PDA

View Full Version : Paul George's trade value: Should we trade for a legit asset now?



mattie
04-05-2011, 09:34 PM
Let me preface by saying I'm a huge Paul George fan. I don't ever want to see him traded. Right now I'd rather trade every player on the Pacers roster before trading PG.

What I'd like to discuss is how valuable Paul George is as a trade asset and what we could get from him. The truth is Paul George is most likely the highest and most valuable trade asset on the Pacers. I don't think this is homer talk, I think if the Pacers were to consider trading PG, they'd have a lot of takers.

The truth is, we could probably trade Paul now, and get someone like Stephen Curry no problem. I have little doubt that they[GS] would be willing to do that.

What we all know is if the Pacers are ever going to truly compete, we need some real performance on the floor. In other words, Paul George quickly shows he's going to turn into a really good player, or we have to make trades to get better draft picks. I don't think anyone would dispute this. We aren't going to win with Granger as our best player.

So that's my question. Would you trade George for Curry? (that's only one example) And I think it is a tough question as well, because if that were to happen the Pacers lineup would change to be Curry, Rush, Granger, Tyler and Hibbert going forward.

Eventually Curry would get a high paying contract. Would that team ever turn into real winner? In other words, just from a pure value standpoint, the correct move for the Pacers might be to Hold on to George and see how he turns out- Because if he doesn't turn into anything special the next move would be to "blow up" the team and go for a new high draft pick.

The core of my message and/or question is that the Pacers are obviously stuck currently as a mediocre ball club. What would you do? Use Paul George now as a trade asset?

Thoughts?

dohman
04-05-2011, 09:40 PM
I see no reason to trade him now. No one we can get for him will take us to the next level. Let him develop over the next two seasons and pray for danny granger type results.

mattie
04-05-2011, 09:44 PM
I see no reason to trade him now. No one we can get for him will take us to the next level. Let him develop over the next two seasons and pray for danny granger type results.

I actually completely agree with that. I'm merely trying to think of it from a good GM's aspect. In other words, from a pure winning standpoint, if I were to ignore how much I love watching PG play and consider what it takes to build a true winner, would it be smart to trade PG?

I tend to think the answer is no. But I also wonder, what is the ceiling of someone like Curry?

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 09:48 PM
I dont see any reason to trade him now either. If we could get an asset that we need more than him I would be interested. We have more talent at the wing position than at pg. I would trade him in a flash for star pg with a reasonable contract because we have a greater need there. I would really rather trade Granger though.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 09:50 PM
I actually completely agree with that. I'm merely trying to think of it from a good GM's aspect. In other words, from a pure winning standpoint, if I were to ignore how much I love watching PG play and consider what it takes to build a true winner, would it be smart to trade PG?

I tend to think the answer is no. But I also wonder, what is the ceiling of someone like Curry?

I understand your thinking but a star pg is much harder to find (and more important to the team) than a sg or sf. Always take the star pg in the deal unless you have to give up a star Center.

dohman
04-05-2011, 09:53 PM
I understand your thinking but a star pg is much harder to find (and more important to the team) than a sg or sf. Always take the star pg in the deal unless you have to give up a star Center.

how many top tier point guards have won a title in the past 10 years.

Personally I feel a point guard should only average around 10 ppg and have just as many assists while playing lock down defense.

D-BONE
04-05-2011, 09:54 PM
Not yet as good as DG's I'd say.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 09:55 PM
how many top tier point guards have won a title in the past 10 years.

Personally I feel a point guard should only average around 10 ppg and have just as many assists while playing lock down defense.

That sounds like a top tier pg to me!
Titles? Rondo, Parker, Billups,
Just about every team had one except the Lakers.

The pg does not have to be a DRose type. One like you mentioned would be outstanding provided he "can" score more if needed!

mattie
04-05-2011, 09:56 PM
I understand your thinking but a star pg is much harder to find (and more important to the team) than a sg or sf. Always take the star pg in the deal unless you have to give up a star Center.

So would you trade PG for Curry then? Hoping Curry would be that star PG?


By the way comparing star PG's to SG's over the last decade, we can definitely come to the conclusion SG have the advantage.

We can count Manu's, Kobe's rings, and that number comes to a lot higher number than say if we were to add up Deron Williams, Steve Nash's, Jason Kidd's, and Chris Paul's.

The idea that star PG's are extremely important to a team success has been proven wrong for 20 years. Not since Isaiah Thomas have we seen a superstar PG win a championship.

Not too say there aren't other circumstances outside of those particular PG's control that kept them from winning championships! But lets not jump to the conclusion that PG's = winning. History shows us the opposite.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 09:59 PM
So would you trade PG for Curry then? Hoping Curry would be that star PG?


By the way comparing star PG's to SG's over the last decade, we can definitely come to the conclusion SG have the advantage.

We can count Manu's, Kobe's rings, and that number comes to a lot higher number than say if we were to add up Deron Williams, Steve Nash's, Jason Kidd's, and Chris Paul's.

The idea that star PG's are extremely important to a team success has been proven wrong for 20 years. Not since Isaiah Thomas have we seen a superstar PG win a championship.

Not too say there aren't other circumstances outside of those particular PG's control that kept them from winning championships! But lets not jump to the conclusion that PG's = winning. History shows us the opposite.

I am not sure Curry is that type of pg. I really havent seen him play much. I am under the assumption he is elite based on the comments from this board. If he is an elite pg then I would trade George for him in a nano-second.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:00 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1208012]

We can count Manu's, Kobe's rings, and that number comes to a lot higher number than say if we were to add up Deron Williams, Steve Nash's, Jason Kidd's, and Chris Paul's.


In the last 10 years 50% of the titles have been won by a team with an elite pg. Take out the lakers and only one team (Miami) has done it without one.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:01 PM
Not yet as good as DG's I'd say.

If you take DG's contract and add up his regressed play this year, I don't think he's quite as valuable as we would think.

Contracts play a huge part in a players actual trade value.

dohman
04-05-2011, 10:02 PM
That sounds like a top tier pg to me!
Titles? Rondo, Parker, Billups,
Just about every team had one except the Lakers.

The pg does not have to be a DRose type. One like you mentioned would be outstanding provided he "can" score more if needed!


Not many would consider what I consider a pg to be as a good point guard.



Billups was not a star yet. Rondo was a rookie who has all stars at every position around him. Parker intrigues me, I do not know if he is that good or if its pops system.

When I say top tier point guards I mean top 5.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:02 PM
If you take DG's contract and add up his regressed play this year, I don't think he's quite as valuable as we would think.

Contracts play a huge part in a players actual trade value.

Wasnt there just an article on ESPN.com where the writer stated that the Pacers value Granger more than all the other NBA teams do?

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:04 PM
Billups was not a star yet. Rondo was a rookie who has all stars at every position around him. Parker intrigues me, I do not know if he is that good or if its pops system.

When I say top tier point guards I mean top 5.

I strongly disagree with some of what you said. Billups was most definitely a star then and Rondo has been back to the finals twice. Parker and Billups are probably Hall of Famers. Billups is a slam dunk.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:04 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1208012]

We can count Manu's, Kobe's rings, and that number comes to a lot higher number than say if we were to add up Deron Williams, Steve Nash's, Jason Kidd's, and Chris Paul's.


In the last 10 years 50% of the titles have been won by a team with an elite pg. Take out the lakers and only one team (Miami) has done it without one.

None of those guys were elite.

Even this year, as Rondo has turned into what most people consider an elite point guard for the first thime in his career, all his fans in Boston want him traded. They say he turns the ball over too much and he still cannot shoot.

I realize that this is sortof boiling down to semantics on what a true elite point guard is- But maybe we should instead argue on what kind of point guard it takes to actually win a title?

I'd say point guard that isn't the greatest passer, yet one who doesn't turn the ball over, one who has a decent jump shot, and plays decent defense will win a championship. I'd also say those type of point guards are much easier to find than someone like Manu Ginobili. I'd also describe that point guard as Tony Parker.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:07 PM
You know what would be interesting? Go back and see how many pg's and how many sg's are taken in the top 5 of the draft each year. That should settle the argument over which is most important.

dohman
04-05-2011, 10:10 PM
I strongly disagree with some of what you said. Billups was most definitely a star then and Rondo has been back to the finals twice. Parker and Billups are probably Hall of Famers. Billups is a slam dunk.

I hate quoting stats.. But really look at his numbers that year.

17 ppg on 39% shooting with 5 assits per game.

DC this year in his second season

13 ppg with 45% shooting with 5 assists per game.

Billups is a very good point guard. He was just a star in the making that year. Nothing elite about him then.

Really?
04-05-2011, 10:10 PM
Wouldnt trade him and I don't think that he has a really high trade value right now anyways.

I just hope he can get his 3pt shooting together...

I still would love to see what Evan Turner can do at the point on a different team.

He still has all star potential with the right team, I would be interested trading for him.

I'm probably the minority on that one as well, lol.

dohman
04-05-2011, 10:11 PM
I strongly disagree with some of what you said. Billups was most definitely a star then and Rondo has been back to the finals twice. Parker and Billups are probably Hall of Famers. Billups is a slam dunk.


I am sorry, but you could put a bag of wet crap with pierce, allen, and garnett and you would be in the finals, and the bag of crap would average 10 assists per game.

I think rondo is a very good point guard. I would like to see his production on a sub par team.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:13 PM
Since 2000, the number of players taken at each position in the top 5:

Point Guards: 16
Shoot Guards: 7


No doubt then that GM's put a premium on pg's more than sg's. And I didnt know the facts until just now!

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:14 PM
I am sorry, but you could put a bag of wet crap with pierce, allen, and garnett and you would be in the finals, and the bag of crap would average 10 assists per game.

I think rondo is a very good point guard. I would like to see his production on a sub par team.

To be honest, I hear the exact opposite about other players. Most would agree that production increases when you play on a bad team. Reggie even said about Granger, "Someone has to score on a bad team"

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:16 PM
You know what would be interesting? Go back and see how many pg's and how many sg's are taken in the top 5 of the draft each year. That should settle the argument over which is most important.

Ok so again, if thats what you believe wouldn't it be the smartest thing to trade Paul George for a PG? Would you trade him for John Wall, or Stephen Curry, or someone else you think would be an elite point guard?

Also, I'd really like to believe that elite point guards are the key to success. I really would, and I'm not attempting to argue for the sake of argument. Help me understand. I'm being serious....

If I go back to the 1990-91 season, I've seen a top 5 shooting guard win 14 championships. This is a fact.

Now since that date how many top 5 point guards have won??? Prior to winning a championship if you take the 3 players you named NONE of them would be considered elite point guards. I mean it seems as if once they win one then suddenly they were elite! They were certainly not top 5.

Ok, so maybe if they were elite? Than maybe our definition of elite needs to change! Guards like Deron Williams, Derrick Rose and Steve Nash must not be elite then right? Billups is a far superior point guard. Is that the truth?

By the way, after winning their first championship with tony parker, the spurs wanted to trade him.... FYI.

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:20 PM
Ok so again, if thats what you believe wouldn't it be the smartest thing to trade Paul George for a PG? Would you trade him for John Wall, or Stephen Curry, or someone else you think would be an elite point guard?

Also, I'd really like to believe that elite point guards are the key to success. I really would, and I'm not attempting to argue for the sake of argument. Help me understand. I'm being serious....

If I go back to the 1990-91 season, I've seen a top 5 shooting guard win 14 championships. This is a fact.

Now since that date how many top 5 point guards have won??? Prior to winning a championship if you take the 3 players you named NONE of them would be considered elite point guards. I mean it seems as if once they one then suddenly they were elite! They were certainly not top 5.

Ok, so maybe if they were elite? Than maybe our definition of elite needs to change! Guards like Deron Williams, Derrick Rose and Steve Nash must not be elite then right? Billups is a far superior point guard. Is that the truth?


Yes I would trade him for Wall. I am not up on Curry though. Dont know enough about him. Can he play "D"?
There is only one reason you went back that far: Michael Jordan! You take out him and Kobe and only 1 elite sg wins a title.
How many Jordan's or Kobe's are out there?

Why not go back to the 1980s then:
Magic = 5 rings
D. Johnson = 2 rings
I. Thomas = 2 rings

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:22 PM
There is only one reason you went back that far: Michael Jordan! You take out him and Kobe and only 1 elite sg wins a title.
How many Jordan's or Kobe's are out there?

Why not go back to the 1980s then:
Magic = 5 rings
D. Johnson = 2 rings
I. Thomas = 2 rings

Manu Ginobili and Kobe Bryant have more rings combined than MJ. So it probably would have actually helped my argument if I didn't include the 90's

Edit- Magic one 4 titles as a PG. So one year we have proof that virtually the same team that one 5 titles? literally removed their elite point guard and still won a title.

Now I know for a fact that if Derrick Rose has an elite player playing at almost any other position they'd probably win a title. I think there is no question if you have elite players on a team they'll win a title. THat's why Magic, James Worthy and Kareem all won titles. They were a great team.

The real question is whether Derrick can win a title now as the only elite player on his team???

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 10:26 PM
Manu Ginobili and Kobe Bryant have more rings combined than MJ. So it probably would have actually helped my argument if I didn't include the 90's

Kobe or Michael either one skew the argument. These were players who were all time great and carried teams. How many like them are there?
Manu is good but if you want to add him in then you have to take every teams' pg and sg. That doesnt make sense
There is a reason GM's value pg's twice as much as they do sg's. That is a fact not opinion. Look at the draft results.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:31 PM
Kobe or Michael either one skew the argument. These were players who were all time great and carried teams. How many like them are there?
Manu is good but if you want to add him in then you have to take every teams' pg and sg. That doesnt make sense
There is a reason GM's value pg's twice as much as they do sg's. That is a fact not opinion. Look at the draft results.

Ok. So you're saying shooting guards are more important as they can carry their teams to titles. Because in the last 20 years? The best PG in the nba has absolutely failed at winning a title. Period.

I think no matter what happens, you'll argue that somehow point guards are more important even if you end up contradicting yourself.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:33 PM
By the way as an interesting side note, in the last 20 years? The best player at each individual position excluding point guard has one a title at one time. This is indisputable.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:42 PM
Also, I need to adjust my numbers from earlier.

Actually a top 5 shooting guard has been on EVERY championship team in the last 10 years. Edit- Except the Pistons. Of course some would argue when they won? Rip was a top 5 shooting guard.

Kobe Bryant, Manu Ginobili, Dwayne Wade, and Paul Pierce.

dohman
04-05-2011, 10:43 PM
Kobe or Michael either one skew the argument. These were players who were all time great and carried teams. How many like them are there?
Manu is good but if you want to add him in then you have to take every teams' pg and sg. That doesnt make sense
There is a reason GM's value pg's twice as much as they do sg's. That is a fact not opinion. Look at the draft results.



So in the 1990s you can look back at the jazz.

One of the greatest point guards of all time. Great defender, Great shooter, Great passer

One of the greatest if not the greatest power forwards of all time




I think it goes to show that a good shooting guard out weighs a good point guard.

mattie
04-05-2011, 10:55 PM
I'm at a loss at how this "point guard = win" came about. Because we've seen a truly elite non-point guard on every Championship team except the Pistons.

We've seen plenty of championships without truly elite point guards. In fact I'd say everyone in the last 20 years hasn't had an elite point guard. The argument that Billups, Parker and Rondo are elite is made I think only to give their original argument ground to stand on.

Foul on Smits
04-05-2011, 11:03 PM
I'm sorry. This if dumb. Paul george is potentially a super star. You don't trade him.

Scot Pollard
04-05-2011, 11:08 PM
The mentality of this team by some people on this board is quite humorous.

Ever since he started, which is what everyone wanted, the lovefest for him has fallen and now if you want to trade Paul George, that pretty much says you have no patience.

Sorry if players can't be perfect every game. Especially a rookie.

Trading him would be one of the biggest mistakes. We may have the next Indy hero in the making.

ksuttonjr76
04-05-2011, 11:10 PM
So in the 1990s you can look back at the jazz.

One of the greatest point guards of all time. Great defender, Great shooter, Great passer

One of the greatest if not the greatest power forwards of all time




I think it goes to show that a good shooting guard out weighs a good point guard.

That doesn't count. Jordan outweighs a good ANYTHING. Jordan denied a lot of great players at multiple positions during his reign.

Foul on Smits
04-05-2011, 11:11 PM
I don't care how wrong everyone tells me I am . Two years from now , Paul George will be a top 10 player in the NBA.

mattie
04-05-2011, 11:16 PM
The mentality of this team by some people on this board is quite humorous.

Ever since he started, which is what everyone wanted, the lovefest for him has fallen and now if you want to trade Paul George, that pretty much says you have no patience.

Sorry if players can't be perfect every game. Especially a rookie.

Trading him would be one of the biggest mistakes. We may have the next Indy hero in the making.

That's not fair. Or you didn't understand me.

I agree, I get tired of hearing "trade so and so" everytime there is a loss. In my dream world were I'm GM I actually wouldn't trade anyone. I would try to sign a defensive oriented PF through free agency, and I'd wait for Paul George to be great.

I love Paul George, and I'd cry if we traded him for Deron Williams. I'm not kidding.

I'm merely talking not from desire, but from the hypothetical perspective of whether or not it would be smart to trade Paul George, who has potential in spades, for a player that is good right now?

Edit- I don't blame you for getting my intent wrong though- It is to be expected as half this board jumps off the deep end the second our young .500 team actually plays like a young .500 team. (that means losing every other game)

troyc11a
04-05-2011, 11:17 PM
I don't care how wrong everyone tells me I am . Two years from now , Paul George will be a top 10 player in the NBA.

That is why I dont want to trade him unless they get an all star caliber pg in return. Nobody is trading that kind of pg for George. So its best to keep him.

ilive4sports
04-05-2011, 11:18 PM
Also, I need to adjust my numbers from earlier.

Actually a top 5 shooting guard has been on EVERY championship team in the last 10 years. Edit- Except the Pistons. Of course some would argue when they won? Rip was a top 5 shooting guard.

Kobe Bryant, Manu Ginobili, Dwayne Wade, and Paul Pierce.

Paul Pierce is a small forward. And Kobe has won 5 of those.

There is not right or wrong answer to this thread. What it comes down to is you need damn good players to win a title. And usually you need multiple ones. Each SG brought up in this thread had a star with them, even Jordan had Pippen. Kobe had Shaq and Pau, Manu had Duncan (who was the most important piece on those teams, not Manu) and Parker, Wade had Shaq. And even though Pierce is a SF he had KG and Ray Allen.

mattie
04-05-2011, 11:27 PM
Paul Pierce is a small forward. And Kobe has won 5 of those.

There is not right or wrong answer to this thread. What it comes down to is you need damn good players to win a title. And usually you need multiple ones. Each SG brought up in this thread had a star with them, even Jordan had Pippen. Kobe had Shaq and Pau, Manu had Duncan (who was the most important piece on those teams, not Manu) and Parker, Wade had Shaq. And even though Pierce is a SF he had KG and Ray Allen.

You're exactly right. The point is you need truly great players. Not a truly great point guard. That's what I'm getting at. There has been a running theme that if we don't get a great point guard we cannot win a championship. That is completely false. That is my only argument. lol. It is a myth I'm trying to dispel.

Taterhead
04-05-2011, 11:29 PM
[QUOTE=troyc11a;1208017]

None of those guys were elite.

Even this year, as Rondo has turned into what most people consider an elite point guard for the first thime in his career, all his fans in Boston want him traded. They say he turns the ball over too much and he still cannot shoot.




What are you talking about? They love Rondo.

Scot Pollard
04-05-2011, 11:30 PM
That's not fair. Or you didn't understand me.

I agree, I get tired of hearing "trade so and so" everytime there is a loss. In my dream world were I'm GM I actually wouldn't trade anyone. I would try to sign a defensive oriented PF through free agency, and I'd wait for Paul George to be great.

I love Paul George, and I'd cry if we traded him for Deron Williams. I'm not kidding.

I'm merely talking not from desire, but from the hypothetical perspective of whether or not it would be smart to trade Paul George, who has potential in spades, for a player that is good right now?

Edit- I don't blame you for getting my intent wrong though- It is to be expected as half this board jumps off the deep end the second our young .500 team actually plays like a young .500 team. (that means losing every other game)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I didn't mean it towards you at all.

I knew what you meant how valuable his Paul George currently.

I was just stating how much Paul George is going to mean to this team no matter who we may decide to acquire around him.

Many believe Paul George is going to be a TMAC type of player and also the best player from the 2010 draft.

I'm excited and ever since we drafted him, I feel like it would be okay to trade Danny for a player we can really need.

mattie
04-05-2011, 11:35 PM
[QUOTE=mattie;1208022]



What are you talking about? They love Rondo.

I actually apologize for that. That was hyperbole. They don't all want him traded. However, Many of them over the last 2 months or so have been livid with him. If you read the Boston message boards they have been frustrated with his play. The more even minded fans however love him.

cdash
04-05-2011, 11:58 PM
Actually a top 5 shooting guard has been on EVERY championship team in the last 10 years. Edit- Except the Pistons.

That Pistons team is the exception to every NBA rule of success.

imawhat
04-06-2011, 12:05 AM
If the goal is to trade Paul George, at least wait until he appears untouchable and has high value. He's not there.

Eleazar
04-06-2011, 01:33 AM
A great individual PG is useless, and will be just a waste of money. What you want in a PG is a PG that fits your system and team. They won't be the greatest of PGs, might even suck on other teams, but they will make your team better. This also saves you money to sign better players around them, and have a stronger team.

With the exception of Jordan there have been two common themes with championship teams:

1. Strong post play (either a dominate C or PF, or two extremely good players (see post Shaq Lakers))

2. A good, not great, PG that fit the team, and made the team better.


Honestly you could argue PGs like Rose, Paul, and Williams are closer to being like Murphy than they to being like Shaq. They put up great stats, but they rarely result in winning. In Murphy's situation it is individual games, in the PGs situation it is championships. Although it works during the regular season there is a fundamental flaw with building the team around a PG that prevents them from winning championships. Just like fast paced, up and down teams win a lot in the regular season, they do not win championships. In both cases it is sexy and flashy, which is why a lot of people (even basketball smart people) fall in love with it, but in both cases there are fundamental flaws.

croz24
04-06-2011, 02:17 AM
players should never be untouchable. if it takes george to acquire a gordon, you do it imo. i'm also not sure george can maximize his potential with this organization and around these players. granger seems unwilling to relinquish his role and there's too many players on this team who only care about getting theirs. not much of a system in place at all with the pacers at the moment.

mattie
04-06-2011, 04:40 AM
A great individual PG is useless, and will be just a waste of money. What you want in a PG is a PG that fits your system and team. They won't be the greatest of PGs, might even suck on other teams, but they will make your team better. This also saves you money to sign better players around them, and have a stronger team.

With the exception of Jordan there have been two common themes with championship teams:

1. Strong post play (either a dominate C or PF, or two extremely good players (see post Shaq Lakers))

2. A good, not great, PG that fit the team, and made the team better.


Honestly you could argue PGs like Rose, Paul, and Williams are closer to being like Murphy than they to being like Shaq. They put up great stats, but they rarely result in winning. In Murphy's situation it is individual games, in the PGs situation it is championships. Although it works during the regular season there is a fundamental flaw with building the team around a PG that prevents them from winning championships. Just like fast paced, up and down teams win a lot in the regular season, they do not win championships. In both cases it is sexy and flashy, which is why a lot of people (even basketball smart people) fall in love with it, but in both cases there are fundamental flaws.

With the right fit I think all of those guys could win champions but I think we can agree that is not the best way to build a championship. As history has shown us the last 20 years.

But it is good to someone realizing this. I hope we can past the point guard obsession. No reason the majority of the board can't realize the folly in that line of thinking.

yoadknux
04-06-2011, 07:42 AM
He doesn't have high trade value. Our fans value him a lot more than the rest of the league. We'd be very lucky if he gets in the 2nd all rookie team. Let's face it, we all like Paul and his huge potential, but at the moment he's just an average rookie.
If we can get a good player that can upgrade our game (like Iggy, Smith, whoever comes to your mind) then we should do it, if not just sit and see if he turns into something special

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 08:12 AM
With the right fit I think all of those guys could win champions but I think we can agree that is not the best way to build a championship. As history has shown us the last 20 years.

But it is good to someone realizing this. I hope we can past the point guard obsession. No reason the majority of the board can't realize the folly in that line of thinking.

Who are we to believe NBA GM's or you? The people who get paid millions of dollars overwhelmingly would take a quality pg over a quality sg. Not even an argument. Since 2000 16 pg's taken in top 5. Only 7 sg's. So this pg obsession is not a fallacy, it is a fact.

croz24
04-06-2011, 08:39 AM
Who are we to believe NBA GM's or you? The people who get paid millions of dollars overwhelmingly would take a quality pg over a quality sg. Not even an argument. Since 2000 16 pg's taken in top 5. Only 7 sg's. So this pg obsession is not a fallacy, it is a fact.

what's also a fact is that history tells us pgs do not make or break teams. if you define an elite pg as a player who ranks top 3 at that position, how many elite pgs have won titles? not many...

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 08:55 AM
what's also a fact is that history tells us pgs do not make or break teams. if you define an elite pg as a player who ranks top 3 at that position, how many elite pgs have won titles? not many...

If I can choose my own definitions I can make any point I want.
Just look at who the GM's pick. End of story. That fact trumps any other argument that can be made. There is a reason pg's are in such high demand.

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 08:58 AM
what's also a fact is that history tells us pgs do not make or break teams. if you define an elite pg as a player who ranks top 3 at that position, how many elite pgs have won titles? not many...

Outside of Jordan and Kobe, how many top 3 sg's have won a title in the last 30 years? 1 = D-Wade.

Jordan and Kobe skew the argument because they trump anyone else you might have on the team.

Unclebuck
04-06-2011, 09:19 AM
Is this April Fools again?

It might be a good idea to trade George one day, but right now is the worst possible time (unless you think he's only going to get worse as a player) to trade him.

I've said at some point in the next two seasons the pacers are going to have to decide if George and Granger can play together and if not which one should be traded. But the time for that is not now, unless you trade Danny.

NapTonius Monk
04-06-2011, 09:33 AM
how many top tier point guards have won a title in the past 10 years.

Personally I feel a point guard should only average around 10 ppg and have just as many assists while playing lock down defense.This is an interesting point. Was Isaiah Thomas the last star point guard to lead his team to a title?

NapTonius Monk
04-06-2011, 09:35 AM
That sounds like a top tier pg to me!
Titles? Rondo, Parker, Billups,
Just about every team had one except the Lakers.

The pg does not have to be a DRose type. One like you mentioned would be outstanding provided he "can" score more if needed!Seems my memory failed me a bit.

croz24
04-06-2011, 09:37 AM
Outside of Jordan and Kobe, how many top 3 sg's have won a title in the last 30 years? 1 = D-Wade.

Jordan and Kobe skew the argument because they trump anyone else you might have on the team.

and that's also 12 of the 30 titles ;-) want to take a guess as to who the pgs were for those teams? bj armstrong, ron harper, derek fisher, and jason williams... gms draft so many pgs because pg is the most abundant position of talent in the league as most humans don't grow to be 6'10". when you are in a bpa spot in the draft, the bpa is much more likely to be someone 6'4 or smaller in terms of talent. also, because the talent is so similar at the pg position across the board, gms are constantly searching to gain the advantage at that position by finding one of the few elite pgs.

forget all that though. do me a favor and name me who you think are the top 10 pgs from 1990 til now. or at least do the list in your head. then look up how many titles those pgs have.

Unclebuck
04-06-2011, 09:41 AM
I've always said in order to win a title you need either a great dynamic wing player (Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Michael) or a great point guard. pacers right now have neither, so in their current form they will never win.

Why do you need one or the other? Because every team needs a player who can score or create a good shot at any point in the game.

OK, why can't a big guy be that player. it is too difficult with the zone rules to get the ball in the hands of the superstar big guy and really the only superstar big guy right now is Dwight Howard and he can't hit free throws.

Is either Rondo or Pierce a supertsr. maybe not, but in their case those tow are good enough as a combo to win it all.

Disclaimer: of course there might be exceptions , and in those cases I'll fall back and say the best player wins the championship. That is rule #1.

vnzla81
04-06-2011, 09:43 AM
I have a feeling that many people here are going to be disappointed in two or three years when PG is not a top ten player in the NBA and this same people are going to be asking to trade the guy, I expect him to be a good player, maybe as good as Danny but I'm not putting all my hopes in one guy.

Unclebuck
04-06-2011, 09:47 AM
I have a feeling that many people here are going to be disappointed in two or three years when PG is not a top ten player in the NBA and this same people are going to be asking to trade the guy, I expect him to be a good player, maybe as good as Danny but I'm not putting all my hopes in one guy.


OK, but then trade him when he is "maybe as good as Danny" not now. Unless there is a team out there who is convinced he will be a superstar - but I doubt there are any of those teams.

Taterhead
04-06-2011, 10:13 AM
I have a feeling that many people here are going to be disappointed in two or three years when PG is not a top ten player in the NBA and this same people are going to be asking to trade the guy, I expect him to be a good player, maybe as good as Danny but I'm not putting all my hopes in one guy.

Then those people have some unrealistic expectations. He was the 10th pick in the draft, who the heck expects him to be a top 10 player in the entire league? And why are you making him sound like a failure if he doesn't reach that?

I think Paul George can become a 18-20 PPG scorer and make a NBA All-Defensive team. That doesn't mean he is a top 10 player in the league necessarily, but it certainly means trading him now after one season would be a dumb move.

graphic-er
04-06-2011, 10:36 AM
I think a more interesting comparison would be how many teams with an elite pg make the finals? Cause yeah Jordan and Kobe skew the winning portion.

Foul on Smits
04-06-2011, 10:44 AM
If you watched Kobe in his rookie season, the parallels are there. No one knew Kobe would be one of the best of all time.

Foul on Smits
04-06-2011, 10:46 AM
Then those people have some unrealistic expectations. He was the 10th pick in the draft, who the heck expects him to be a top 10 player in the entire league? And why are you making him sound like a failure if he doesn't reach that?

I think Paul George can become a 18-20 PPG scorer and make a NBA All-Defensive team. That doesn't mean he is a top 10 player in the league necessarily, but it certainly means trading him now after one season would be a dumb move.

Kobe was a 13th pick I believe. He was just as raw.

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 11:06 AM
I think a more interesting comparison would be how many teams with an elite pg make the finals? Cause yeah Jordan and Kobe skew the winning portion.

Really, Jordan and Kobe aren't the ones skewing the win%. Phil Jackson does because his teams run the triangle offense which doesnt need a true pg. Since he is the only one using it. Take him out and you will see most teams have won the title with a very good to elite pg. Parker, Billups, Rondo, Isaiah, Magic, Dennis Johnson, etc..

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 11:07 AM
Kobe was a 13th pick I believe. He was just as raw.

Kobe was also 2 years behind George. i dont think they are comparable. Nobody expects George to be anywhere near a Kobe. That would be great but is totally unrealistic.

DaveP63
04-06-2011, 11:09 AM
Paul George's trade value: Should we trade for a legit asset now?

NO

naptownmenace
04-06-2011, 12:01 PM
I don't understand why people think Paul George has the potential to be a Superstar. I don't think he'll ever be named to an All-Star game.

I can't look at a guy that averages 7 points a game as a starter and only plays 20 minutes a night becoming a superstar. Superstars don't come out of no where. They are usually great from their first season. He's nothing like a Kobe/Wade/Melo/Durant superstar player who during their rookie season in the NBA were remarkable players. Although Kobe could be looked at this way, Kobe came straight from High School and was the Naismith High School Player of the Year, Gatorade Men's National Basketball Player of the Year, a McDonald's All-American, and a USA Today All-USA First Team player.


That doesn't mean that I don't like him or don't think he could become a valuable starter in a couple of years. I just think he is closer to being a Trevor Ariza type player than he is to being the best player on a good team.

mattie
04-06-2011, 12:57 PM
Outside of Jordan and Kobe, how many top 3 sg's have won a title in the last 30 years? 1 = D-Wade.

Jordan and Kobe skew the argument because they trump anyone else you might have on the team.

Of course you can skew the argument any way you want Troy. You could say in the last 20 years, other than Manu, Wade, Kobe, and MJ elite 2 guards don't win. You could then argue that all the point guards in the championship teams within the last 20 years are elite. You could repeat it again and again. It is clear nothing I can say will sway you either way. If I a scientist was able prove beyond a doubt with a new scientific law that point guards don't win, you'd still argue against it.

That's the difference in our arguments. You're trying to prove you're right at whatever cost. Facts, or counter-arguments are merely obstacles in your way to prove you cannot be wrong.

I'm not. I just want everyone on this board to see that while it is abundantly clear elite point guards can win titles, as Isaiah Thomas showed us over 20 years ago, it is far more common to win with shooting guards, or any other non-point position.

Everyone outside of Troy reading this thread can look for yourself. That's what I encourage. Just evaluate every championship team you've seen. What does it take to win? You'll see many different ways to win, but I'm sure you'll see some ways are more common than others.

troyc11a
04-06-2011, 01:26 PM
Of course you can skew the argument any way you want Troy. You could say in the last 20 years, other than Manu, Wade, Kobe, and MJ elite 2 guards don't win. You could then argue that all the point guards in the championship teams within the last 20 years are elite. You could repeat it again and again. It is clear nothing I can say will sway you either way. If I a scientist was able prove beyond a doubt with a new scientific law that point guards don't win, you'd still argue against it.

That's the difference in our arguments. You're trying to prove you're right at whatever cost. Facts, or counter-arguments are merely obstacles in your way to prove you cannot be wrong.

I'm not. I just want everyone on this board to see that while it is abundantly clear elite point guards can win titles, as Isaiah Thomas showed us over 20 years ago, it is far more common to win with shooting guards, or any other non-point position.

Everyone outside of Troy reading this thread can look for yourself. That's what I encourage. Just evaluate every championship team you've seen. What does it take to win? You'll see many different ways to win, but I'm sure you'll see some ways are more common than others.

Again, people getting paid millions of dollars to make these decisions disagree with you hands down. You want to take all-time great players who play in a system where no pg is really needed and base it on them. Take out Phil Jackson and just about every champ has a top tier pg. The argument that a sg is more important than a pg is probably the most ridiculous statement every made of Pacer Digest. And that says a lot. You are alone in this world in your line of thought.

Champs = quality pg
GM's select top tier pg before sg's
These are indisputable facts that anyone with knowledge of basketball will agree with.

Unclebuck
04-06-2011, 01:27 PM
I can't look at a guy that averages 7 points a game as a starter and only plays 20 minutes a night becoming a superstar. Superstars don't come out of no where. They are usually great from their first season. He's nothing like a Kobe/Wade/Melo/Durant superstar player who during their rookie season in the NBA were remarkable players.

Maybe he's like McGrady?

BRushWithDeath
04-06-2011, 01:36 PM
I don't understand why people think Paul George has the potential to be a Superstar. I don't think he'll ever be named to an All-Star game.

I can't look at a guy that averages 7 points a game as a starter and only plays 20 minutes a night becoming a superstar. Superstars don't come out of no where. They are usually great from their first season. He's nothing like a Kobe/Wade/Melo/Durant superstar player who during their rookie season in the NBA were remarkable players. Although Kobe could be looked at this way, Kobe came straight from High School and was the Naismith High School Player of the Year, Gatorade Men's National Basketball Player of the Year, a McDonald's All-American, and a USA Today All-USA First Team player.


That doesn't mean that I don't like him or don't think he could become a valuable starter in a couple of years. I just think he is closer to being a Trevor Ariza type player than he is to being the best player on a good team.

I really wish I wasn't nodding my head after reading this.

MTM
04-06-2011, 01:38 PM
Once you've made a strong argument in a message post, and perhaps a second argument, no need to keep re-hashing a one-on-one debate. Maybe for the rest of us, just continue it as a private message? We get the idea.

Since86
04-06-2011, 01:40 PM
Kobe was a 13th pick I believe. He was just as raw.


Kobe was picked 13th, because picking a HS kid was still kind of taboo. John Calapari who was NJ's coach at the time wanted to select him at 8, but Kobe's agent made it clear that wasn't in their plans after LA showed interest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=oconnor_ian&id=6255802

BillS
04-06-2011, 01:42 PM
Kobe was picked 13th, because picking a HS kid was still kind of taboo. John Calapari who was NJ's coach at the time wanted to select him at 8, but Kobe's agent made it clear that wasn't in their plans after LA showed interest.

http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=oconnor_ian&id=6255802

This. People constantly forget that the Kobe draft was full of all kinds of special circumstances and caveats, it really isn't a standard "great find deep in the draft" situation by any means.

Gamble1
04-06-2011, 01:42 PM
If we could get Josh Smith, Ej (not going to happen), or Iggy in a package deal for him then I would do it.

PG could be something great but no one knows for sure and certainly the odds are against him becoming a super star. I would much rather use him to get a player who we can count on now.

righteouscool
04-06-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't understand why people think Paul George has the potential to be a Superstar. I don't think he'll ever be named to an All-Star game.

I can't look at a guy that averages 7 points a game as a starter and only plays 20 minutes a night becoming a superstar. Superstars don't come out of no where. They are usually great from their first season. He's nothing like a Kobe/Wade/Melo/Durant superstar player who during their rookie season in the NBA were remarkable players. Although Kobe could be looked at this way, Kobe came straight from High School and was the Naismith High School Player of the Year, Gatorade Men's National Basketball Player of the Year, a McDonald's All-American, and a USA Today All-USA First Team player.


That doesn't mean that I don't like him or don't think he could become a valuable starter in a couple of years. I just think he is closer to being a Trevor Ariza type player than he is to being the best player on a good team.

Because he has great size, athletisim, pretty form on his jump shot, and can defend, in spurts, at an incredible level. Not to mention a lot of those players were not near as raw as George coming out of college. I didn't expect him to even play much this year.

The reason I think he can be a top player is because of his insane body control. He is absurdly smooth in his motions which took me by surprise when I first saw him. When you consider that he has only been playing the wing position for 3 years now his smoothness is even more impressive.

He was playing incredibly well when he was the man to score off the bench. I really hate that he's stuck with the starters because none of them, besides Roy, are good passers. I think he could put up 10-15 a game if he was given more chances to score and stopped shooting spot up threes so much.

naptownmenace
04-06-2011, 03:08 PM
Maybe he's like McGrady?

It's possible. Still TMac was a McDonald's All-American and ranked number 1 by USA Today coming out of High School. He was expected to be great because he was great in High School.

Paul George is sort of a late bloomer. He didn't play AAU basketball and he was unheralded coming out of High School. With that said, that could be something in his favor considering he's able to do what he's doing without as much organized basketball training. I definitely think he'll get better but not All-Star level good. Maybe one notch below. I see Trevor Ariza when I see him play.

Since86
04-06-2011, 03:17 PM
I see Trevor Ariza when I see him play.


His jumpshot, especially midrange, is already better. Plus he has pretty good ability to not only create a jumpshot for himself, but get to the basket.

Right now he has to rely on those awkward layups, but when the game slows down he'll get short little bunnies under control, or he'll be getting big time dunks.

Defensively I definitely see the comparison though.

Trophy
04-06-2011, 03:22 PM
I'm not worried about Paul.

He plays like a rookie and some of his issues are common for most rookies which can be improved.

He's still pretty raw with handling the ball and he's not shooting at a high percentage like in college which will take a little while to adjust.

crazylikeafox
04-06-2011, 03:58 PM
Who are we to believe NBA GM's or you? The people who get paid millions of dollars overwhelmingly would take a quality pg over a quality sg. Not even an argument. Since 2000 16 pg's taken in top 5. Only 7 sg's. So this pg obsession is not a fallacy, it is a fact.

You are only using 10 years of NBA draft history to support your opinion as fact. There have been some very good point guards in the league over this time, doesn't it also make sense that those GM's were drafting more point guards in an attempt to find one that can compete with them. Out of all these point guards drafted how many of them are elite?

righteouscool
04-06-2011, 05:09 PM
It's possible. Still TMac was a McDonald's All-American and ranked number 1 by USA Today coming out of High School. He was expected to be great because he was great in High School.

Paul George is sort of a late bloomer. He didn't play AAU basketball and he was unheralded coming out of High School. With that said, that could be something in his favor considering he's able to do what he's doing without as much organized basketball training. I definitely think he'll get better but not All-Star level good. Maybe one notch below. I see Trevor Ariza when I see him play.

Paul is a better passer then Ariza already. I can see what you're saying defensively, though.

I really think one thing that Paul doesn't get enough credit for is his passing. It seems like most of the time he's looking to pass rather than shoot (almost to a fault) and he's had some great passes lately.

ilive4sports
04-06-2011, 05:30 PM
I've been saying Paul is more like McGrady than any other player I've seen. The fluidity to his game is remarkable, especially for a rookie. He has better body control, by far, than anyone else on the team. His decision making is pretty damn good for a rookie. He will make rookie mistakes, but that is too be expected. Its things that I can see him fix easily.

One thing that I see and love from Paul is in a situation like this: So many times a young player will receive a long pass and end up under the basket with a trailing defender coming for a LeBron type block. Very often the shot gets blocked, no foul and just a waste of an opportunity. A lot of guys in the NBA do this. Paul is GREAT at anticipating this. He doesn't rush it to miss the easy shot or get it blocked. He waits for the defender to get in a bad position, making the shot easier and often draws a foul.

It's such a small thing, but to me it shows that he really has a good understanding of the flow of the game. I think overall he has some great anticipation and you see him just burst through the hole like its easy. When he drives its not like a typical attack the basket I see often. Its just so smooth. It's McGrady like when he does it.

To me I just see a very special player in Paul George. I don't see that fluidity in Ariza's game. I don't see it in many average player's games. I see it in Kobe's, Vince Carter's, McGrady's and so on. That's what really impresses me the most about Paul George. His outside shot is going to start falling sooner than later. Then it will be Paul's world and we will all just be living in it.

vnzla81
04-06-2011, 07:14 PM
OK, but then trade him when he is "maybe as good as Danny" not now. Unless there is a team out there who is convinced he will be a superstar - but I doubt there are any of those teams.

I agree, I was just mentioning that because many people here expect so much from him, I compare him to Rush, he haven't been able to meet their expectations and now they want to trade and cut the guy, again my expectations for him are high but if he becomes as good as Ariza I wouldn't be as mad as many here.

BringJackBack
04-06-2011, 07:21 PM
I think that Paul George is already better than Trevor Ariza.

PacerPride33
04-06-2011, 09:45 PM
Paul showed tonight why we all think he is our future franchise player. We have to remember he is still just a rookie and he will have his ups and downs. Given experience, he is only going to become better and more consistent. Seems like he has a better work ethic and drive to be great than Danny too

xIndyFan
04-06-2011, 11:42 PM
paul could be a bust. anything is possible. but he looks like a guy that will only get better. he has a nice handle, a little loose, but that would seem to be fixable. he gets to the rim easily, but has trouble finishing. that also seems fixable by getting used to the NBA game. his 3 pt shot from up top is iffy, but he shoots ok inside the line. that would seem to be something else that will fix itself by getting used to NBA 3 pt line. he doesn't use his height well, but as he gets bigger and stronger, that should add itself to his game. he is a little passive, that could be problematical. or not. things like a weak off hand will get fixed in time.

there is no great hole in his game. he runs, rebounds, blocks shots, passes, seems to see the court pretty well. everything points to being a pretty good player. i agree with PP33, paul looks like a future franchise player. getting rid of him for anyone outside of guys named dwight or lebron would seem to be a stupid thing to do.

Hoop
04-07-2011, 01:25 AM
Paul George's trade value?

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/maasx003/Vikings/images/drevil.jpg

(More than Gordan Hayward) :D

Blink
04-07-2011, 04:11 PM
You are only using 10 years of NBA draft history to support your opinion as fact. There have been some very good point guards in the league over this time, doesn't it also make sense that those GM's were drafting more point guards in an attempt to find one that can compete with them. Out of all these point guards drafted how many of them are elite?

Not only that but one could argue that your sample only includes the worst GMs in the league.