PDA

View Full Version : If it is not broke,why fix it?



tflo
06-10-2011, 11:33 PM
I don't understand what is all the hype in trying to trade Granger,he has proven to be one of the best Small Fowards in the league.( Some here don't think so.) I think we should concertrate on other postition that we need improvment on. Come on Pacers fans, what do you think?

Hicks
06-10-2011, 11:48 PM
I'd prefer to add pieces to play with him, but I'm not 100% against trading him, if it's the "right trade".

ChristianDudley
06-11-2011, 12:55 AM
I agree, he is one of the best SFs in the league and I'd love to build around him, especially after spending all these seasons now putting so much into him as our franchise leader--and now people want to trade him to Minnesota for a pothead, an overhyped European version of a Globetrotter, and a worthless-to-us 2nd round draft pick. I definitely would like to keep Danny, at least for now.

adamscb
06-11-2011, 01:22 AM
im ok with keeping granger, but i dont want him as our primary scorer.

KingGeorge
06-11-2011, 01:34 AM
I like Danny, but we should look at every trade carefully. If a trade comes along that will make our team better, then take it.

I would like to add pieces to what we already have, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. We can't just settle on a good player that is only getting us 35-40 wins each season.

itzryan07
06-11-2011, 02:21 AM
haha thats the thing though it is broken

OakMoses
06-11-2011, 07:55 AM
Good is the enemy of great.

Merz
06-11-2011, 08:06 AM
and a worthless-to-us 2nd round draft pick.

I believe it was the 2nd overall pick in the draft that was in that rumor.

Merz
06-11-2011, 08:11 AM
It's not so much trying to fix something that is not broken as it is trying to get a better model (the team as a whole not just Granger).

If all you had was a console television from 1982, that worked perfectly fine, would you refuse to buy a brand new HDTV if it became available?

Shade
06-11-2011, 08:31 AM
It's like having an oil leak, and trying to fix it by replacing a tire.

oxxo
06-11-2011, 01:41 PM
I think Granger gets alot of undeserved criticism both from hardcore fans (people on these boards) and casual fans. Like I've said time and time again, he's better than he seems (not flashy game), has a game that will age well, has a good contract, AND likes to play here. There is absolutely no reason to trade him for junk players + 2nd round picks like people want.

Peck
06-11-2011, 02:01 PM
Good is the enemy of great.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

:chin:

I like that thought.

It can be applied to the situation in so many ways.

1. Danny is good but not great and therefor you can say we would be stuck in neutral till his reign as team leader is over.

2. Trading Danny away for other good players might wreck whatever great chemistry the team might have going forward.

3. Both Danny & Paul being very good make a great 2 + 3 combo.

Lot's of ways to go there, but your point is great no matter how you look at it.

I've said all along no player on our team is untouchable but I do not want to trade away our best player for parts. If Danny is to be moved I want him to be moved as part of a deal that will bring in a new undisputed best player who will take us to the next level. Not a trade for a player that in 3-4 years will be as good as Danny was 3 years ago. The time to advance is now, either with Danny leading the way or his replacement.

I love Paul George's game but I think we are all kidding ourselves if we believe that Paul next year will break out and be what Danny was the year he made the all-star game. He might be there in a couple of years but I would rather let him & Danny progress together.

Now is you are telling me we could get Chris Paul (I think he is the one star player that you have a small but possible chance at) or similar then yes.

ksuttonjr76
06-12-2011, 01:59 PM
I like Danny, but we should look at every trade carefully. If a trade comes along that will make our team better, then take it.

I would like to add pieces to what we already have, but sometimes it doesn't work that way. We can't just settle on a good player that is only getting us 35-40 wins each season.

I could have sworn that basketball was a team sport.

KingGeorge
06-12-2011, 02:11 PM
I could have sworn that basketball was a team sport.

It is, but you need the kind of player that can take over games. Danny isn't that type of player. Paul might be, but we probably won't know for at least a couple seasons.

Basketball is a team sport, but your best player does matter. Just ask the Cavs.

tflo
06-12-2011, 08:23 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

:chin:

I like that thought.

It can be applied to the situation in so many ways.

1. Danny is good but not great and therefor you can say we would be stuck in neutral till his reign as team leader is over.

2. Trading Danny away for other good players might wreck whatever great chemistry the team might have going forward.

3. Both Danny & Paul being very good make a great 2 + 3 combo.

Lot's of ways to go there, but your point is great no matter how you look at it.

I've said all along no player on our team is untouchable but I do not want to trade away our best player for parts. If Danny is to be moved I want him to be moved as part of a deal that will bring in a new undisputed best player who will take us to the next level. Not a trade for a player that in 3-4 years will be as good as Danny was 3 years ago. The time to advance is now, either with Danny leading the way or his replacement.

I love Paul George's game but I think we are all kidding ourselves if we believe that Paul next year will break out and be what Danny was the year he made the all-star game. He might be there in a couple of years but I would rather let him & Danny progress together.

Now is you are telling me we could get Chris Paul (I think he is the one star player that you have a small but possible chance at) or similar then yes.

"I might be wrong, but I dought it!"Lets compare Granger's Rookie Stats with Paul George's. I think we might be suprised! I am not a cyber space junky but, can somebody here please post them for us?George is definitely going to be a very good basketball player!I think we are overestimating Paul's abillity as we did to Granger. Lets don't overestimate Paul's abillity.

2minutes twowa
06-12-2011, 09:23 PM
G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
78 17 22.6 0.462 0.323 0.777 1.7 3.2 4.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.03 2.71 7.5
61 19 20.7 0.453 0.297 0.762 0.6 3.1 3.7 1.1 1.0 0.4 1.2 2.1 7.8

Very similar, but the teams they were on were very different.

Pacer Fan
06-12-2011, 09:25 PM
It's broken....please fix it LB!

Trophy
06-12-2011, 09:30 PM
If we're trading Danny, I want a franchise guy in return.

I've liked Eric Gordon and Rudy Gay to fit that bill for this team. Preferably EJ though.

Either of those teams need Danny more than we do and we can use EJ or Rudy Gay.

I'm not writing Danny off. I've always been a huge fan of his, but with Paul in the picture and if a good trade is there to get that solid player, I'd do it.

pacer4ever
06-12-2011, 09:40 PM
this is what the Lakers should be saying not the Pacers. When has it been fixed? we limp into the playoffs is that what you are striving for? It hasn't ever been fixed since DG has been here(not saying that is his fault). We are going in the right direction but i just don't understand saying it isn't broke when we haven't even won 40gms with DG as the center piece.

If we were a perennial 50+ win playoff team i might understand the comment but i just dont get it. With how much we have struggled in the past 5+ years.

tflo
06-12-2011, 09:47 PM
G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
78 17 22.6 0.462 0.323 0.777 1.7 3.2 4.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.03 2.71 7.5
61 19 20.7 0.453 0.297 0.762 0.6 3.1 3.7 1.1 1.0 0.4 1.2 2.1 7.8

Very similar, but the teams they were on were very different.

Thanks for posting the stats .Very intresting!:angel: