pacers to win a title with a core of very good players. I can't even remember the last time that the persons were in trade talks for a franchise player.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 09:01 PM
Can't people have opposing views without their intelligence being brought into question? Why do so many threads have to turn into this?

In all fairness I think PP was just kidding around bc woohoo's age thingee says 4 years old.

But point taken, we all know i hate nasty people

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:03 PM
1 bad game (@ Philly) and one average game (last night), and someone's calling for Granger's head. Gimme a break. I guess they didn't watch the 3 games before that in which Granger has played amazingly in.

Again, does everybody just read the thread title and just assume they know what the discussion is about? I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone here that's basing this solely on Granger's last two games.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 09:03 PM
Because there's a huge gaping hole at the power forward spot? George could be Danny's replacement while Danny lands us a young power forward with upside, and maybe a 1st rounder. As Kaufman said earlier, go for a Dale Davis - JO type trade.


you can call me kauffie

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:03 PM
Because there's a huge gaping hole at the power forward spot? George could be Danny's replacement while Danny lands us a young power forward with upside, and maybe a 1st rounder. As Kaufman said earlier, go for a Dale Davis - JO type trade.

We already written off McRoberts and Hansbrough? Man, that was a fast evaluation of their talents. I was more concern with filling that gaping hole at the backup center position. Solomon Jones is not cutting it.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:05 PM
In all fairness I think PP was just kidding around bc woohoo's age thingee says 4 years old.

But point taken, we all know i hate nasty people

:laugh: Yep, missed that. I usually don't read those things. Thanks for pointing that out, though now I feel like the idiot. :blush:

vnzla81
11-06-2010, 09:07 PM
I don't think you need to trade him this year, just look at all the BS the Nuggets got as offers for a guy that is twice as good as Granger.

There is no way the Pacers get equal value in return.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Yes, let's trade him for Jeff Green.

On a serious note, how do you justify trading Granger to the fans? You spend three years selling a "three-year plan" only to trade the face of the franchise in year three? "Hey, thanks for your patience. Give us three more years? (at least)"

What do you think you can get for Danny? Wing players are a dime a dozen.

You're putting a serious amount of pressure on Paul George. You better hope and pray he develops like you think he will or the franchise is sunk for another decade.

You trade Granger this season, before we have an opportunity to work the free agent market, and you kill whatever little hope we had of landing a significant piece. If anyone would come Indy, it wouldn't be for the location. A Granger-less Pacers doesn't sound very attractive, unless you severely overpay.

The same way you justify trading Chuck Person in the 1990's. Rookie of the year in 87, fought Larry Bird hard in 1991 playoffs, boisterous, punter at times, and all around fan favorite.

Again, I don't hear Danny being all too often mentioned as a guy others want to play with. So I don't think it will hurt our ability to attract free agents - it might even help as it would open up a lot of opportunity for some guys.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:09 PM
We already written off McRoberts and Hansbrough? Man, that was a fast evaluation of their talents. I was more concern with filling that gaping hole at the backup center position. Solomon Jones is not cutting it.

I haven't written them off at all, but do you really see either of them starting for the Lakers or Celtics? Not even right now, but with your Pacers kool aid glasses on. With all of the upside we think they may have, in a few years down the line, do you really think they could start for a contender? I don't think so, but I could see them coming off the bench for a contender.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 09:09 PM
1 bad game (@ Philly) and one average game (last night), and someone's calling for Granger's head. Gimme a break. I guess they didn't watch the 3 games before that in which Granger has played amazingly in.

I'm pretty certain that the people discussing this aren't basing their feelings off those two games. In fact those two games have barely been mentioned.

For those of us who think maybe Danny is ripe for a trade, where should we discuss it - in the Colts thread?

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 09:11 PM
Realistically speaking, we'll be waiting longer for a team to offer their franchise player, then for the Pacers to win a title with a core of very good players. I can't even remember the last time that the persons were in trade talks for a franchise player.

Probably Chris Webber when he was approaching the downside of his career and he wanted to come play for Isiah. Nonetheless it got a lot of buzz here.

croz24
11-06-2010, 09:11 PM
Yes, let's trade him for Jeff Green.

On a serious note, how do you justify trading Granger to the fans? You spend three years selling a "three-year plan" only to trade the face of the franchise in year three? "Hey, thanks for your patience. Give us three more years? (at least)"

What do you think you can get for Danny? Wing players are a dime a dozen.

You're putting a serious amount of pressure on Paul George. You better hope and pray he develops like you think he will or the franchise is sunk for another decade.

You trade Granger this season, before we have an opportunity to work the free agent market, and you kill whatever little hope we had of landing a significant piece. If anyone would come Indy, it wouldn't be for the location. A Granger-less Pacers doesn't sound very attractive, unless you severely overpay.

what was said about jeff green is that given the same opportunity as granger, he could put up similar numbers. but check this out, so far this year here is the comparison...

jeff green - 19.4ppg 7.2rpg on 44fg% 2.0topg
danny granger - 21.4ppg 5.8rpg on 42.7fg% 3.4topg

not very different huh? actually, you could argue green is off to the better start. just saying...

cinotimz
11-06-2010, 09:11 PM
.


In all fairness I think PP was just kidding around bc woohoo's age thingee says 4 years old.

But point taken, we all know i hate nasty people

Anyway, while its the sincere hope of the team and all its fans for Paul George to evolve in a Danny Granger caliber player, he is no where near that yet. Just as Danny was no where the player he is now when he first entered the league, despite the tremendous potential and hope we all had for him back then. But with a little luck and hard work on Paul's part, he will become that type of player. Then we will have two of them and possibly even more depending on how Hibbert and Collison develop.

Thats the idea. Get more players like Danny. Not less. This is not addition by subtraction. And the likelihood that another team would just give one of those guys away is highly unlikely. They are all in the same boat as we are. Trying to get better. And you dont do that by getting rid of your best players.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:11 PM
Lets see him do it for a 50 win team....... hmmmm?

Losing teams are full of stat stuffer s... esp when they never get benched.

If they're already a 50-win team, then why would they need Granger in the 1st place? 50-win teams typically need only fillers. Real talk, NO ONE knows what Granger is capable of doing outside of the Pacers.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 09:16 PM
ear↓ Team↓ GP↓ GS↓ MPG↓ FG%↓ 3P%↓ FT%↓ RPG↓ APG↓ SPG↓ BPG↓ PPG↓
200506 Indiana 78 17 22.6 .462 .323 .777 4.9 1.2 .7 .8 7.5
200607 Indiana 82 57 34.0 .459 .382 .803 4.6 1.4 .8 .7 13.9
200708 Indiana 80 80 36.0 .446 .404 .852 6.1 2.1 1.2 1.0 19.6
200809 Indiana 67 66 36.2 .447 .404 .878 5.1 2.7 1.0 1.5 25.8
200910 Indiana 62 62 36.7 .428 .361 .848 5.5 2.8 1.5 .8 24.1
Career 369 282 32.9 .446 .385 .843 5.2 2.0 1.0 1.0 17.7

Danny is the exact same player he was 4 years ago......... and a far worse D player. Is this good enough for everyone?

Kuq_e_Zi91
11-06-2010, 09:16 PM
The same way you justify trading Chuck Person in the 1990's. Rookie of the year in 87, fought Larry Bird hard in 1991 playoffs, boisterous, punter at times, and all around fan favorite.

Again, I don't hear Danny being all too often mentioned as a guy others want to play with. So I don't think it will hurt our ability to attract free agents - it might even help as it would open up a lot of opportunity for some guys.

Well, why would you? Players very rarely request trades to specific teams, and that usually happens for a couple of reasons:
1) the team is a contender or 2) the team is near their hometown

I just don't see how the opportunity has presented itself for a player to go out of his way to mention Danny specifically as someone they would want to play with. Not to mention, we haven't had the cap space with the Murphleavy contracts.

As for Chuck Person, you'll have to explain because I was too young to remember 87-90. Was the fan base as weak back then?

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:20 PM
I haven't written them off at all, but do you really see either of them starting for the Lakers or Celtics? Not even right now, but with your Pacers kool aid glasses on. With all of the upside we think they may have, in a few years down the line, do you really think they could start for a contender? I don't think so, but I could see them coming off the bench for a contender.

Who cares if they start for the Lakers or Celtics? The Lakers have Pau Gasol. The Celtics have KG, JO, and Glen Davis. McRoberts is getting starting minutes and has already doubled his output from last season. In my eyes, Hansbrough is playing his first official FULL season this year. How can you predict their starting role 2-3 years from now, if we don't even give them a chance THIS year? Not every PF explodes into the league averaging 20.0 PPG and 10.0 RPG. Did anyone predict Stephen Jackson to be the player he is now, when his previous claim to fame was just a spot-up shooter on the Spurs and Hawks team?

Kuq_e_Zi91
11-06-2010, 09:22 PM
what was said about jeff green is that given the same opportunity as granger, he could put up similar numbers. but check this out, so far this year here is the comparison...

jeff green - 19.4ppg 7.2rpg on 44fg% 2.0topg
danny granger - 21.4ppg 5.8rpg on 42.7fg% 3.4topg

not very different huh? actually, you could argue green is off to the better start. just saying...

Look, I love Jeff Green. I'm from DC and he's a Georgetown guy so I have a soft spot for him, but when your team is immensely better defensively with you off of the court you're just not that good. You guys complain about Granger's defense, Green's isn't much better.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:23 PM
Anyway, while its the sincere hope of the team and all its fans for Paul George to evolve in a Danny Granger caliber player, he is no where near that yet. Just as Danny was no where the player he is now when he first entered the league, despite the tremendous potential and hope we all had for him back then. But with a little luck and hard work on Paul's part, he will become that type of player. Then we will have two of them and possibly even more depending on how Hibbert and Collison develop.

Thats the idea. Get more players like Danny. Not less. This is not addition by subtraction. And the likelihood that another team would just give one of those guys away is highly unlikely. They are all in the same boat as we are. Trying to get better. And you dont do that by getting rid of your best players.

I do feel that way, but at the same time, a part of me is really concerned about where that power forward is going to come from. I truly don't see Hansbrough or McRoberts being the players we need them to be. I think they could get us to the playoffs within the next couple years, but probably not passed the first or second round.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:24 PM
Anyway, while its the sincere hope of the team and all its fans for Paul George to evolve in a Danny Granger caliber player, he is no where near that yet. Just as Danny was no where the player he is now when he first entered the league, despite the tremendous potential and hope we all had for him back then. But with a little luck and hard work on Paul's part, he will become that type of player. Then we will have two of them and possibly even more depending on how Hibbert and Collison develop.

Thats the idea. Get more players like Danny. Not less. This is not addition by subtraction. And the likelihood that another team would just give one of those guys away is highly unlikely. They are all in the same boat as we are. Trying to get better. And you dont do that by getting rid of your best players.

That's what I'm talking about, and that's what I want to see for this team

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:27 PM
Who cares if they start for the Lakers or Celtics? The Lakers have Pau Gasol. The Celtics have KG, JO, and Glen Davis. McRoberts is getting starting minutes and has already double his output from last season. In my eyes, Hansbrough is playing his first official FULL season this year. How can you predict their starting role 2-3 years from now, if we don't even give them a chance THIS year? Not every PF explodes into the league averaging 20.0 PPG and 10.0 RPG. Did anyone predict Stephen Jackson to be the player he is now, when his previous claim to fame was just a spot-up shooter on the Spurs and Hawks team?

If you're trying to build a team that can be a contender, then you'd better care if your players could start for teams that are already contending. I'm not saying that LA would trade Pau Gasol for McRoberts. It's hypothetical. If they didn't have Pau, could either of them start for LA in the next few years? And McRoberts better have already doubled his output. He wasn't getting consistent minutes last year. Also, I love Hansbrough, but I'm still not convinced he will have a long and healthy career following his vertigo issue.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:29 PM
I do feel that way, but at the same time, a part of me is really concerned about where that power forward is going to come from. I truly don't see Hansbrough or McRoberts being the players we need them to be. I think they could get us to the playoffs within the next couple years, but probably not passed the first or second round.

We're not relying on them. We would be relying on Collison, Paul George, Granger, and Hibbert to get us past the 1st and 2nd rounds. That's presuming that Miami gets rid of Wade or Lebron by then.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:30 PM
We're not relying on them. We would be relying on Collison, Paul George, Granger, and Hibbert to get us past the 1st and 2nd rounds. That's presuming that Miami gets rid of Wade or Lebron by then.

You don't need a power forward?

And if that's the case, what do you do once you get past the first couple rounds?

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:33 PM
If you're trying to build a team that can be a contender, then you'd better care if your players could start for teams that are already contending. I'm not saying that LA would trade Pau Gasol for McRoberts. It's hypothetical. If they didn't have Pau, could either of them start for LA in the next few years? And McRoberts better have already doubled his output. He wasn't getting consistent minutes last year. Also, I love Hansbrough, but I'm still not convinced he will have a long and healthy career following his vertigo issue.

Did you see KG and Gasol as starting PF's for a contender after their 1st month in the league?

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:36 PM
You don't need a power forward?

And if that's the case, what do you do once you get past the first couple rounds?

We don't need an all-star PF. That's my point. And what do you mean "What do you once you get past the first couple rounds"? You keep winning. That's what you do. Were you expecting the team to lie down once they got to the Eastern Conference Finals?

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:37 PM
Did you see KG and Gasol as starting PF's for a contender after their 1st month in the league?

A number 5 pick and a number 3 pick in is a lot more plausible than a 37th pick and a 13th pick who lost the majority of his first season because of vertigo.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:40 PM
A number 5 pick and a number 3 pick in is a lot more plausible than a 37th pick and a 13th pick who lost the majority of his first season because of vertigo.

That didn't answer the question. Where they was picked just only means that they had a higher expected potential. Let me ask again....Did you see KG and Gasol as starting PF's for a contender after their 1st month in the league?

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:40 PM
We don't need an all-star PF. That's my point. And what do you mean "What do you once you get past the first couple rounds"? You keep winning. That's what you do. Were you expecting the team to lie down once they got to the Eastern Conference Finals?

No, but you do need a good starting power forward to win, which is what my point is. You said that the other guys are supposed to get us past the first couple rounds. Are far do you expect to get without a really good power forward?

Hicks
11-06-2010, 09:43 PM
Like who?

Not the actual guys we would get, but the "kind" of players you are talking about.

Like McKey? Rip? Boozer? Mark Pope?

I'm not sure yet. If it were me, a really good backup center would be high on my priority list.

I know we all like AJ Price, but maybe an improvement at the backup PG position, a veteran.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 09:48 PM
No, but you do need a good starting power forward to win, which is what my point is. You said that the other guys are supposed to get us past the first couple rounds. Are far do you expect to get without a really good power forward?

As far as the 4 good players and role players will take us. There's is nothing wrong with a PF by committee gameplan.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 09:50 PM
That didn't answer the question. Where they was picked just only means that they had a higher expected potential. Let me ask again....Did you see KG and Gasol as starting PF's for a contender after their 1st month in the league?

I did answer your question. Not much changed between draft night and the end of their first month into the season, but there was a reason why KG and Gasol were drafted so high. It's the same reason I can see Favors or Cousins starting for a contender in 10 years, but not Dexter Pittman, and probably not Ed Davis or Patrick Patterson.

I don't understand where you're going with this. McRoberts has been in the league 3 years and Hansbrough has played a lot longer than a month, even with all the time he missed last year.

Sookie
11-06-2010, 09:55 PM
I'm not sure yet. If it were me, a really good backup center would be high on my priority list.

I know we all like AJ Price, but maybe an improvement at the backup PG position, a veteran.

If we get a backup PG that once again takes all of AJ's minutes, the Pacers better pray that Collison is in fact the better PG..because I really doubt AJ will stay after three years of this benching for no reason crap..because he's not being benched because guys actually out perform him in practice or in games.

As for what's needed.

Right now. A starting quality shooting guard is needed. Rush or George could be in the future, but neither are now.

A starting quality Power forward. I like Tyler and Josh, but I think we'll need an upgrade there. I'll give it the entire year though to see.

Also, a backup Center, obviously.

clownskull
11-06-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm really disappointed. I honestly thought he was going to play with a chip on his shoulder this season; an unmatched intensity.

He's not a bad player. He's just not what I think we thought he was.

To mention him and Scottie Pippen in the same sentence? Deplorable. Its not fair to Pippen.

yeah, as much of a pacer fan as i am, i gotta agree with you. besides danny being a more consistent 3 point threat and foul shot, pippen is a substantially superior player.

ball handling? pippen wins that so badly, it really isn't close.

attacking the rim and finishing? pippen was considerably better as well.

the better facilitator? once again, pippen wins that by a pretty wide margin. scottie was great at getting teammates involved. danny? not nearly as much.

defense? scottie was well known to bring his defense and was a regular on the all defensive team. danny? when his defense is mentioned, it is usually because he wasn't giving as much effort as he could/should have. granger started out playing pretty good D but it seems to have softened in the last several years.

ksuttonjr76
11-06-2010, 10:02 PM
I did answer your question. Not much changed between draft night and the end of their first month into the season, but there was a reason why KG and Gasol were drafted so high. It's the same reason I can see Favors or Cousins starting for a contender in 10 years, but not Dexter Pittman, and probably not Ed Davis or Patrick Patterson.

I don't understand where you're going with this. McRoberts has been in the league 3 years and Hansbrough has played a lot longer than a month, even with all the time he missed last year.

So, you're basically using the players' draft position to determine if they'll be starters on contending teams, and not their actual performance? What you're basically telling me that every NBA Championship team had 3-5 starters that were high draft picks? Okay :rolleyes:.

To answer your question, McRoberts came into the league as a perceived scrub. Now that he's being given an actual chance and steady minutes, he's shown that he does have usable NBA skills. I can understand your concern about the medical condition, but I haven't seen anything else that suggests that Tyler shouldn't be able to be starter for a contending team in 1-3 years. Tyler was highly decorated with records and awards coming into the league. Players don't get that by accident. They worked at it. Unless Tyler suddenly decides that he don't care, I only expect Tyler to only get better over time and with consistent minutes.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 10:10 PM
Well, why would you? Players very rarely request trades to specific teams, and that usually happens for a couple of reasons:
1) the team is a contender or 2) the team is near their hometown

I just don't see how the opportunity has presented itself for a player to go out of his way to mention Danny specifically as someone they would want to play with. Not to mention, we haven't had the cap space with the Murphleavy contracts.

As for Chuck Person, you'll have to explain because I was too young to remember 87-90. Was the fan base as weak back then?

I have to keep in mind that danny is on your avatar :)

You know - I think if Danny were so good --- we would be a contender and not an also ran. Right? People would see Danny as the ultimate sidekick and want him on their side.

Chuck - I think was in a very similar situation to Danny. A scorer, three point shooter, fun to watch, defenseless. In contrast he was very outspoken. A guy you will be familiar with from that era was Charles Barkley - with whom Chuck played with at Auburn. My point about Chuck, a fan favorite and personal favorite of mine, is that he was playing with a team with a lot of young players, a bit younger than himself: Reggie, Rik Smits, Detlef (who probably was of similar age). Hold on - I'm getting a phone call. More later.

tsm612
11-06-2010, 10:14 PM
So, you're basically using the players' draft position to determine if they'll be starters on contending teams, and not their actual performance? What you're basically telling me that every NBA Championship team had 3-5 starters that were high draft picks? Okay :rolleyes:.

To answer your question, McRoberts came into the league as a perceived scrub. Now that he's being given an actual chance and steady minutes, he's shown that he does have usable NBA skills. I can understand your concern about the medical condition, but I haven't seen anything else that suggests that Tyler shouldn't be able to be starter for a contending team in 1-3 years. Tyler was highly decorated with records and awards coming into the league. Players don't get that by accident. They worked at it. Unless Tyler suddenly decides that he don't care, I only expect Tyler to only get better over time and with consistent minutes.

I'm basing the players perceived potential off their draft position, because at that stage in their careers, that's all anyone can do. But I do believe that someone on here around draft time put together a list of championship winning teams to show that all of them have had a really high pick (I wanna say top 5, but don't remember for sure). Of course McRoberts has usable NBA skills, as most professional NBA players do, but that doesn't mean he could start for a contender.

As for Tyler, I think he is an exceptionally good player and a very strong worker. My concern is largely about the way he plays, and if he can sustain it having already suffered a concussion. Will he be more likely to get another? If he does, will he have to alter his game or quit playing altogether? Even if he does remain healthy, though, I'm still not convinced that he's capable of being the starter we need in the long run.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 10:16 PM
So with regards to Chuck - I think he was to some degree the unspoken leader. I think to some degree other players deferred to him. I think also he got away with playing crappy defense. I think the situations are somewhat identical.

Chuck had a heck of a lot of supporters. He was a far more emotional guy and really loved Indy in a way that I don't see out of Danny. I believe Donnie Walsh describes trading Chuck as the most difficult thing he's ever done.

Have no doubt, trading Danny would be a career defining move for Larry Bird were the right offer to come along. I'm not even sure that Larry has enough authority or tenure to really look to trade Danny.

My thoughts though, is that Danny is a guy for the here and now. The Pacers are a squad for tomorrow. And really for next week. Danny needs to be on a team where he can either fill some seats or play for a contender and have guys like KG or Tim Duncan or even Amare Stoudamire get on his case if he doesn't play within a system. In otherwords, accountability. He has none here.

Gamble1
11-06-2010, 10:27 PM
Fair enough - but if I may equate - pushing him to play defense is like asking a waiter to serve his/her customer a beverage. Does he really need to be pushed to do 100% of his job?

He should take pride in his game and his brand. There was sooo much buzz about Danny league wide 3 years ago, and there is a reason it has gone away.

Another coach might push him. Sure. Larry Brown I'm sure would, for instance. But why does DG lack the self motivation?
I think losing a lot can have a negative affect on players. In any case I think Bird would be willing to trade danny for equal value. Is he going to get it? I highly doubt it.

IMO Danny is a very good player that may not become a great player and at 12 million a year I can deal with that. These sort of discussions are premature IMO.

Edit: Wasn't Boston considering trading away Paul Pierce before they got Allen and KG? I can't remember but Danny sort of reminds me of Pierce in his losing days.

Edit X 2: Found this article about Pierce. http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/06/05/moment_of_truth/
This reaffirms my belief that we should stick with Danny.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 10:39 PM
Edit: Wasn't Boston considering trading away Paul Pierce before they got Allen and KG? I can't remember but Danny sort of reminds me of Pierce in his losing days.

If he played some defense maybe we wouldn't lose so much? ;)

Interesting and possibly fair comparison with Paul Pierce. Maybe we could get Cordobes to comment on similarities.

woowoo
11-06-2010, 10:41 PM
I think losing a lot can have a negative affect on players. In any case I think Bird would be willing to trade danny for equal value. Is he going to get it? I highly doubt it.

IMO Danny is a very good player that may not become a great player and at 12 million a year I can deal with that. These sort of discussions are premature IMO.

Edit: Wasn't Boston considering trading away Paul Pierce before they got Allen and KG? I can't remember but Danny sort of reminds me of Pierce in his losing days.

Edit X 2: Found this article about Pierce. http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2008/06/05/moment_of_truth/
This reaffirms my belief that we should stick with Danny.

obviously....

DavisBoyz3233
11-06-2010, 10:47 PM
You know I've debated this with my friends and dad for awhile now, I've gone back and forth saying I think we should trade him, no I think we should keep him. I'm sticking with the side on keeping him because becoming a superstar doesn't happen overnight. Just because Danny isn't a vocal leader doesn't mean he's not a leader either. Look at Reggie he wasn't one to be very vocal in the locker room but he got the job done. You get a right coach and system in here along with a few more players to build around Danny you have yourselves a very young and dangerous team, do I think they could win a title w/o a getting a superstar? No but if you get several 4 star talents and develop the young ones like hibbert collison george to go along with Granger then ya you have a championship caliber team thats for sure.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 10:47 PM
woowoo who is that on your avatar?

Gamble1
11-06-2010, 10:49 PM
If he played some defense maybe we wouldn't lose so much? ;)

Interesting and possibly fair comparison with Paul Pierce. Maybe we could get Cordobes to comment on similarities.
Don't get me wrong, i would take Pierce in a heart beat over Granger but the difference again is that Danny is making 12-13 million. Paul even on a losing team was making 20 mill. I could see you going off on Bird if he gave Danny a 20 mill/year extension and then the team goes 24-58 like the 06-07 Celtics.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 10:52 PM
I never liked Paul Pierce, so its hard to be impartial here...

Kuq_e_Zi91
11-06-2010, 10:57 PM
So with regards to Chuck - I think he was to some degree the unspoken leader. I think to some degree other players deferred to him. I think also he got away with playing crappy defense. I think the situations are somewhat identical.

Chuck had a heck of a lot of supporters. He was a far more emotional guy and really loved Indy in a way that I don't see out of Danny. I believe Donnie Walsh describes trading Chuck as the most difficult thing he's ever done.

Have no doubt, trading Danny would be a career defining move for Larry Bird were the right offer to come along. I'm not even sure that Larry has enough authority or tenure to really look to trade Danny.

My thoughts though, is that Danny is a guy for the here and now. The Pacers are a squad for tomorrow. And really for next week. Danny needs to be on a team where he can either fill some seats or play for a contender and have guys like KG or Tim Duncan or even Amare Stoudamire get on his case if he doesn't play within a system. In otherwords, accountability. He has none here.

This is why I love PD. We can be on two completely different sides of the debate and I still completely understand what you're saying. I appreciate you explaining the Person comparison for me.

I completely agree on the accountability and I think it's an excellent observation. Additionally, if you believe Danny has an ego, then it's hard to imagine him feeling accountable later on.

In fact, I think we agree on who Danny is. I don't think he can be your clear-cut first option, either. We just disagree on the next step of the process; keeping him and building around him or using him to build.

Gamble hit it on the head when he compared him to Pierce. The Celtics "Big 3" is my preferred scenario. I think Roy can be that other go-to option, we need to find the third one. Whether we do that through free agency or another trade, I don't know, but I think that's our best bet at developing a respectable team again.

Gamble1
11-06-2010, 10:58 PM
I never liked Paul Pierce, so its hard to be impartial here...
I never liked him either but he just struck me as a similar player talent wise with a similar losing history. I do believe though he needed help just like danny does and in the case of Boston it paid off to stick with Pierce.

Haywoode Workman
11-06-2010, 11:11 PM
I'm basing the players perceived potential off their draft position, because at that stage in their careers, that's all anyone can do. But I do believe that someone on here around draft time put together a list of championship winning teams to show that all of them have had a really high pick (I wanna say top 5, but don't remember for sure). Of course McRoberts has usable NBA skills, as most professional NBA players do, but that doesn't mean he could start for a contender.

As for Tyler, I think he is an exceptionally good player and a very strong worker. My concern is largely about the way he plays, and if he can sustain it having already suffered a concussion. Will he be more likely to get another? If he does, will he have to alter his game or quit playing altogether? Even if he does remain healthy, though, I'm still not convinced that he's capable of being the starter we need in the long run.

If anyone remembers the list tsm is talking about regarding the championship teams and their draft picks, or could find/compose something similar I would be really interested in seeing it. I would literally "thanks" every post I came across of that person. I've been browsing with my droid lately because my pitbull reggie pissed on my macbook and destroyed it, so it would be pretty hard to track that info down.

I would really hate to see danny go and now wouldn't be a smart time to try and trade him any way. If we did ship him off, it would need to be for a hight draft pick or a promising young big. Not a veteran backup pg or center that's just silly.

Gamble1
11-06-2010, 11:23 PM
This is why I love PD. We can be on two completely different sides of the debate and I still completely understand what you're saying. I appreciate you explaining the Person comparison for me.

I completely agree on the accountability and I think it's an excellent observation. Additionally, if you believe Danny has an ego, then it's hard to imagine him feeling accountable later on.

In fact, I think we agree on who Danny is. I don't think he can be your clear-cut first option, either. We just disagree on the next step of the process; keeping him and building around him or using him to build.

Gamble hit it on the head when he compared him to Pierce. The Celtics "Big 3" is my preferred scenario. I think Roy can be that other go-to option, we need to find the third one. Whether we do that through free agency or another trade, I don't know, but I think that's our best bet at developing a respectable team again.

Well to be fair to the Celtics their team was more than Allen, Pierce and KG. Rondo really was the catalyst for that team and as much as I like Collison I wouldn't compare him to Rondo. I do agree though that we should be able to pick up a guy that contributes much like Allen does for the celts.

Sookie
11-06-2010, 11:27 PM
Well to be fair to the Celtics their team was more than Allen, Pierce and KG. Rondo really was the catalyst for that team and as much as I like Collison I wouldn't compare him to Rondo. I do agree though that we should be able to pick up a guy that contributes much like Allen does for the celts.

Rondo wasn't the catalyst for them when they won. He is now (he's their best player now) But he was quite young, and that team was "the Big 3s"

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 11:28 PM
I would literally "thanks" every post I came across of that person. I've been browsing with my droid lately because my pitbull reggie pissed on my macbook and destroyed it, so it would be pretty hard to track that info down.


sorry to hear about your notebook. but this is the funniest **** i have read on here in a while. its the funniest thing i can remember since ck louis the ****tiest generation

Kuq_e_Zi91
11-06-2010, 11:30 PM
Well to be fair to the Celtics their team was more than Allen, Pierce and KG. Rondo really was the catalyst for that team and as much as I like Collison I wouldn't compare him to Rondo. I do agree though that we should be able to pick up a guy that contributes much like Allen does for the celts.

Their defense was(is) excellent too.

I'm not saying we can be comparable, just that we should look to model after their formula of having three guys that can step up on any given night, depending on who is feeling it or certain match-ups.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 11:31 PM
This is why I love PD. We can be on two completely different sides of the debate and I still completely understand what you're saying. I appreciate you explaining the Person comparison for me.



I was talking to Hicks about this a few weeks ago.

I'm so impressed with how maturely this thread has developed. Its possibly one of the most polar subjects around outside of Jim O'Brien and the Tyler JMac soap opera.

Thanks to the contributors to this thread. While my opinion hasn't quite changed, I feel more enlightened by the discussion.

Kaufman
11-06-2010, 11:33 PM
Well to be fair to the Celtics their team was more than Allen, Pierce and KG. Rondo really was the catalyst for that team and as much as I like Collison I wouldn't compare him to Rondo. I do agree though that we should be able to pick up a guy that contributes much like Allen does for the celts.

Sort of a better version of Byron Scott, or Chris Mullin maybe. Point taken.

Getting a KG like player - another story.

croz24
11-06-2010, 11:33 PM
to be fair to pierce, he did happen to lead the celtics to an ecf appearance prior to allen and garnett's arrival.

Scot Pollard
11-06-2010, 11:37 PM
whoever started this thread is talking out of there ***

tsm612
11-07-2010, 12:04 AM
If anyone remembers the list tsm is talking about regarding the championship teams and their draft picks, or could find/compose something similar I would be really interested in seeing it. I would literally "thanks" every post I came across of that person. I've been browsing with my droid lately because my pitbull reggie pissed on my macbook and destroyed it, so it would be pretty hard to track that info down.

I would really hate to see danny go and now wouldn't be a smart time to try and trade him any way. If we did ship him off, it would need to be for a hight draft pick or a promising young big. Not a veteran backup pg or center that's just silly.

I'll see if I can find the original post about the championship teams and their draft picks. It had to have been posted during the end of the season when we went on a run, because It was used in the argument about whether or not we should tank for a high draft pick.

Peck
11-07-2010, 12:34 AM
In case your wondering, yes during the 92-93 season several of us were having this same exact conversation. However the subject of those trade talks was Reggie Miller.

That was his 6th season in the NBA, our team was stuck going nowhere and it was argued that Reggie should have been able to do something/anything to break our team out of the dregs.

I'll say now what I said then, no player is untouchable until you are a team that is competing for a title (Miller or Granger) but you dang well better be able to bring back better & not equal talent. Now you can make the argument that you might be able to bring back equal talent at a different position if you believe that you have an equal player to back up the traded player, but I'm sorry I don't see that anywhere on our team.

We hope George is going to be good but at the end of the day the top end of Paul George is probably Danny Granger. So to me it then becomes the Bulls trading away Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler hoping that some day Chandler turns into.... well Elton Brand.

Also while it may be chic to think and compare Person to this situation there are a couple of major & I mean major differances.

1. The trade happened after Chuck had a locker room meltdown in which he shoved Dave Overpeck (Indianapolis Star reporter) into a trash can. Also it was well known the Chuck & Reggie were at best cool towards one another and rumor has it Chuck made the huge monumental mistake of actually going to Donnie with a him or me demand. That last part is rumor the first two are fact as reported in the Indy star at the time.

2. Our club had no public image in Indiana. In other words we were just losers to most people but were not hated because of other issues. That has not been the case for our team and frankly one of the reasons the team has been able to climb up out of the muck & mire of its reputation is that they leanded heavily on Danny Granger to help with P.R.

Danny's has been a P.R. dream for the club up until he made the twitter gaff this summer while playing for team USA. BTW, let me say that last part again playing for team USA & yes I'm sure someone is going to make the cute comment about him not actually playing but guess what I can think of about 100 other players who would probably have killed to had the chance to sit on the bench & play sparingly for their country.

Now having said all of that I will say that if you can bring in someone of a higher caliber or a top draft pick then if you think it will improve the club the sure. Nobody is untouchable.

But unless you are making a championship move then what is the point of lateral talent movement with a real possible negative fan reaction.

MLB007
11-07-2010, 01:08 AM
Since this topic has been brought up in the past I will respond with what i have said before. You trade players to get something in return of value. When a player is not going to help your team achieve their desired goal then trade him for pieces that will. If you said I want to trade Granger for Jefferson straight up I would have said no thank you, but if you said here is a young prospect with a smaller contract with a 1st round high draft pick I seriously would think about it.

Their contracts have to match......

Unclebuck
11-07-2010, 06:56 AM
Trade Granger? Sure if we can get a better player. But that isthe ame with almost every player in the NBA.

I will say after the first 3 games Granger was playingbetter than I've ever seen him, then he played two bad games in a row

Kaufman
11-07-2010, 07:33 AM
Trade Granger? Sure if we can get a better player. But that isthe ame with almost every player in the NBA.

I will say after the first 3 games Granger was playingbetter than I've ever seen him, then he played two bad games in a row

No way. Its not the same. Few posters here would feel comfortable trading Hibbert, Collison, or George. I think we would want an inequivically much MORE value than they are worth by comparison.

What's my point? The fact that you even consider trading DG signals a change in attitude from the fan base. In my opinion, it signifies the lack of hope and promise we once had. Its sort of a laissez faire attitude that is frankly sad. I didn't want to feel this way about Danny, especially after his season two years ago.

Blink
11-07-2010, 07:48 AM
No way. Its not the same. Few posters here would feel comfortable trading Hibbert, Collison, or George. I think we would want an inequivically much MORE value than they are worth by comparison.

What's my point? The fact that you even consider trading DG signals a change in attitude from the fan base. In my opinion, it signifies the lack of hope and promise we once had. Its sort of a laissez faire attitude that is frankly sad. I didn't want to feel this way about Danny, especially after his season two years ago.

Sorry, but I disagree. I would guess that for most fans there is no "attitude change"; we have a better idea now of what Granger's ceiling is, and we also have better parts around him. With Paul George waiting in the wings there is the perception that we could trade Granger for a player at a different position and still be a contender in a few years. You could not have said that two years ago.

Why would you trade George unless it was for someone with much more value? We have no idea what his ceiling is. Why would you trade a young center who is the new de facto team leader? You'd be a bad gm.

Kaufman
11-07-2010, 08:09 AM
Sorry, but I disagree. I would guess that for most fans there is no "attitude change"; we have a better idea now of what Granger's ceiling is, and we also have better parts around him. With Paul George waiting in the wings there is the perception that we could trade Granger for a player at a different position and still be a contender in a few years. You could not have said that two years ago.

Why would you trade George unless it was for someone with much more value? We have no idea what his ceiling is. Why would you trade a young center who is the new de facto team leader? You'd be a bad gm.


I'm pretty sure you just made all of my points for me??

Gamble1
11-07-2010, 10:43 AM
No way. Its not the same. Few posters here would feel comfortable trading Hibbert, Collison, or George. I think we would want an inequivically much MORE value than they are worth by comparison.

What's my point? The fact that you even consider trading DG signals a change in attitude from the fan base. In my opinion, it signifies the lack of hope and promise we once had. Its sort of a laissez faire attitude that is frankly sad. I didn't want to feel this way about Danny, especially after his season two years ago.
I think a lot of posters here would be fine with upgrading any and all positions on our team including the coach.

I wouldn't confuse trading/upgrading granger with "we don't see him as a part of the future". The problem that I have is that you are not talking about upgrading but trading for more talent that is unproven in hopes that they pan out. Some bets are hedge and this isn't one of them IMO.

The nets did this with Vince Carter and it didn't work out. I mean Rafer Alston, Tony Battie, and Courtney Lee :rolleyes:. How many examles can you come up with when a team has traded away there best player for prospects and the team competes 4-5 years after for a confrenece championship. You can bring up the thunder who traded away Allen but unless you can make a case that we can draft the best small forward since Lebron then i don't think you have an argument.

Infinite MAN_force
11-07-2010, 11:30 AM
In case your wondering, yes during the 92-93 season several of us were having this same exact conversation. However the subject of those trade talks was Reggie Miller.

That was his 6th season in the NBA, our team was stuck going nowhere and it was argued that Reggie should have been able to do something/anything to break our team out of the dregs.

I'll say now what I said then, no player is untouchable until you are a team that is competing for a title (Miller or Granger) but you dang well better be able to bring back better & not equal talent. Now you can make the argument that you might be able to bring back equal talent at a different position if you believe that you have an equal player to back up the traded player, but I'm sorry I don't see that anywhere on our team.

We hope George is going to be good but at the end of the day the top end of Paul George is probably Danny Granger. So to me it then becomes the Bulls trading away Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler hoping that some day Chandler turns into.... well Elton Brand.

Also while it may be chic to think and compare Person to this situation there are a couple of major & I mean major differances.

1. The trade happened after Chuck had a locker room meltdown in which he shoved Dave Overpeck (Indianapolis Star reporter) into a trash can. Also it was well known the Chuck & Reggie were at best cool towards one another and rumor has it Chuck made the huge monumental mistake of actually going to Donnie with a him or me demand. That last part is rumor the first two are fact as reported in the Indy star at the time.

2. Our club had no public image in Indiana. In other words we were just losers to most people but were not hated because of other issues. That has not been the case for our team and frankly one of the reasons the team has been able to climb up out of the muck & mire of its reputation is that they leanded heavily on Danny Granger to help with P.R.

Danny's has been a P.R. dream for the club up until he made the twitter gaff this summer while playing for team USA. BTW, let me say that last part again playing for team USA & yes I'm sure someone is going to make the cute comment about him not actually playing but guess what I can think of about 100 other players who would probably have killed to had the chance to sit on the bench & play sparingly for their country.

Now having said all of that I will say that if you can bring in someone of a higher caliber or a top draft pick then if you think it will improve the club the sure. Nobody is untouchable.

But unless you are making a championship move then what is the point of lateral talent movement with a real possible negative fan reaction.

I didn't bother to read most of this thread, but I'm glad I caught this post. This is really all that needs to be said on this subject.

Shade
11-07-2010, 01:59 PM
I'm wary of trading almost anyone until we get a good coach in here first.

Kaufman
11-07-2010, 02:49 PM
I'm wary of trading almost anyone until we get a good coach in here first.

it is hard to disagree with this concept as well.

graphic-er
11-07-2010, 11:52 PM
Exactly. I'm not necessarily ready to trade him yet, either, but I have to admit that I'm beginning to move closer and closer to that idea. How much longer will it be acceptable for him to be in a slump? How much longer can people make excuses for him? If this is what we get out of Danny for the rest of his career, at what point will everyone unanimously begin to complain that we should have traded him when the value was high?

What in the world? A slump? They guy had 2 bad games after shooting over 50% in the first 3! His last game was respectable except for the TOs. I mean damn, what does the guy have to to do? Its 5 games!


I agree, It has been 3 years now since Danny blew up and since then he has simply been a poor D player, a non vocal LEADER, and strictly a 3 pt shooter.

He simply got paid and now plays as if he does not care whether Indiana wins or loses. Hibbert is out there making mistakes but it is obvious HE is the leader of this team.

Wow your opinions are offensive

1. Its been 2 years since he blew up. 2008-09 season was his All-star hear. This would be the 3rd year currently, so the 3rd year has not happened yet.
2. He played solid D in that 2008 season. His D took a step back last season because he was hurt in his plantar Fascia to start the season. Feet are most important body part for a basketball player, if your feet are injured then you are in trouble. So his entire game suffered because it. He took more 3's because of it. Never mind he still gave us 24 pts a game. His D has been pretty solid this year if you have actually watched the games. There are certain aspects of his D that still lag behind, like closing out on shooter. But if you notice this is a team wide issue, which makes me think it part of the coaching.

Now Leadership may be a valid argument, but he has said that this is something he has been mindful of over the summer and is going to improve on this season. So lets talk about it when they have played 25 games or so.

I'll leave it with this. People talk about the star players making everyone better and willing their teams to victory.....Well I will tell you that not even Reggie Miller in his prime could have willed this team to the playoffs over the last few years. This has been a pitiful franchise for the last 4-5 years, and the only bright spot prior to this season has been Danny Granger.

15th parallel
11-08-2010, 12:40 AM
What is with you people that wanted Danny to be traded after ONLY TWO bad games?

Like some have said already, Danny played THREE GOOD GAMES to start the season. Good offense, good defense, good shot selection, good overall game.

In the last game, he really have looked out of focus but he's not lazy. Given the fact that he still had 19 pts, 9 reb, and 2 blks, and attempted only 3 treys with 0 made (correct me if I'm wrong here). That's pretty decent stat line for a lazy player IMO.

And what's the most realistic, yet Pacer-advantage trade involving Danny? Multiple first picks plus fillers? Al Jefferson? Carmelo Anthony? Danny have played well over the last few years considering the fact that he had injuries to bear, not much help on offense and defense, and pretty inconsistent lineup changes to accommodate.

Rather than trading Danny, we should be looking into adding a legit "star" (in terms of production) next to Granger. Right now there is still none, although there is potential on Roy, Collison, George, Josh and Tyler when they develop into something special. There is no team in recent NBA histoy (correct me if I'm wrong) that has won a championship with only 1 star player.

tsm612
11-08-2010, 07:24 AM
What in the world? A slump? They guy had 2 bad games after shooting over 50% in the first 3! His last game was respectable except for the TOs. I mean damn, what does the guy have to to do? Its 5 games!



Wow your opinions are offensive

1. Its been 2 years since he blew up. 2008-09 season was his All-star hear. This would be the 3rd year currently, so the 3rd year has not happened yet.
2. He played solid D in that 2008 season. His D took a step back last season because he was hurt in his plantar Fascia to start the season. Feet are most important body part for a basketball player, if your feet are injured then you are in trouble. So his entire game suffered because it. He took more 3's because of it. Never mind he still gave us 24 pts a game. His D has been pretty solid this year if you have actually watched the games. There are certain aspects of his D that still lag behind, like closing out on shooter. But if you notice this is a team wide issue, which makes me think it part of the coaching.

Now Leadership may be a valid argument, but he has said that this is something he has been mindful of over the summer and is going to improve on this season. So lets talk about it when they have played 25 games or so.

I'll leave it with this. People talk about the star players making everyone better and willing their teams to victory.....Well I will tell you that not even Reggie Miller in his prime could have willed this team to the playoffs over the last few years. This has been a pitiful franchise for the last 4-5 years, and the only bright spot prior to this season has been Danny Granger.


What is with you people that wanted Danny to be traded after ONLY TWO bad games?

Like some have said already, Danny played THREE GOOD GAMES to start the season. Good offense, good defense, good shot selection, good overall game.

In the last game, he really have looked out of focus but he's not lazy. Given the fact that he still had 19 pts, 9 reb, and 2 blks, and attempted only 3 treys with 0 made (correct me if I'm wrong here). That's pretty decent stat line for a lazy player IMO.

And what's the most realistic, yet Pacer-advantage trade involving Danny? Multiple first picks plus fillers? Al Jefferson? Carmelo Anthony? Danny have played well over the last few years considering the fact that he had injuries to bear, not much help on offense and defense, and pretty inconsistent lineup changes to accommodate.

Rather than trading Danny, we should be looking into adding a legit "star" (in terms of production) next to Granger. Right now there is still none, although there is potential on Roy, Collison, George, Josh and Tyler when they develop into something special. There is no team in recent NBA histoy (correct me if I'm wrong) that has won a championship with only 1 star player.

Ok, now this is really starting to get irritating. Does nobody read threads anymore, or just cherry pick posts to disagree with? I feel like this is the fourth time I'm writing this post, but no one's suggesting we trade Granger based on his performance from the last two games. It's because of his play and leadership over the last couple years, and whether or not he can be the player we thought he was, or that he needs to be. And like I said in the earlier post, about people making excuses, the injuries are valid one to bring up, but that's another reason why I think we should consider trading him. He missed large portions of the last two seasons. He stepped up and played really aggressively in a preseason game against the Hornets and sprained his ankle. He's beginning to look more and more fragile, and I have wondered if that had anything to do with his lack of aggressiveness and defense. Yes, he has been off to a pretty good start for the season, other than the last couple games, but this is something some of us have been talking about before the season even started.

I'm not even suggesting that we trade Danny, but that we should be open to the idea of trading him if it means we can solve our power forward/back up center problems long term. It's a much more difficult spot to fill and is far more important. The idea isn't that Granger needs to go, but rather that he might be able to land us better talent at a position of greater need. You have to give up value to get value. I don't know how everyone expects to get a star to go next to Granger, especially without being willing to give anything up. Even if we were to build through the draft, it will take a few years for any player to develop if they even pan out at all. At that point, Danny will be well past his prime on a team that's much, much younger than him, and he will have little value. If Danny keeps giving us the same play that we've seen the last couple years, or has another injury, and all we have to remember about his time here is that we were stuck fighting to make the playoffs, we're going to regret not trading him while his value was at its highest. Remember, he's in his prime now. If we're not going to be contending for several years, then we're wasting his time as well. Trading him to a contender, or near contender looking to get over the hump quickly, could end up being beneficial to Danny and the Pacers.

That's all I'm going to add to this thread. I just keep repeating myself to people who join the conversation insisting that we're demanding that he be traded because of two games of poor play.

Trophy
11-08-2010, 07:39 AM
I can't believe this thread is still having action.

Danny needs to score big and limit his turnovers so this discussion will end.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 12:49 PM
i hear ya sfm, but still, agh. part of being a good/great player is adaptability. play the system. you're getting paid to do so. if you don't like the coach then don't sign the extension or contract. nobody is holding a gun to your head.


Or go to Bird and ask to be traded.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 01:25 PM
What really grinds my gears , is that in less than 10 games into the season, people are already showing their fickle , wishy washy selves on alot of our players.. including our main guy Danny ... So what's next?? After Roy or DC has 3 or 4 stinker games in a row.. are they next to jump ship on?!?!? For heaven's sake.. It is ok to discuss disappointment , but come on.. This is the #1 trait that makes me ashamed of my fellow Indiana Pacer's fans.. It's like ya'll enjoy sitting on the middle of the fence.. and one minute you jump to one side saying/thinking a player is the best thing since sliced cheese... Then the next minute, if one of our players play subpar , they are the great satan himself , and should be traded or packaged as a sweetener , and run out of town.. For someone else's crap or unknown/unproven draft picks.


The intent of my post is NOT to call anyone out or offend... But it just bothers me quite a bit .. Also , knowing the fact that Pacers players , read PD , it makes me ashamed...


If I were Danny , and I saw this thread , I wouldn't know what to think..

Give the man a break.....




While unlikely ...

Also.. what if? What if he was very unhappy with Coach JOB? He is just standing up for what 90% of what the fans want ... and that is JOB replaced....

And what kinda gratitude does he receive?

A thread about trading him..


I am not even saying any of this is the case.. but it makes one think..




Even if he was trying to make a point , and show his unhappiness.. I dont think it is the right way to go about it , afterall he IS getting payed to play well...

I dunno , but all these threads about trading players or whatnot every time they have a few bad games is getting tiring....
..
.


Yes, but it isn't the 1st time this has been discussed. Croz 24 is right, it was discussed last year. There MUST be a reason why these threads keep popping up. Granger is a nice player, but he's not the type of player that takes a team to a championship. He's a star quality player just not a STAR.

Has no one else noticed the change in Granger since the 08-09 season? I don't like what I see in Granger's attitude and play. It has changed. Last year he became a 3 point chucker. I gave him a pass of sorts b/c he had been injured. He's not injured this season, and I'm not pleased nor impressed with game. Sure he can score, but what's wrong with doing the other things as well? There is more to BB than putting the ball in the hoop.

If Granger is unhappy with Jimmy and his coaching, then man up and go to Bird with his displeasure. If Bird and Granger can't work out the problem, then Granger needs to privately ask to be traded. I don't want an unhappy player wearing a Pacers uni, or one who isn't giving it their all. It wouldn't be the 1st time a Pacer player has asked to be traded, and the wheels didn't fall of when they were traded either.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Alot of you crack me up. Trade your best player because hes not a superstar. Trade your best player because hes not Scottie Pippen. Trade your only All-star because he has had a bad game or 2. Trade your Team USA player because your team has lost a couple of games in a row. Im sure if the Pacers want to trade Danny, they will have at least 25 teams that are interested. Should be no problem especially given his contract is thought to be one of the better values for non-rookie contracts.

Seriously, some of you need to step back from the ledge. Better yet, step back from the computer. These are not likely going to be the only ugly or heartbreaking losses we have this year. Just like any other year. Every team has them. Every team. Even the championship teams lose games you would never think they would lose. Our record alone against the Lakers and Celtics the last couple of years should be evidence enough of that fact.

Yea. We want to be better so lets trade our best player. Makes perfectly good sense.

Not.


Why do you assume it's b/c the Pacers have lost 2 games? Why can't it be like I previously posted that Granger isn't the same player he was in 08-09? What did Granger do last year to improve his game? What have you seen this year that makes you think Granger has improved his game? How does Granger make is teammates better? These are very valid questions that need to be thought about.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 01:50 PM
Meanwhile, Pacers management will continue to try and find another Danny to add to the team versus getting rid of their best player and making the task of making the Pacers better even more difficult.


If they do, I hope it's a player than can do more than shoot 3ptrs and score. Those that can play "D" and take pride it doing so. Those that can give 100% each and every game. Those that can make their teammates better. Then I'm all for it! If it takes Granger to get those players, then so be it.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 01:55 PM
Dan Dakich made a great point in the pre season... "your best player should set the "tone" in practice and on the court, on D and O"

Does Danny do this?


Not the present Granger. How many remember how high Artest was on Granger his rookie year... on both sides of the ball?

jhondog28
11-08-2010, 02:02 PM
As previously stated in this thread. I am not saying Granger is not a good player, I just think that everyone on this team is available for trade for the the right price. I think you could package Dunleavy with his expiring and Granger together and get something significant in return. I will save my ideas for the trade threads.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:07 PM
Again, does everybody just read the thread title and just assume they know what the discussion is about? I'm pretty sure there isn't anyone here that's basing this solely on Granger's last two games.


Bingo, we gotta winner!

jhondog28
11-08-2010, 02:10 PM
Bingo, we gotta winner!

Most threads on this board are based within short term memory. If Granger scores 40 we have a comparison thread about which star he is comparable to. If he scores 7 then we see these threads. I have seen the same patterns for the past 3 years.

Trophy
11-08-2010, 02:10 PM
Since this is a thread about Danny, I hope everything is okay with his personal life.

He didn't seem focused and it looked like he was zoning out when he was dribbling the ball causing him to be careless.

Whatever is going on, I hope it gets resolved soon and Danny plays like himself.

jhondog28
11-08-2010, 02:12 PM
Since this is a thread about Danny, I hope everything is okay with his personal life.

He didn't seem focused and it looked like he was zoning out when he was dribbling the ball causing him to be careless.

Whatever is going on, I hope it gets resolved soon and Danny plays like himself.

Personal life? Huh? How did that get brought up?

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:13 PM
I haven't written them off at all, but do you really see either of them starting for the Lakers or Celtics? Not even right now, but with your Pacers kool aid glasses on. With all of the upside we think they may have, in a few years down the line, do you really think they could start for a contender? I don't think so, but I could see them coming off the bench for a contender.


YES! And that contender could be the Pacers if they could trade Granger for a GOOD quality PF who could play some Center too plus some young talent and a pick.

RWB
11-08-2010, 02:15 PM
Also while it may be chic to think and compare Person to this situation there are a couple of major & I mean major differances.


And while the Pacers have tried to push Danny as the face of this franchise, back in the day Chuck did it with his bravado and had no problem letting folks know to look out for the brash young Pacers. He did before Reggie stepped out of the shadows. Danny is an introvert and will never be that player. Oh, and no I'm not ready to trade him because of that.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:17 PM
what was said about jeff green is that given the same opportunity as granger, he could put up similar numbers. but check this out, so far this year here is the comparison...

jeff green - 19.4ppg 7.2rpg on 44fg% 2.0topg
danny granger - 21.4ppg 5.8rpg on 42.7fg% 3.4topg

not very different huh? actually, you could argue green is off to the better start. just saying...


Yeah, but Green didn't play yesterday, and one of my fav young'ns did. Ibaka had 8 pts and 11 rebs, and he plays "D" too.

Trophy
11-08-2010, 02:26 PM
Personal life? Huh? How did that get brought up?

Maybe he has something on his mind because he doesn't look like himself at all.

Just a thought.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:27 PM
I'm not even sure that Larry has enough authority or tenure to really look to trade Danny.


More importantly, I don't see Bird having the ballz to make such a decision if he has the authority.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:39 PM
to be fair to pierce, he did happen to lead the celtics to an ecf appearance prior to allen and garnett's arrival.


UB says he had a great coach too.

Justin Tyme
11-08-2010, 02:52 PM
Whatever is going on, I hope it gets resolved soon and Danny plays like himself.



I couldn't agree more. He's just not the BB player he was a couple of years ago for whatever reason.

daschysta
11-08-2010, 03:19 PM
I think that most people would agree that the Danny of two years ago was a excellent player that could be a key part of this franchise, possibly the best player in a solid ensemble cast. Last year Danny was hampered visibly by injuries, and when healthy played some of the best ball of his career.

The first 3 games of this year granger played AMAZINGLY offensively, as in the best i've ever seen him play on that end, when you take shot selection, hustle and everything into account. The last two games have been bad, the one before last SO bad that it can be nothing other than an abhorrently bad night shooters sometimes get. Yet last game Granger got 9 rebounds and played decent defense, and people complain an awful lot about his overall package when you take into account that he is one of the very few in the league that average in excess of 1 steal and one block per game. Granger is also average defensively, NOT BAD, he simply needs another player capable of guarding the number one offensive threat from the perimeter on the other side cough rush cough*. Granger is also capable of playing amazing defense when driven to, and I wouldn't underestimate what he is capable of in a high stakes game like one in the playoffs.

I know that most people are not advocating this supposed shop danny idea based on the last two games, but there isn't much in his history to suggest trying to trade him otherwise. You say "sell high" but stars NEVER get equal value in return. See Kevin Garnett, Shaq, Gasol, the proposed deals for carmelo etc.... The contenders that could use him to put them over the top typically don't have the young talented studs that we would want for him, and a team that isn't near or at that level likely won't trade young studs (especially big men) for him if he won't put them over the top.

You guys seriously overestimate the number of players that even have the potential to be Danny someday. I'm not for trading Danny for some unknown youth whose ceiling, which they aren't assured to reach by any means, is not much better than Granger anyhow. Danny is a legit second tier star that can be a big piece in the foundation of a playoff team, provided the right amount of talent around him. Danny is 27 years old, and just entering his prime. If our young talent is as good as we think it is then we could conceivably be competing in the second round of the playoffs in 2 years, when granger is only 29, and as a shooter, and a crafty penetrator as opposed to someone who relies on athleticism Danny (barring injuries) should age better than other stars who rely more on their physical gifts.

Next Danny is on a steal of a contract, so getting equal value for him is even more unlikely, as most players of his caliber (especially the equally talented big man that is available that some are fabricating, and compare his contract to Rudy Gay's or Joe Johnsons) are getting paid substantially more, and would thus require the pacers to ship out additional assets, as noone is going to take on dead weight in such a trade. With grangers contract it is logical, even more so than usual, to try to put pieces around him.

While there are some deals you just have to take, and noone is untouchable, there are even more factors against shopping/ actively seekinga trade for Danny. Trading Danny at this point, would be seen as a rebuilding move by the average fan, who has heard all about the 3 year plan 3 years ago, and is finally starting to be excited about the team. Starting a rebuilding move NOW would be disastrous from a PR perspective, and inconclusive at best from a basketball perspective.

If you insist on advocating trading Danny the best time would be after seeing Paul George actually produce in a large role, when the fan can percieve George as Granger's heir, and granger can then be traded for another player at some position of need.

I'd give the team a chance under a new coach. Collison abolutely has the abiltiy to thrive in a point guard centric system with Roy as the secondry playmaker, creating open shots and scoring opportunity for Granger. The team will suprise people, i think, then, and I still think we will make the playoffs this year. We're young. We will have some rough patches, but we will be rewarded by the increasing role of our youth, and some good wins too. Danny will be a huge part of that.

daschysta
11-08-2010, 04:11 PM
Favors and williams would be a really good deal, Favors is showing his skills sooner than people though and has a huge ceiling, but alas at this point i doubt the nets do it.

Part Timer
11-08-2010, 06:34 PM
YES! And that contender could be the Pacers if they could trade Granger for a GOOD quality PF who could play some Center too plus some young talent and a pick.

And who is offering a good quality PF, plus some young talent and a pick for Granger? Just wondering.

Kaufman
11-08-2010, 08:29 PM
Most threads on this board are based within short term memory. If Granger scores 40 we have a comparison thread about which star he is comparable to. If he scores 7 then we see these threads. I have seen the same patterns for the past 3 years.

what happens though is that if he scores 40 his next game, certain posters will show up here and say "see i told you so" and the posters in this thread will remain steadfast. at this point, i think it would take a full repeat season of 2008 for me to feel like i would back off my interest in trading the guy. if he is still here next season with another coach, i might change my mind. but i think he's your classic "buy low, sell hi".

pacer4ever
11-08-2010, 08:38 PM
i would trade him for the right deal as long as we get proper value.

Jon Theodore
11-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Granger just needs to learn to dribble the basketball.....that is all.

Trophy
11-08-2010, 08:45 PM
I probably wouldn't trade Danny nor would our front office.

It's hard to find good quality SFs like him that can take an instant shot off the dribble and make it.

Danny's a good guy which is something else I like about him. He's not a snobby and rude star like a lot of others out there.

He can easily score 30+ points a night and it needs to come soon. When he struggles, we all do.

Danny needs another star to play with like Kevin Martin or Andre Iguodala.

15th parallel
11-08-2010, 08:48 PM
Ok, now this is really starting to get irritating. Does nobody read threads anymore, or just cherry pick posts to disagree with? I feel like this is the fourth time I'm writing this post, but no one's suggesting we trade Granger based on his performance from the last two games. It's because of his play and leadership over the last couple years, and whether or not he can be the player we thought he was, or that he needs to be. And like I said in the earlier post, about people making excuses, the injuries are valid one to bring up, but that's another reason why I think we should consider trading him. He missed large portions of the last two seasons. He stepped up and played really aggressively in a preseason game against the Hornets and sprained his ankle. He's beginning to look more and more fragile, and I have wondered if that had anything to do with his lack of aggressiveness and defense. Yes, he has been off to a pretty good start for the season, other than the last couple games, but this is something some of us have been talking about before the season even started.

I'm not even suggesting that we trade Danny, but that we should be open to the idea of trading him if it means we can solve our power forward/back up center problems long term. It's a much more difficult spot to fill and is far more important. The idea isn't that Granger needs to go, but rather that he might be able to land us better talent at a position of greater need. You have to give up value to get value. I don't know how everyone expects to get a star to go next to Granger, especially without being willing to give anything up. Even if we were to build through the draft, it will take a few years for any player to develop if they even pan out at all. At that point, Danny will be well past his prime on a team that's much, much younger than him, and he will have little value. If Danny keeps giving us the same play that we've seen the last couple years, or has another injury, and all we have to remember about his time here is that we were stuck fighting to make the playoffs, we're going to regret not trading him while his value was at its highest. Remember, he's in his prime now. If we're not going to be contending for several years, then we're wasting his time as well. Trading him to a contender, or near contender looking to get over the hump quickly, could end up being beneficial to Danny and the Pacers.

That's all I'm going to add to this thread. I just keep repeating myself to people who join the conversation insisting that we're demanding that he be traded because of two games of poor play.

Ummm...I believed I have read this thread and I believed that this post started because of the home loss to the Bucks. Maybe we're not reading the same thread, eh?


Sorry, but this team is going nowhere with Granger as the best player, and last night was proof. We should not be losing to the Bucks at home when their best player is out. I don't care if they were a playoff team last year. We got schooled in the fourth quarter by John Salmons and Brandon Jennings. Granger is supposed to be better than those guys, but he didn't do anything in the fourth quarter. If Granger is a leader, he would have willed the Pacers to the win in a close game. Instead, he got out played by inferior competition.

We need to trade Danny while he still has value. Lets build around Hibbert, Collison, and George. We could probably get a decent veteran or two that could help teach Hibbert and company how to win.

If the Pacers won that game, or at least didn't had 2 poor games on recent losses, will this "Time to trade Granger" even started? Just saying that many people, including the OP, are using the last losses in relation to the idea of trading Danny.

pacer4ever
11-08-2010, 08:48 PM
I probably wouldn't trade Danny.

It's hard to find good quality SFs like him that can take an instant shot off the dribble and make it.

Danny's a good guy which is something else I like about him. He's not a snobby and rude star like a lot of others out there.

He can easily score 30+ points a night and it needs to come soon. When he struggles, we all do.

Danny needs another star to play with like Kevin Martin or Andre Iguodala.

easier to find then a center and pg and a really good 4. I think a good wing is the easiest postion to find.

Trophy
11-08-2010, 09:06 PM
easier to find then a center and pg and a really good 4. I think a good wing is the easiest postion to find.

I think it's a plus if your star player is a wing man and the reason is because the SF/SG is responsible for doing a little bit of everything offensively and defensively and Danny is able to be very effective offensively and a pretty average-good defender.

It's hard to find star wing players though or another star like DG out there is what I'm saying.

As far as center and PG, we're lucky to have decent young players who can potentially be stars for us.

Now we just need to find some decent players in between and a star to play next to Danny.

graphic-er
11-09-2010, 12:10 AM
Ok, now this is really starting to get irritating. Does nobody read threads anymore, or just cherry pick posts to disagree with? I feel like this is the fourth time I'm writing this post, but no one's suggesting we trade Granger based on his performance from the last two games. It's because of his play and leadership over the last couple years, and whether or not he can be the player we thought he was, or that he needs to be. And like I said in the earlier post, about people making excuses, the injuries are valid one to bring up, but that's another reason why I think we should consider trading him. He missed large portions of the last two seasons. He stepped up and played really aggressively in a preseason game against the Hornets and sprained his ankle. He's beginning to look more and more fragile, and I have wondered if that had anything to do with his lack of aggressiveness and defense. Yes, he has been off to a pretty good start for the season, other than the last couple games, but this is something some of us have been talking about before the season even started.

His play and leadership over the past couple of years? 2 years ago he was an all-star. What more could you ask of him. Then you call him fragile? His foot was messed up back in last season's preseason. Blame the coaching staff and training staff for letting him play instead of sitting him for a few weeks to let it heal up completely. Why do people have the audacity to say that he plays like he doesn't care, when he played over 30+ games on one foot last year because the team needs him. Heck he played on that bad foot until it just complete gave out on him. IF he were anyless a player he'd would have shut it down himself. Like the Andrew Boguts of the world with a Migrane, or a Jamal Tinsley with a sinus infection.

Then once he got back he looked just like his All-star season for the last stretch of the season, infact he is the reason we played ourselves out of the a top 5 pick in the draft! By winning a bunch of games to end the season.

Now the recent sprained ankle. Guys sprain their ankles all the time in the NBA. They miss a week and get back to playing pretty normal. It happens. Guys tweak there ankles every night in this league. Land on somebodies feet, tweak your ankle. Get fouled hard on a layup and land weird and tweak your ankle. Its happens every night on every team.

Now you wanna talk about leadership. Name me one guy who developed into an all-star caliber player and a great leader all at once. It rarely happens. Players get their game first, and then they develop the leadership skills.

I guess Granger needs to go out and shatter his teeth every game to appease the naysayers.

tsm612
11-09-2010, 07:07 AM
His play and leadership over the past couple of years? 2 years ago he was an all-star. What more could you ask of him.


Yes, 2 years ago he was an all star. "over the past couple of years" is what has happened since then. Since his all star appearance, he hasn't been as good. Pretty easy concept.


Then you call him fragile? His foot was messed up back in last season's preseason. Blame the coaching staff and training staff for letting him play instead of sitting him for a few weeks to let it heal up completely. Why do people have the audacity to say that he plays like he doesn't care, when he played over 30+ games on one foot last year because the team needs him. Heck he played on that bad foot until it just complete gave out on him. IF he were anyless a player he'd would have shut it down himself. Like the Andrew Boguts of the world with a Migrane, or a Jamal Tinsley with a sinus infection.

I'll blame the staff a little for letting him play, but I blame Granger a heck of a lot more. Why don't you think he's accountable? He knows how he feels and to play on it before it's properly healed shows a serious lack of judgement. And I don't think that it's an issue with him not caring so much. I question whether or not he's as good, or as consistent, as everyone thought he would be. Also, I would play through having a bad foot over a migrane or a sinus infection any day. I've had both. If you think you could play through a migrane or sinus infection, then you've clearly never had either.


Then once he got back he looked just like his All-star season for the last stretch of the season, infact he is the reason we played ourselves out of the a top 5 pick in the draft! By winning a bunch of games to end the season.

I agree. He looked really good, in that stretch of games. The problem is, you don't really know which Danny you're going to get. Is it the one who puts up 44 against Utah or the one who puts up 7 against Philly?


Now the recent sprained ankle. Guys sprain their ankles all the time in the NBA. They miss a week and get back to playing pretty normal. It happens. Guys tweak there ankles every night in this league. Land on somebodies feet, tweak your ankle. Get fouled hard on a layup and land weird and tweak your ankle. Its happens every night on every team.

No it doesn't.


Now you wanna talk about leadership. Name me one guy who developed into an all-star caliber player and a great leader all at once. It rarely happens. Players get their game first, and then they develop the leadership skills.

Roy Hibbert? But seriously though. Most players that develop "leadership skills" have really always had it. It's a personality trait. Either you have it or you don't. Danny isn't going to start being a leader because he just doesn't have it.

graphic-er
11-09-2010, 09:02 AM
Yes, 2 years ago he was an all star. "over the past couple of years" is what has happened since then. Since his all star appearance, he hasn't been as good. Pretty easy concept. We are talking about a time frame of one season here. Marred by injury. I don't think your claim has any legs.



I'll blame the staff a little for letting him play, but I blame Granger a heck of a lot more. Why don't you think he's accountable? He knows how he feels and to play on it before it's properly healed shows a serious lack of judgement. And I don't think that it's an issue with him not caring so much. I question whether or not he's as good, or as consistent, as everyone thought he would be. Also, I would play through having a bad foot over a migrane or a sinus infection any day. I've had both. If you think you could play through a migrane or sinus infection, then you've clearly never had either. The point is ]guys play hurt in his league because their teams need them and they want to compete. Thus they care. I don't buy for one minute that Tinsley's sinus problems caused him to miss so many games like he did.




I agree. He looked really good, in that stretch of games. The problem is, you don't really know which Danny you're going to get. Is it the one who puts up 44 against Utah or the one who puts up 7 against Philly?
I'd love for you to back up this statement with a ratio of games of Good Danny to bad Danny. When a guy averages 24 pts a game you aren't going to find many bad games.




No it doesn't. you ever look at the benches during games and see all the players who have ice around their ankles and knees? Guys get hurt every game in the NBA, and the play through it. A missing a few games due to a sprained Ankle does not mean he is fragile. Just look at Stephan Curry this season, started off the season with a sprained ankle and played pretty well on it too, unfortunately he re-injured it several times already.




Roy Hibbert? But seriously though. Most players that develop "leadership skills" have really always had it. It's a personality trait. Either you have it or you don't. Danny isn't going to start being a leader because he just doesn't have it. Please Roy Hibbert hasn't lead anything yet through 5 games. Developing into a great player, but he hasn't done anything yet in terms of leadership. Calling out some guys after a bad loss doesn't make you a leader all the sudden.

Mackey_Rose
11-09-2010, 09:36 AM
Please Roy Hibbert hasn't lead anything yet through 5 games. Developing into a great player, but he hasn't done anything yet in terms of leadership. Calling out some guys after a bad loss doesn't make you a leader all the sudden.

I don't want to get into the Granger debate, because it's clear you can't handle truth, but Hibbert has been a better leader through these 5 games than Granger has been in 5 years.

graphic-er
11-09-2010, 09:39 AM
I don't want to get into the Granger debate, because it's clear you can't handle truth, but Hibbert has been a better leader through these 5 games than Granger has been in 5 years.

Well you know what they say about opinions.

jhondog28
11-09-2010, 10:00 AM
I will say this about DG...he has made some big time last minute shots. He has some clutch in him, but to me he hasn't shown me that he can lift this team when it matters the most. If he was the type of star most on here claim then in the past couple of years he should have been enough to lift us into the playoffs instead of the 9th position. Superstars should be able to put their teams on their shoulders and carry them to wins deep in the season when it matters the most. I would be very interested to see what DG's stats were in the last 10 games of the past 2-3 seasons.

ksuttonjr76
11-09-2010, 10:39 AM
Real talk...if we're not going to get equal or greater talent that's NOT POTENTIAL for Granger (hard to do given his contract amount), then he needs to keep his butt in Indiana. Our team already have plenty of potential, it would be nice to have and keep proven talent.

graphic-er
11-09-2010, 10:50 AM
I will say this about DG...he has made some big time last minute shots. He has some clutch in him, but to me he hasn't shown me that he can lift this team when it matters the most. If he was the type of star most on here claim then in the past couple of years he should have been enough to lift us into the playoffs instead of the 9th position. Superstars should be able to put their teams on their shoulders and carry them to wins deep in the season when it matters the most. I would be very interested to see what DG's stats were in the last 10 games of the past 2-3 seasons.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3943/gamelog;_ylt=Agx60muVlXA7XfjvU6hlv9gmPaB4?year=200 8

you can select whatever year you want.

jhondog28
11-09-2010, 11:19 AM
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3943/gamelog;_ylt=Agx60muVlXA7XfjvU6hlv9gmPaB4?year=200 8

you can select whatever year you want.

Well looking at those game logs and stats...I was wayyyyyy wrong. DG stepped up to the plate especially in 2007-08 season which if I remember correctly all we had to do was beat Charlotte and we would have been the
8th seed. His percentages were high, his point totals were high and his minutes looked good. Maybe I am just not noticing the DG winning presence as most. He is probably one of those players that when the team is winning you can see all the intangibles he brings.

Gamble1
11-09-2010, 11:26 AM
To everyone still reading this thread...... We are not trading Granger!

bellisimo
11-09-2010, 11:30 AM
To everyone still reading this thread...... We are not trading Granger!

what about Jalen Rose?

Infinite MAN_force
11-09-2010, 11:34 AM
To everyone still reading this thread...... We are not trading Granger!

This thread lowers my IQ every time I see it still floating around on the front page. Lets play a game everyone, the next person to post after me is a doodie head. You don't want to be a doodie head right? So why don't we let this thread die.

Pacergeek
03-10-2011, 12:41 PM
what say the masses now? 2-19, beyond pathetic from our "best" player.

Hicks
03-10-2011, 02:34 PM
If you like handing someone $100 and being given approximately $50 back, sure, go ahead and trade him.

cdash
03-10-2011, 02:37 PM
what say the masses now? 2-19, beyond pathetic from our "best" player.

You are such an instigator. Seriously.

ilive4sports
03-10-2011, 02:39 PM
what say the masses now? 2-19, beyond pathetic from our "best" player.

Didn't know he wasn't allowed to have an off shooting night dude. I'm just gonna say you would be the worst GM ever because you have absolutely no patience what so ever. Becoming a good team doesn't happen over night. Players go through slumps, young players struggle. Give them a break. This is the same team that just won 7 out of 8 not too long ago.

imbtyler
03-10-2011, 02:53 PM
Danny's playing half-assed to keep himself in the lineup, but he doesn't care enough to keep it up. I was looking at plays from earlier in the season, and watching how he plays then, compared to now, is embarrassing.

Maybe we're already tanking and we don't even know it. They're just not making it incredibly obvious by playing Solo and Posey. At the point we are, there are no benefits to losing a few more games to gain draft position. So we play the young guys so they get the experience they deserve, and keep trying to "win", and then we make the best of what we have in the offseason.

We've been hearing about this "three year plan" to get into the playoffs, but I have a feeling that we're not going to see any real progress until after this year. With that said, I have a feeling that if he keeps this up, Bird will realize his work ethic is gone and he'll be bound for somewhere else like New Orleans or Los Angeles.

Despite his history with the team, I don't really care if he's traded or not, but he needs to be taken care of. Bird needs to sit him down and give him some sort of incentive; fight or flight.

Anyone else think maybe he was a part of the NO deal, and now that he has to stay here, he's just disappointed overall?

Pacergeek
03-10-2011, 03:11 PM
Didn't know he wasn't allowed to have an off shooting night dude. I'm just gonna say you would be the worst GM ever because you have absolutely no patience what so ever. Becoming a good team doesn't happen over night. Players go through slumps, young players struggle. Give them a break. This is the same team that just won 7 out of 8 not too long ago.

right. the same team that beat 6 of the worst teams in the nba during that stretch (portland was good).

Pacergeek
03-10-2011, 03:13 PM
Didn't know he wasn't allowed to have an off shooting night dude. I'm just gonna say you would be the worst GM ever because you have absolutely no patience what so ever. Becoming a good team doesn't happen over night. Players go through slumps, young players struggle. Give them a break. This is the same team that just won 7 out of 8 not too long ago.

i do realize that it takes time to build a winner, but the brawl happened like over 6 years ago, and we still haven't recovered. how long should fans have to wait? i think that 4, possibly 5 straight years of missing the playoffs is plenty long, and i have shown patience.

pacer4ever
03-10-2011, 04:45 PM
Granger just needs to learn to dribble the basketball.....that is all.

and play defense and pass he ball and block out

CableKC
03-10-2011, 04:50 PM
Short of an offer that would absolutely be a no-brainer.....I would like to see what options the Team has in the offseason to improve the roster before passing judgement on whether we should move on with Granger or not. Granger may not be the Franchise Player that we hope him to be....but he can still be counted on to be a solid piece ( but not the KEY Piece ) on a Playoff Caliber Team.

We have the ability to get a Starting Quality SG and PF without moving Granger....I would like to see what an improved roster and winning may change whatever is "up with him".

But if we are not able to substantially change the Team by the 2011-2012 Trade Deadline...even with the expected improvement in the roster...then I have no problem seeing what we can get for him.

ilive4sports
03-10-2011, 05:27 PM
i do realize that it takes time to build a winner, but the brawl happened like over 6 years ago, and we still haven't recovered. how long should fans have to wait? i think that 4, possibly 5 straight years of missing the playoffs is plenty long, and i have shown patience.

Well considering we didn't rebuild right after the brawl...

It takes time. We are still adding pieces to this team for the long haul. Thats what this off season is all about. Let's see Danny with some developed talent around him.