PDA

View Full Version : Monta's agent apparently has told Golden State that he wants to be traded



Pace2012
06-24-2011, 01:45 PM
http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


Paul George, Rush, next years 1st for Monta?

Hibbert, Rush, Collison for D. Lee and Monta?

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:02 PM
http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


Paul George, Rush, next years 1st for Monta?

Hibbert, Rush, Collison for D. Lee and Monta?

I'd give them DC, Danny. I love Granger but Monta IMHO is the next comming of A.I. And he can play either the 2 or 1. Has good passing skills and can be the face of our franchise for the next 10 years :dance:

SMosley21
06-24-2011, 02:05 PM
Thank God neither of you run a professional basketball team. You'd both be fired within days.

CableKC
06-24-2011, 02:05 PM
I can see some 3 way trade that involves the Warriors sending Monta to some 3rd Team while the receiving Josh Smith and then that 3rd Team sending some very solid pieces back to the Hawks.

Basically:

Warriors get JSmoove
Hawks get ???? ( from 3rd Team )
3rd Team getting Monta

Before anyone says it.....a BRush+future 1st for Monta will not work....the Warriors would just hang up and laugh.

Ozwalt72
06-24-2011, 02:06 PM
I'm glad we won't be tempted to trade for him.

CooperManning
06-24-2011, 02:06 PM
I'd give them DC, Danny. I love Granger but Monta IMHO is the next comming of A.I.

Wait, when did that become a good thing?

Kstat
06-24-2011, 02:11 PM
I love that he's informed golden state he wants to be traded after they spent the last 2 weeks trying to deal him, and drafted a guy last night that plays his position...

this is like the guy that's telling the girl he wants to break up after she's been trying to break it to him for weeks that she's dumping him.

Scot Pollard
06-24-2011, 02:12 PM
I'd give them DC, Danny. I love Granger but Monta IMHO is the next comming of A.I. And he can play either the 2 or 1. Has good passing skills and can be the face of our franchise for the next 10 years :dance:

Your signature makes me laugh. :laugh:

Reginald
06-24-2011, 02:17 PM
Between PG, Collison and Hill, Bird has spent the last year almost singularly dedicating his time to adding quality and depth at the guard position, and you just want to take a dump on the whole thing.

Pace2012
06-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Between PG, Collison and Hill, Bird has spent the last year almost singularly dedicating his time to adding quality and depth at the guard position, and you just want to take a dump on the whole thing.



Monta would be a game changer though. He's what the Pacers need. Another guy in the mold of Reggie Miller offensive talent wise. Who can take the scoring load and defenses off of Granger.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Thank God neither of you run a professional basketball team. You'd both be fired within days.

Add to the discussion, don't be a idiot with childish remarks....on to the next

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:23 PM
Between PG, Collison and Hill, Bird has spent the last year almost singularly dedicating his time to adding quality and depth at the guard position, and you just want to take a dump on the whole thing.

Lets be honest here Monta is a clear upgrade over DC, Hill is a backup. How does trading DC for a better PG and keeping Hill as a backup hurt us?

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:24 PM
Your signature makes me laugh. :laugh:

Awesome

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:28 PM
Wait, when did that become a good thing?

Hmmm...is that really a question? A.I is one of the best players in the history of the league, when was the last time we had anyone on our team singlehandedly carry us to the ship with no real help? When the last time we've had a top 5 SG on our team? I miss having a star on the roster, at the moment we have none. You put Monta in the East at his natural position he's giving us 24/7/2, and giving us a clearcut number 1 option.

d_c
06-24-2011, 02:29 PM
I love that he's informed golden state he wants to be traded after they spent the last 2 weeks trying to deal him, and drafted a guy last night that plays his position...

this is like the guy that's telling the girl he wants to break up after she's been trying to break it to him for weeks that she's dumping him.

The Vescey article is most likely a regurgitation of what was already said by his agent 2 weeks ago.

NBA writers are easily the worst when it comes to repeating a rumor while making it sound like it's something new.

Dr. Hibbert
06-24-2011, 02:30 PM
Pretty sure the Pacers should be done acquiring guards by now. On to the front court...

SMosley21
06-24-2011, 02:31 PM
Add to the discussion, don't be a idiot with childish remarks....on to the next

I thought it was pretty clear that I added that both of your ideas were terrible, to the discussion.

Regardless, I'll try not to be A idiot from now on.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:35 PM
I thought it was pretty clear that I added that both of your ideas were terrible, to the discussion.

Regardless, I'll try not to be A idiot from now on.

Come up with something better then, a reason or two would be nice, but whatever if you don't like it then.......:cry:

CooperManning
06-24-2011, 02:35 PM
Hmmm...is that really a question? A.I is one of the best players in the history of the league, when was the last time we had anyone on our team singlehandedly carry us to the ship with no real help? When the last time we've had a top 5 SG on our team? I miss having a star on the roster, at the moment we have none. You put Monta in the East at his natural position he's giving us 24/7/2, and giving us a clearcut number 1 option.

Iverson was a volume scorer and a fairly selfish player. He was fun to watch and he put up a lot of points, but he never got a ring and doesn't deserve one. I would much rather have Danny Granger, a guy you can build around, than the next coming of AI.

TheDon
06-24-2011, 02:35 PM
Step 1 make offer with one of our players ----> step 2 ??? -----> step 3 profit

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:42 PM
Iverson was a volume scorer and a fairly selfish player. He was fun to watch and he put up a lot of points, but he never got a ring and doesn't deserve one. I would much rather have Danny Granger, a guy you can build around, than the next coming of AI.

We can build around Granger??:rolleyes:
How much longer do we have to wait for that exactly? Because last time I checked you don't build around number 2 options. Even the freaking GM knows he's a second option on a good team, probably a third on a contender. I love Danny but he's a Paul Pierce type player not going to win anything without 2 more players of better or equal talent.

Iverson never and I REPEAT...NEVER had any help on that team. Everyone calls him selfish but I watched every player from that team go elsewhere and do nothing. I respect your opinion and I agree to disagree, but you give most fans a choice on who would get you to the ship first between the two I think 9 out of 10 pick A.I, the 1 person would probably be you.

mildlysane
06-24-2011, 02:42 PM
Come up with something better then, a reason or two would be nice, but whatever if you don't like it then.......:cry:
I think he is saying that staying put is a better idea than what you have presented. Don't take it personal.

PaulGeorge
06-24-2011, 02:46 PM
http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


Paul George, Rush, next years 1st for Monta?

Hibbert, Rush, Collison for D. Lee and Monta?

NO THANKS! PG will be way better then Monta

CooperManning
06-24-2011, 02:49 PM
We can build around Granger??:rolleyes:
How much longer do we have to wait for that exactly? Because last time I checked you don't build around number 2 options. Even the freaking GM knows he's a second option on a good team, probably a third on a contender. I love Danny but he's a Paul Pierce type player not going to win anything without 2 more players of better or equal talent.

Iverson never and I REPEAT...NEVER had any help on that team. Everyone calls him selfish but I watched every player from that team go elsewhere and do nothing. I respect your opinion and I agree to disagree, but you give most fans a choice on who would get you to the ship first between the two I think 9 out of 10 pick A.I, the 1 person would probably be you.

I don't mean build around Granger in a Lebron kind of way, I mean Granger isn't going to take 22 shots a game, so his teammates can get involved too. And regardless, we're not discussing Granger vs. AI, we're discussing Granger vs. Monta Ellis. If you want to test your 9 out of 10 theory, make a poll and find out. I think you'll be surprised.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 02:53 PM
Actually the closest player in this new NBA to Iverson is Drose and I am pretty sure that nobody here would complaint if we get him.

Since86
06-24-2011, 02:53 PM
I love how Monta is considered a #1 option, who you can build around, with his career 19.4ppg average and Danny is a #2 option who you can't build around with his 18.2ppg average. (Danny shoots 4% less in overall fg%, but shoots 5% better on 3pt fg)

I'm not saying Danny is a #1 option you can build around. I'm saying both are better served as #2 options.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 02:55 PM
I think he is saying that staying put is a better idea than what you have presented. Don't take it personal.

Never do, I really just hate people who do that, offer nothing to the discussion, no counterpoints or anything to add to the debate other than that trash. I watch a lot of GSW games and I pretty much know what Monta is capable of, I also watch INDY games and I got a good grasp at what DC can do well and what he can't, I also can see unless we get another scoring threat Danny is being forced to be the man and clearly he isn't.

Hicks
06-24-2011, 03:06 PM
Actually the closest player in this new NBA to Iverson is Drose and I am pretty sure that nobody here would complaint if we get him.

Iverson with size, strength, and without any of the bull**** or the injuries, maybe.

CooperManning
06-24-2011, 03:08 PM
Iverson with size, strength, and without any of the ******** or the injuries, maybe.

And a killer work ethic. D-Rose will be much better than Iverson, if he isn't already.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 03:11 PM
I love how Monta is considered a #1 option, who you can build around, with his career 19.4ppg average and Danny is a #2 option who you can't build around with his 18.2ppg average. (Danny shoots 4% less in overall fg%, but shoots 5% better on 3pt fg)

I'm not saying Danny is a #1 option you can build around. I'm saying both are better served as #2 options.

The difference is that Monta can create his own shot and he is a closer when Danny can't create his own shot and he is not that good of a closer.

At the end of the day Monta is a better player than Danny, I wouldn't making a trade were Danny stays here and we have a pair of all star players in Monta and Danny, who knows maybe DC+Tyler+pick for him?

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 03:17 PM
Iverson with size, strength, and without any of the bull**** or the injuries, maybe.

There was an article in SI(I think) that compared the two guys numbers(Iverson in his prime) and they were all similar.

By the way I don't think they were comparing strength or size.

Since86
06-24-2011, 03:17 PM
Lots of players can create their own shot, doesn't mean that they should be the #1 option on a team.

I'm not arguing that Monta is a better player, or if Danny is a better player. I'm arguing that both aren't #1 options to build around.

I like Monta, but if he's your #1, then you're not a good basketball team. I'd be thrilled with him as a #2. And I don't mean that as a put down.

And I don't think being able to create your own shot is a esstential piece of the puzzle. Reggie didn't create his own shot.

There are multiple ways of getting to point B.

EDIT: And to be honest, I hope the Ps already have their closer on the roster. I hope Paul George can step into that role, because he's pretty good at getting to his spots, and with his size he will be able to shoot over defenders all day long.

I just don't see the need to give up both Danny and DC for Monta.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 03:21 PM
Lots of players can create their own shot, doesn't mean that they should be the #1 option on a team.

I'm not arguing that Monta is a better player, or if Danny is a better player. I'm arguing that both aren't #1 options to build around.

I like Monta, but if he's your #1, then you're not a good basketball team. I'd be thrilled with him as a #2. And I don't mean that as a put down.

And I don't think being able to create your own shot is a esstential piece of the puzzle. Reggie didn't create his own shot.

There are multiple ways of getting to point B.

But isn't your argument with me yesterday telling me that we should find another number 2 option to play with Danny? call me crazy but a team with Monta,PG,Danny, X player and Roy sounds pretty good to me, I would be surprised if we are not at least in 3th or 4th place at the end of next year.


edit: I wouldn't give up Danny and DC for Monta either.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 03:25 PM
Lots of players can create their own shot, doesn't mean that they should be the #1 option on a team.

I'm not arguing that Monta is a better player, or if Danny is a better player. I'm arguing that both aren't #1 options to build around.

I like Monta, but if he's your #1, then you're not a good basketball team. I'd be thrilled with him as a #2. And I don't mean that as a put down.

And I don't think being able to create your own shot is a esstential piece of the puzzle. Reggie didn't create his own shot.

There are multiple ways of getting to point B.

EDIT: And to be honest, I hope the Ps already have their closer on the roster. I hope Paul George can step into that role, because he's pretty good at getting to his spots, and with his size he will be able to shoot over defenders all day long.

I just don't see the need to give up both Danny and DC for Monta.

I agree, that's not the be all when it comes to a good player, but Monta is a top 4 SG, there's no way you don't get him here and if it doesn't take Danny then even better. Monta can score from anywhere on the court, and he's a allstar if GSW would just put him at point, and if he didn't play in the same conference as Kobe, Paul, Nash, D Will (pretrade), Kidd, and others.

I like George, but don't you think Chicago wishes they pulled the trade on Deng for Kobe back when everyone thought Deng was the next big thing? George hasn't proved anything yet, and if you can get a elite scorer who can still give you 7 assists a night then you have to pull that trigger.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 03:31 PM
I love how Monta is considered a #1 option, who you can build around, with his career 19.4ppg average and Danny is a #2 option who you can't build around with his 18.2ppg average. (Danny shoots 4% less in overall fg%, but shoots 5% better on 3pt fg)

I'm not saying Danny is a #1 option you can build around. I'm saying both are better served as #2 options.

You can't be serious comparing their stats over the last 5 years. For one, Monta was a 2nd round pick who busted his butt to become a starter, and wasn't handed the keys like Danny was with Reggie soon to be leaving. Then when he finally got the job he had to share with S Jax, Baron, Harrington and we all know those guys are going to get theirs first. He was finally given the keys and instead of drafting a physical SG to pair with him they got a soft, no defense, shooter in Curry.

Monta is a number one, especially on this team. He can't help that GSW has had the worst front office since the Clippers screwed up and got Blake Griffin (joke). He's a closer, can move the ball in a real offense, gets to the rim, and he can drop 10 assists just as fast as he can get you 30 points. Can you say that about anyone on this roster??

beast23
06-24-2011, 03:32 PM
Lets be honest here Monta is a clear upgrade over DC, Hill is a backup. How does trading DC for a better PG and keeping Hill as a backup hurt us?
How does trading DC or a better PG and keeping Hill as a backup hurt us? Well, it doesn't. Except that you don't propose trading just DC, you just have to throw in Danny as well.

One can be an idiot by doing things other than just adding childish remarks. I think that perhaps you have found one of them.

Since86
06-24-2011, 03:35 PM
A line-up of Ellis/PG/Danny/X/Roy would be nice, if either Danny or Monta would start playing defense. And player X needs to be a good defender as well.

My problem with Monta is purely on the defensive side of the ball. Scoring is something that you can find everyday of the week in the NBA.

I think the Pacers have bigger needs than to find another elite scorer, if that scorer has zero interest in playing defense.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 03:42 PM
A line-up of Ellis/PG/Danny/X/Roy would be nice, if either Danny or Monta would start playing defense. And player X needs to be a good defender as well.

My problem with Monta is purely on the defensive side of the ball. Scoring is something that you can find everyday of the week in the NBA.

I think the Pacers have bigger needs than to find another elite scorer, if that scorer has zero interest in playing defense.

I know this is a dream of mine but I would love to get Varejao to be our PF, I agree with you that neither Monta or Danny play good D, I think the issue with Monta is that he plays on a team that doesn't care about defense, the funny thing in all this is that Monta is pretty much the guy in charge of guarding the best player on the other teams all the time.

Since86
06-24-2011, 03:42 PM
You can't be serious comparing their stats over the last 5 years. For one, Monta was a 2nd round pick who busted his butt to become a starter, and wasn't handed the keys like Danny was with Reggie soon to be leaving. Then when he finally got the job he had to share with S Jax, Baron, Harrington and we all know those guys are going to get theirs first. He was finally given the keys and instead of drafting a physical SG to pair with him they got a soft, no defense, shooter in Curry.

Where they were drafted makes no difference on what I expect out of them now. Monta could have been the 1st pick of the draft, and it wouldn't change anything. I don't care about where they were drafted.

I think Monta is pretty much tapped out, as far as what his ceiling is. I don't think he's going to change into a 30pt scorer. He's going to stay low to mid 20s, which is exactly where I expect Danny. Maybe not mid 20s but definitely around 20pts per game.


Monta is a number one, especially on this team. He can't help that GSW has had the worst front office since the Clippers screwed up and got Blake Griffin (joke). He's a closer, can move the ball in a real offense, gets to the rim, and he can drop 10 assists just as fast as he can get you 30 points. Can you say that about anyone on this roster??

Yes, he would be a #1 on this team. There's no denying that. Danny is a #1 on this team. That doesn't mean that I think either one could be a #1 on a championship team.

That's awesome he can get 30 points fast and 10 assists just as easily. Neither one takes the Pacers to the next level. It's merely re-arranging the chairs on the deck.

vnzla81
06-24-2011, 03:44 PM
Here is a nice article I found on SI for those that are interested

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/06/22/ellis-defense-is-red-flag-for-interested-teams/


The first thing that jumps out when you watch hundreds of clips of the Warriors’ Monta Ellis playing defense is this: It is astounding how much trouble such a good player and such a good athlete has with simple change-of-direction moves. Ellis ranked as one the worst isolation defenders in the league last season, and the tape of his one-on-one defense is an endless reel of brutal crossovers, reckless gambles and spin moves that leave him flailing out of position.

It’s not just Ellis’ penchant for chasing steals that gets him in trouble; remarkably, even marginal players like Gerald Henderson just destroy him on change-of-direction dribble moves when the Golden State guard does his best to play standard one-on-one defense. Scouts and coaches, including former Warriors coach Keith Smart, have noticed these quirks and have various explanations for them.

Those varying explanations hint at why Ellis, the endless subject of trade rumors, is perhaps the most divisive player in the league. He’s either touted as the NBA’s third-best shooting guard, or ripped as a selfish gunner, defensive sieve and all-around team-killer Golden State should look to unload the first chance it gets. Even Ellis’ supporters, including Smart and Warriors general manager Larry Riley, recognize his flaws, and potential trade partners have to ask themselves: Are those issues unique to Golden State, or will they follow Ellis wherever he goes?

Ellis’ allegedly poor defense is at the center of that question. As many have pointed out, the Warriors have been much better defensively with Ellis on the bench for three straight seasons. That statistic has its flaws, especially considering how many minutes Ellis plays (a league-leading 40.3 minutes per game last season), but his critics have a growing pile of evidence that he is fatal to the Warriors’ already-limited defense. Those who have hope for Ellis hold strongly to two caveats:


• The Warriors did not exactly prioritize defense under Don Nelson, who coached Ellis for four years before being replaced by Smart last season. Their transition defense has long been abysmal, Nelson’s wacky lineups didn’t help and Golden State was horrendous defensively in 2008-09, when Ellis played just 25 games.

• Ellis was miscast as the guy charged with defending every opponent’s best perimeter player. Smart clearly did not think Stephen Curry was ready for that kind of challenge, usually leaving Ellis to defend both the league’s best shooting guards (Kobe Bryant, Joe Johnson, Eric Gordon) and the best point guards (Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Steve Nash). Pair Ellis with a more capable defender, and perhaps he can have more “off” nights guarding Marco Belinelli, Raja Bell, Derek Fisher, Kirk Hinrich and Eric Bledsoe.

“Part of his deficiency stems from where he played,” said one scout who has followed Ellis’ career closely. “There was not a lot of time spent teaching the way it should be done. He was not required to defend.”

The hope, according to this scout and others, would be that Ellis becomes a neutral defensive presence on a team with a rigid system and under a coach who holds players accountable to that system.

But, man, those bad habits. Let’s start with the blow-bys. Watch enough of them, and it becomes clear that Ellis suffers from shaky footwork and a defensive stance that is far too upright. Opponents can use his momentum against him, but they often don’t even need to do that because Ellis is almost standing straight up, vulnerable to a speedy drive. Smart said he noticed the same thing and tried to correct it.

“You have to sit down in a saddle, really bend down and slide,” Smart said. “And that comes with having the flexibility to get wide, open up your hips and sit down. I suggested this to Monta and our other guards. It’s about flexibility, focus and stretching.”

Smart cautions that learning this kind of positioning is hard, and not everyone can do it — especially if players haven’t been coached well and forced to perform proper flexibility exercises, something the former coach says he wanted Golden State’s trainers to learn more about.

“I would say to Monta, ‘Keep your arms out wide, sit in that saddle,’ ” Smart said. “But that fatigues your gluts and your hamstrings, and that forces you to stand up.”

Smart, by the way, thinks Ellis is a heady, hard-working defender who has gotten better and generally followed the coaching staff’s instructions. And he was quite successful on pick-and-rolls; opponents averaged just 0.74 points per possession when the ball-handler on a pick-and-roll, guarded by Ellis, finished the play with a shot, drawn foul or turnover, according to Synergy Sports. That put Ellis 42nd in the league among all defenders — an elite ranking.

Smart said Ellis chased the best shooters over picks and tried his best to only go under screens when coaches instructed him to do so, often against so-so shooters. The lack of a shutdown interior defender also hurt because Ellis, like any guard, would fall behind ball-handlers while chasing them over a pick. At that point, it’s the big man’s job to contain penetration, and the Warriors’ big men outside of Ekpe Udoh weren’t much good at that.

But even on pick-and-rolls, Ellis has some habits you rarely see from great defenders. When he goes under a screen, he has a weird tendency to spin off the screener, so that his back is turned to the ball-handler before Ellis meets him on the other side of the pick. The habit leaves Ellis vulnerable to change-of-direction moves because he’s blinding himself to the ball for a second or two. Smart says Ellis claims to have learned the technique from watching Isiah Thomas (on tape) and Derek Fisher, Ellis’ teammate in Golden State in 2005-06.

Then there’s the gambling. Ellis is a serial gambler, and he often kills Golden State’s defense by pursuing steals when he’d be better off holding his ground. Some of this was by design, Smart said. The Warriors understood they were a shaky defensive team with rebounding issues, and so Smart considered turnovers a weapon they could use to tilt the balance back their way a bit. He told his guards not to gamble for steals at the top of the key or near the foul line because a bad bet there could allow an opponent to slice into the heart of the defense. He preferred gambling on the wings and baseline, where it is easier for help defenders to get in position.

“He was 50/50 in terms of doing the right thing,” Smart said of Ellis’ gambling. “It was something that was just so much a part of him, and he does come up with a lot of steals.”

Still, Ellis is too aggressive a gambler and does things that would be unacceptable in Boston, Chicago and other defense-first places. The league knows this, too, as Kobe, Quincy Pondexter, Joe Johnson, Jason Richardson, Grant Hill and others all pulled the same move on Ellis last season. Each player got the ball at the right elbow, dribbled hard to the right, waited for Ellis to reach that way and then spun back to the left for either an open jumper or uncontested drive. Some worked this move multiple times in the same game. Each time, Ellis would reach his way out of position, ending up near the top of the arc while his guy scored, drove or dished for an easy basket.

Part of his tendency to gamble in these situations might be linked to the size disadvantage Ellis faces against shooting guards. It’s a problem NBA people consider his biggest shortcoming as a player — the dreaded “tweener” status. He understands that if those players back him down, he will be in trouble.

Ellis’ height won’t change, but any team interested in dealing for him ask to itself whether his defensive habits might.

duke dynamite
06-24-2011, 03:50 PM
I thought it was pretty clear that I added that both of your ideas were terrible, to the discussion.

Regardless, I'll try not to be A idiot from now on.
Thank you.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 04:03 PM
How does trading DC or a better PG and keeping Hill as a backup hurt us? Well, it doesn't. Except that you don't propose trading just DC, you just have to throw in Danny as well.

One can be an idiot by doing things other than just adding childish remarks. I think that perhaps you have found one of them.

I put Danny in there because we can finally put George as the starter, and we have more wings than we need at the moment. I for one think that in order to get Monta we'd have to give up a position of need for GSW and that would be SF. As I stated earlier Danny staying and bringing in Monta is a dream scenario, but may not happen. We'd be foolish to give up on Roy, he's still developing, and could become a very good player for us at a position that's hard to fill. And by adding a elite scorer we put Hibbert in the 2-3 option role in which he is suited currently, with PG becomming the clear number 2.

Reading comprehension my friend....:hmm:

rwill784
06-24-2011, 04:11 PM
Here is a nice article I found on SI for those that are interested

http://nba-point-forward.si.com/2011/06/22/ellis-defense-is-red-flag-for-interested-teams/

He's a PG, not a 2 guard. He can't guard 6'6 defenders so he uses his quickness, and hands, not unheard of for someone being asked to guard the opposing teams better guard most nights. As a PG his defense is average, and let's be real here the kid was never asked to play D and neither was anyone on his team.

Everyone's fave EJ was a bad defender before this season, as was Rudy G, and both showed that on a bad team that doesn't ask you to D up, you really don't have to. But it can be taught as Rudy, EJ, Mayo, Dirk, Bosh and others have shown. The right coach can do that, not Don F'n Nelson.

So save the Anti-Monta articles because I can pull up just as many bashing any player in the league.

Justin Tyme
06-24-2011, 04:12 PM
Monta would be a game changer though. He's what the Pacers need. Another guy in the mold of Reggie Miller offensive talent wise. Who can take the scoring load and defenses off of Granger.


Does he play "D" as well as Hill? (See, I'm settling into the Hill trade. :D)

Justin Tyme
06-24-2011, 04:23 PM
The difference is that Monta can create his own shot and he is a closer when Danny can't create his own shot and he is not that good of a closer.

At the end of the day Monta is a better player than Danny, I wouldn't making a trade were Danny stays here and we have a pair of all star players in Monta and Danny, who knows maybe DC+Tyler+pick for him?



Salaries don't match, so a TE would have to be given back as well. As far as I'm concerned, PG is our SG, and a whole lot cheaper and plays better "D". I'd rather roll with PG for now.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 04:27 PM
Where they were drafted makes no difference on what I expect out of them now. Monta could have been the 1st pick of the draft, and it wouldn't change anything. I don't care about where they were drafted.

Monta was not a starter, thus meaning that his career avg would and should be not as great as Danny's who was just about a given to get a good portion of minutes. That's the only reason I brought that up.


I think Monta is pretty much tapped out, as far as what his ceiling is. I don't think he's going to change into a 30pt scorer. He's going to stay low to mid 20s, which is exactly where I expect Danny. Maybe not mid 20s but definitely around 20pts per game.

How so? He is younger, and every year he adds something to his game, this year it was a more consistent 3 point shot that everyone bashed him for not having. He is a top 5 scorer I believe (maybe 6-7 this year) for the last 2 years that the ballhogs have been gone. And lets face it between the two Danny is the one that has tapped out not Monta, Danny's dropping all across the board, and still isn't clutch. Monta is already an elite scorer, how is that tapped out? And you said about 20 per because you and I know Danny ain't a 25 ppg scorer anymore. Imagine what Monta could do with actual talent around him and a real offense...



Yes, he would be a #1 on this team. There's no denying that. Danny is a #1 on this team. That doesn't mean that I think either one could be a #1 on a championship team.

True and False neither one have been placed on a championship roster. But Danny has better options and still hasn't taken us anywhere. But I get what you mean.


That's awesome he can get 30 points fast and 10 assists just as easily. Neither one takes the Pacers to the next level. It's merely re-arranging the chairs on the deck.

Not if you are moving a player that is declining for a player that is amongst the elite in scoring. They aren't even at all, Monta gets his at will, if the J ain't falling then he gets inside and vice versa. We all know Danny's game, and if that shot ain't falling Danny tends to keep forcing it, as evidenced in the playoffs.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 04:33 PM
Salaries don't match, so a TE would have to be given back as well. As far as I'm concerned, PG is our SG, and a whole lot cheaper and plays better "D". I'd rather roll with PG for now.

I think PG is a SF who can move to SG for spots, but is more of a forward. I believe Monta makes 11 mil, and Granger 8 mill I wouldn't be opposed to taking back someone like Dorrell Wright or Reggie Williams.

Since86
06-24-2011, 04:34 PM
Danny has had better options? Okay, this discussion has officially jumped the shark. Have a nice weekend.

rwill784
06-24-2011, 04:37 PM
Danny has had better options? Okay, this discussion has officially jumped the shark. Have a nice weekend.

This past season he did. I didn't mean anyother seasons because GSW went into full rebuild mode just like us, but with a horrible front office.

Calm down dude, I didn't mean it like we've had the dream team over here...lol

beast23
06-24-2011, 11:04 PM
I put Danny in there because we can finally put George as the starter, and we have more wings than we need at the moment. I for one think that in order to get Monta we'd have to give up a position of need for GSW and that would be SF. As I stated earlier Danny staying and bringing in Monta is a dream scenario, but may not happen. We'd be foolish to give up on Roy, he's still developing, and could become a very good player for us at a position that's hard to fill. And by adding a elite scorer we put Hibbert in the 2-3 option role in which he is suited currently, with PG becomming the clear number 2.

Reading comprehension my friend....:hmm:
I understood your meaning quite well. Obviously we have an ample supply of PGs and wings. What I am attacking is your wisdom. Giving up both Collison and Granger for Monta is one of the most scatter-brained ideas that I've see proposed.

With the makeup of our team, giving up Granger alone for Monta ranks in the same category.

Pacersalltheway10
06-24-2011, 11:11 PM
People go so overboard over Monta. I wouldnt trade him for anyone but spare parts and thats not gonna happen.

Sparhawk
06-24-2011, 11:31 PM
I'd trade for Curry and Udoh. That's about it.

croz24
06-25-2011, 01:03 AM
i wouldn't mind a starting lineup of ellis-george-granger-jefferson-hibbert with hill as the 1st man off the bench. it's a possible scenario once foster, dunleavy, ford, etc are cleared from our cap. and i don't want to hear **** about al and ellis being poor defenders either. having great individual defenders is one thing, but every nba player is capable of solid defense under the proper system. a little effort and a great defensive system can mask just about any individual defensive weakness.

pacer4ever
06-25-2011, 02:29 AM
i wouldn't mind a starting lineup of ellis-george-granger-jefferson-hibbert with hill as the 1st man off the bench. it's a possible scenario once foster, dunleavy, ford, etc are cleared from our cap. and i don't want to hear **** about al and ellis being poor defenders either. having great individual defenders is one thing, but every nba player is capable of solid defense under the proper system. a little effort and a great defensive system can mask just about any individual defensive weakness.

do we get too play with 2 basketballs?

Pacersalltheway10
06-25-2011, 02:44 AM
I think Monta would be a good addition to the team of course. We would have a 4 man back court rotation George, Collison, Hill, Ellis. But the problem would be what it would take to get him. Golden State would probably do Monta for Granger straight up as they drafted Klay Thompson who should ultimately replace him, but I wouldn't do that trade.

And people shouldnt criticize the thread poster so harshly. It was just an idea.

croz24
06-25-2011, 02:59 AM
do we get too play with 2 basketballs?

understand the concern and i'm not the biggest monta fan. but we've seen numerous times in league history where players who were perceived to be ballhogs joined forces and put aside the selfishness for betterment of the team. if we could pair ellis and jefferson with george, granger, hill, and hibbert i think they'd play well as a unit. especially if we surround vogel with some veteran assistants.

rwill784
06-26-2011, 02:10 PM
I understood your meaning quite well. Obviously we have an ample supply of PGs and wings. What I am attacking is your wisdom. Giving up both Collison and Granger for Monta is one of the most scatter-brained ideas that I've see proposed.

With the makeup of our team, giving up Granger alone for Monta ranks in the same category.

Homerism at it's finest right there.

What team makeup?!?!? We had no business in the playoffs with that crap record, and we won one freaking game! Some people around here need to take the blue and gold glasses off and see that this team as constructed is in need of a star player. Someone who can take over when need be, a go to player, and right now we don't have one, maybe George but not yet. People are acting as if we are the Hawks of 08 and took the number one seed to 7 games or something.

If you think Granger is a better player than Ellis then idk what to say to you because he isn't. Granger is falling off across the board and is doing nothing but getting older. Collison was average at best and seems to be more of a backup than a starter and his D isn't good enough to stop any of the better PG's, and his offense isn't enough to make them work either, and guess what....the east now has the best group of PG's in the league. If we get Monta for those 2 then we get a SG that can take over the offense. Instead of playng guys out of position (Paul G.), and depending on points from someone who is looked at as a 3rd option on a good team.

With the trade I proposed we end with a roster of

Hill/FA Signing/Price
Ellis/Dhantay
PG/Rush/FA
FA signing/Tyler/McBob
Roy/FA

We have money to get a banger under the boards at PF, we can give PG the minutes at the 3 in which he earned. And Ellis has a great contract for what he brings to the team.

Granger for Monta is a bad trade for us??!?? Nah, that's the most scatterbrained idea I have ever heard