PDA

View Full Version : I dont think Danny Granger will be a Pacer at the deadline



Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 02:36 AM
Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.

Trader Joe
02-19-2012, 02:46 AM
Who starts at shooting guard.

immortality
02-19-2012, 02:51 AM
Lance Stephenson of course. Best 5 minute player in the NBA.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:53 AM
Paul George is not ready yet.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 02:58 AM
We'd better not be trading Danny. As to the whole "stepping on PG's toes" thing, I don't see it at all. Danny is the most accomplished scorer on the roster so I'd expect him to carry the burden to score. PG just has to grow into his role. And to do that he has to work on his handle. Until then, we'd better not be trading Danny.

What we need to do at the deadline is get us a point guard, point blank.

graphic-er
02-19-2012, 03:03 AM
Who starts at shooting guard.

LOL, I don't think he thought that far ahead.

To the OP. Didn't you just see what happened to this team with out Danny Granger in the line up. Blow loss to the Cavs. Blow out loss to Philly earlier this year.

I'd love to get Rondo but why would Boston make that trade? They are about to have +30 Million come off the books. Granger and Pierce on the same team is redundant. Boston is going to go after an elite Big man to reload for one final run.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 03:04 AM
Who starts at shooting guard.

Depends.

I like the Stephenson idea for a few reasons. One, he'll move the ball around and create more assist s on easy baskets. Two, his maturity this year has been fairly understated. He's staring to get it. Three, he's not a selfish player. He won't take Pauls shots.

But they might get a decent two guard in the deal, or you could switch DC with George Hill.

Hill is going to get offered a lot of money. Matching that and the Hibbert offer will be tough to swallow, especially if your still in the middle of the pack in the East. Why not package Hill with Danny and get a really good player to push you over the top and save yourself from having to either pay Hill a ton of cash, or let him go for nothing .

Trader Joe
02-19-2012, 03:06 AM
Depends.

I like the Stephenson idea for a few reasons.

Well I don't. And I'm hoping the Pacers brass agrees with me.

Secondly, I don't think the best thing for Paul's development is necessarily trading away the guy he looks up to on the team.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 03:09 AM
We'd better not be trading Danny. As to the whole "stepping on PG's toes" thing, I don't see it at all. Danny is the most accomplished scorer on the roster so I'd expect him to carry the burden to score. PG just has to grow into his role. And to do that he has to work on his handle. Until then, we'd better not be trading Danny.

What we need to do at the deadline is get us a point guard, point blank.

Ok

How are you getting a point guard better than DC, without trading anything. Seriously, a lot of you guys seem to think we can upgrade the point guard position without trading anything good. That's a fantasy.

You can't upgrade that position anymore, unless you make with the goods.

mcampbellarch
02-19-2012, 03:11 AM
I have been thinking 'contender' in perhaps the season after next IF PG and much more so Lance exceed expectations. And Danny will be here.

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 03:13 AM
Danny isn't going anywhere. Larry likes this team and unless he sees a move to put us over the top THIS season, he won't do anything big. And he's not gonna trade Danny after he stuck through the terrible seasons.

Why would boston trade Rondo for Granger? Where does Danny play for them? And sorry, Danny for Nash is a bad trade for us.

Why are people so eager to trade Danny? Paul loves Danny, they work out together all the time. Paul has said how much he appreciates Danny for taking him under his wing. Paul and Danny work just fine together. Right now, Paul needs to stop taking so many 3's and start driving. Trading Danny doesn't make Paul better, it probably upsets him.

Peck
02-19-2012, 03:13 AM
I could put this in about any of 30 or so threads but I'm just going to stick it here.

I can go to bed tonight & every night this season safe in the knowledge that Danny Granger will be a Pacer.

All of this talk about Monta Ellis, Rajon Rondo, whoever else is totally moot.

Larry Bird will not trade Granger unless he gets a one sided upgrade and no it will not be for a talented malcontent.

If he could get (but he can't) Dwight Howard then yes Danny will be part of the package.

But short of an absolute blockbuster, no Danny is not going anywhere.

Some of you will just have to suffer, as I did through all of the O'Neal years, with the fact that no matter how you try, no matter what trade you come up with, no matter how much sense it makes to you & yes even those of you who want to move Danny on so that way Paul George can somehow overnight become Dr. J, that Danny Granger has Larry Bird's loyalty.

Now once Bird leaves all bets are off, but till he's gone, unless Danny asks for it himself, he is a Pacer.

Some of us will be unhappy about this.

Others of us will be very happy about this.

duke dynamite
02-19-2012, 03:13 AM
Yes, I would enjoy 13-game losing streaks. Let's ship him out of here.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 03:15 AM
LOL, I don't think he thought that far ahead.

To the OP. Didn't you just see what happened to this team with out Danny Granger in the line up. Blow loss to the Cavs. Blow out loss to Philly earlier this year.

I'd love to get Rondo but why would Boston make that trade? They are about to have +30 Million come off the books. Granger and Pierce on the same team is redundant. Boston is going to go after an elite Big man to reload for one final run.

What elite big man are the Celtics getting and how are they getting this elite big man without trading Rondo?

Nuntius
02-19-2012, 03:24 AM
Paul George in his 2 games this season without Danny Granger:

@PHI: 13 Points on 4/16 shooting, 7 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 5 turnovers and 5 fouls.

@CLE: 11 Points on 4/14 shooting, 8 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 turnover and 4 fouls.

Granted, it's only a 2 game sample but that's all we got.

There was a poster who said that Paul George plays off someone else. He has big games when the team is playing nice and some other player is clicking. I think that's true. Paul is a young player and plays off the momentum. Which is completely fine since he is still very young and raw.

It is also one of the reasons why we need Danny Granger.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 03:25 AM
Yes, I would enjoy 13-game losing streaks. Let's ship him out of here.

What are you talking about? They started fantastic with Granger playing horrible and shooting 30%. They played 9 games in 14 days. They were bound to hit a wall at some point. Four of those losses were against good or great teams. They lost to Cleveland for the same reason they lost to Orlando earlier this season , with Granger. Single digit assists and bad shooting.

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 03:30 AM
Ok

How are you getting a point guard better than DC, without trading anything. Seriously, a lot of you guys seem to think we can upgrade the point guard position without trading anything good. That's a fantasy.

You can't upgrade that position anymore, unless you make with the goods.

I posted in another thread as have may others. The assets that we'd mostly likely move would be some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. And Im not too sure if I'd really be willing to ship Tyler out.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 03:57 AM
I posted in another thread as have may others. The assets that we'd mostly likely move would be some combination of DC, Tyler, Picks and cap space. And Im not too sure if I'd really be willing to ship Tyler out.

Lol. The Pacers will not get a better point guard than Collison, for that pu pu platter.

Pingu
02-19-2012, 04:14 AM
I think Lance needs to make an outside shot before he can be considered a legitimate candidate to be a starting SG in the NBA...

Edit: Also, I'd trade any combination of Tyler/Dhantay/AJ/Lance/a pick for Gortat. What's better than a Polish Hammer to smash some mouths?

http://www.bothteamsplayedhard.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/marcin-gortat.jpg

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 04:15 AM
What are you talking about? They started fantastic with Granger playing horrible and shooting 30%. They played 9 games in 14 days. They were bound to hit a wall at some point. Four of those losses were against good or great teams. They lost to Cleveland for the same reason they lost to Orlando earlier this season , with Granger. Single digit assists and bad shooting.

and you know who was leading the team in the +/- category the whole time then? Danny Granger.

This team plays better with Danny on the floor, including Paul. Moving your best offensive player to get a point guard makes no sense. Danny would benefit greatly from having a guy like Rondo or Nash because he is a great shooter.

And sorry, Phoenix wont take Danny in a trade for Nash. If they trade Nash, they are blowing things up. Why take Danny's contract? A deal of Tyler, DC, and picks would be much more appealing.

Your suggestions of Nash and Rondo make no sense in a trade for Danny. Where would Danny play in Boston? How does that trade make sense for them? And I already said why Phoenix wouldn't do it. Yes, on paper, talent for talent, they would make sense, but you have to look at the situations each team is in.

Foul on Smits
02-19-2012, 04:22 AM
I'm throwing out names. My point is that Danny might be our most attractive asset to trade without mortgaging the future of the team.

pacer4ever
02-19-2012, 04:43 AM
I'm throwing out names. My point is that Danny might be our most attractive asset to trade without mortgaging the future of the team.

The ship has sailed IMO I wanted to trade him after the MIP season but unfortunately IMO now we cant get the value to make it worth trading him. IMO the only way we trade Granger is if the Pacers get swept in the first rd and get embarrassed while getting beat. Then if Bird gets blown away in the off season I could see him pulling the trigger. We aren't gonna get proper value at this point we waited to long if we were gonna trade him we should of done it years ago. It is kind of pointless to have a 3 yr plan and trade Granger after keeping him to be apart of the 3 yr plan. I would of traded him before the "3 year plan" or during.

spazzxb
02-19-2012, 04:49 AM
Ok

How are you getting a point guard better than DC, without trading anything. Seriously, a lot of you guys seem to think we can upgrade the point guard position without trading anything good. That's a fantasy.

You can't upgrade that position anymore, unless you make with the goods.

If DWill wants to contend for a ring, we have money this summer.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

LA_Confidential
02-19-2012, 07:16 AM
Lol. The Pacers will not get a better point guard than Collison, for that pu pu platter.

Young Players on Rookie Deals, Draft Picks, and Salary Cap Relief.

Pu Pu Platter

I fail to see a resemblence.

McKeyFan
02-19-2012, 08:09 AM
Ok

How are you getting a point guard better than DC, without trading anything. Seriously, a lot of you guys seem to think we can upgrade the point guard position without trading anything good. That's a fantasy.

You can't upgrade that position anymore, unless you make with the goods.
This discussion always gets confused over D.C. as a player and as a point guard.

As a player, he would be more difficult to replace and upgrade. He is a good player. As a point guard, not so much.

It's like we have a toolkit with a wrench, screw driver, a nail, and two saws. We don't need the second saw, we need a hammer.

With cap space and D.C. we can upgrade our point guard position. It gets even easier if we include picks.

Bball
02-19-2012, 08:35 AM
This discussion always gets confused over D.C. as a player and as a point guard.

As a player, he would be more difficult to replace and upgrade. He is a good player. As a point guard, not so much.

It's like we have a toolkit with a wrench, screw driver, a nail, and two saws. We don't need the second saw, we need a hammer.

With cap space and D.C. we can upgrade our point guard position. It gets even easier if we include picks.

If that's all we have in our toolkit we better find some nails too... 1 nail won't build much! :p

Any chance we could trade the screwdriver, nail, and 1 saw for a Makita and a box of a screws?

Bball
02-19-2012, 08:56 AM
DG is infinitely more tradeable than JO... IMHO.... Because of contract versus production, durability, etc.... but what we would want back is likely more than anyone is going to offer so it will be easy for Bird to stay loyal.

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 09:00 AM
I think I read an article recently about Danny laughing over how many times he's been traded. I seriously doubt we move him right now given the fact we have not shown the ability to play well without him. Also, he is the only player on the team that has shown he can get it done in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of trading him for a young asset before his value is nil. People who don't get that, don't understand how the Indiana Pacers will ever build a real contender. But it's a risk. It could very well be the time to trade him, but it's awfully comfortable hanging on to him and at least making the playoffs. At least we are seeing decent basketball.

At the same time, for people who don't want to trade him...you can pretty much forget about this iteration of the Pacers ever really contending. We don't have enough talent and it's going to be focused on the wing as Paul matures and Danny stays with the team. Also, don't expect good draft picks that make an impact around #20. Sure, it's possible but you'll be competing with #1-#19 and you will be losing forever. Forever.

Point is, eventually you have to take some significant risks and build a team that matures and peaks at the same time in Indiana....because nobody is going to be "bringing their talents" to central Indiana...

yoadknux
02-19-2012, 10:38 AM
Granger has some trade value, but the highest trade value on our team belongs to Paul George or Roy Hibbert.
And if we're gonna trade anyone to get a star, like, I Deron or something, I'd much rather ship George than Granger. would make more sense too.

Justin Tyme
02-19-2012, 10:48 AM
I think I read an article recently about Danny laughing over how many times he's been traded. I seriously doubt we move him right now given the fact we have not shown the ability to play well without him. Also, he is the only player on the team that has shown he can get it done in the playoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the value of trading him for a young asset before his value is nil. People who don't get that, don't understand how the Indiana Pacers will ever build a real contender. But it's a risk. It could very well be the time to trade him, but it's awfully comfortable hanging on to him and at least making the playoffs. At least we are seeing decent basketball.

At the same time, for people who don't want to trade him...you can pretty much forget about this iteration of the Pacers ever really contending. We don't have enough talent and it's going to be focused on the wing as Paul matures and Danny stays with the team. Also, don't expect good draft picks that make an impact around #20. Sure, it's possible but you'll be competing with #1-#19 and you will be losing forever. Forever.

Point is, eventually you have to take some significant risks and build a team that matures and peaks at the same time in Indiana....because nobody is going to be "bringing their talents" to central Indiana...


Bird isn't a risk taker... never has been never will be. The closest Bird took to taking a risk was trading last years pick for Hill. He was looking for short term need over long term need. I understand his thinking just didn't agree with it.

I've said this b4, it will be almost impossible for the Pacers to trade for a Rondo or DWill. After watching the Pacers/Nets game, I'd really like the Pacers to get DWill, but the reality is it's just a pipe dream. The Pacers have 3 choices 1) stay the status quo & hope DC develops, 2) trade for a slight upgrade over DC, 3) draft the PG of the future. I'm more Pacers/inclined to try the latter.

OlBlu
02-19-2012, 11:18 AM
Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.



Bingo......... :cool:

Pacerized
02-19-2012, 11:23 AM
Apparently no one thinks we have a chance in free agency this summer. We have the money to bring in 2 impact players in the 8-10 mil range, or 1 max player like Williams, and still be able to keep Hibbert and most likely PG in the long run due to the timing of our other contracts expiring. It's really our last chance to make a big splash and I expect Bird to do so. We have a talented young team and I think other players will see what West did last summer which is that it's a very good situation to walk into while still getting paid.
If Williams does want to leave NJ, I'd think we'd be on his short list. Who else has the cap space and talent we do next year?
If we strike out on Williams we simply add talent and assets for a trade but it doesn't have to be Granger that's traded. If we add a big man like Kaman then we could move West, who with only 1 more year on his contract may have greater trade value to some teams. Nash would be a short term fix but a great consolation prize that might get us by while we try to draft the pg of the future. I'd like to see what Bird can do in free agency and not move any core players at the deadline this year. If we can pick up Kaman or Nash for almost nothing or pick one of them up off waivers I'd be all over that.

ejwallace
02-19-2012, 12:14 PM
This puzzles me....I can understand some of the arguments in this thread, but the biggest one that confuses me is the Danny holding Paul back, and therefor, Danny should be ousted....

This in theory, makes sense, but in reality, look at the stats Paul put up when Danny was injured...They were minimal. To truly test this theory would be to simply make Paul Danny's backup for a couple games. Paul would get more rest, Danny would get more rest, if you need them both in due to the circumstances, you still have them both. Let Hill get healthy, start him a couple games at the 2, and Danny at the 3...Rotate George in for Danny, and you can see what the team would look like without Danny.

IMO, Danny is not done, and unless you are getting a lopsided deal in the Pacers favor, this is a no go....

I also read somewhere that Bird told Danny that he was the core of the team and we were building around him....History tells us that Bird is good to his word, and if he said Danny is our organizations' foundation.....He will be until he's done....

graphic-er
02-19-2012, 12:16 PM
If we can pick up Kaman or Nash for almost nothing or pick one of them up off waivers I'd be all over that.

What in the.....:rolleyes:

I actually think the Pacers have a good chance at getting DWill. There is only one big team who has any room for him and that is Dallas. Miami can't afford him, NY can't afford him, Boston could but they have Rondo, Lakers are can't afford him. Does he even give NJ the chance to sign Howard? NJ is a team with a losing culture I would not be surprised to see him bolt.

A team like the Pacers would be a no brainer for him in terms of fit.


If Danny is traded it will be in the last year of his deal.

Hicks
02-19-2012, 12:26 PM
Going by recent Pacer history, if we ever do trade him, it will only be after he has declined and his value in the trade market has dipped.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 12:44 PM
I have read articles were Larry talks about loyalty a lot, I think his loyalty is a blessing and a curse at the same time, teams that win championships usually put those things to the side, Larry to me is too loyal and proud for the Pacers own good.

Eddie Gill
02-19-2012, 12:46 PM
If DWill wants to contend for a ring, we have money this summer.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

But, but, but, what about Eric Gordon?

Hicks
02-19-2012, 12:59 PM
I have read articles were Larry talks about loyalty a lot, I think his loyalty is a blessing and a curse at the same time, teams that win championships usually put those things to the side, Larry to me is too loyal and proud for the Pacers own good.

Sometimes loyalty works out for the best, though, like with Paul Pierce circa 2004-2007.

speakout4
02-19-2012, 01:11 PM
I'm keeping DG, PG, and GH. I like Roy but his lack of athleticism, strength, and speed can be depressing. DC is just not a PG but a really short SG. I don't understand what has happened to Tyler.

We are getting beat by teams wit lesser players and more athleticism.

OlBlu
02-19-2012, 01:35 PM
But, but, but, what about Eric Gordon?

Does Eric Gordon ever play? The NBA won't let him leave NO..

:cool:

OlBlu
02-19-2012, 01:37 PM
This puzzles me....I can understand some of the arguments in this thread, but the biggest one that confuses me is the Danny holding Paul back, and therefor, Danny should be ousted....

This in theory, makes sense, but in reality, look at the stats Paul put up when Danny was injured...They were minimal. To truly test this theory would be to simply make Paul Danny's backup for a couple games. Paul would get more rest, Danny would get more rest, if you need them both in due to the circumstances, you still have them both. Let Hill get healthy, start him a couple games at the 2, and Danny at the 3...Rotate George in for Danny, and you can see what the team would look like without Danny.

IMO, Danny is not done, and unless you are getting a lopsided deal in the Pacers favor, this is a no go....

I also read somewhere that Bird told Danny that he was the core of the team and we were building around him....History tells us that Bird is good to his word, and if he said Danny is our organizations' foundation.....He will be until he's done....

You miss the point. You trade a player like Granger when his value is high before he declines. He is the Pacers best player but he is not a game changer. If you can get something really good and younger for Granger, you do it. :cool:

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2012, 01:56 PM
1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.
Replace Danny/Paul with Jordan/Pippen and re-evaluate this "problem".

Paul HAD BEEN the designated "Pippen", the guy that does the first rotation with the bench as it is fed in, then later on he comes out and Danny comes back. So Paul had been getting plenty of "I'm the man" time. He was really struggling so Vogel switched that and instead kept Danny out with the bench instead to improve scoring, which has worked.

I understand the overall point of your post, the idea that Danny is playing well right now, you like Danny, but you see a chance to re-org the structure. But I just disagree that this is a problem and I certainly wouldn't view this as "trading while he's hot". Danny has returned this year, he's not "Dunleavy in his career year". I think we can easily expect Danny to continue at this level for 5-6 more years.

There is room for both even now. Paul is just young and confused about his role. All the guys are feeling their way still. But as they figure out who does what well, and when it's the right time to make a play or move, they are going to be pretty bad ***. It's the fact that when you try to ISO for a 2 man game and you end up stuck with either Danny or Paul as one of the defenders in most situations that makes the Pacers so strong on defense. Switches are harder to pull of and nearly everything on the wing is getting defended well (past the initial PnR).



Personally I THINK (not just desire) that Danny ends up a lifer Pacer. He's shown the passion and will and I think that keeps his value higher within the org than without.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:00 PM
Sometimes loyalty works out for the best, though, like with Paul Pierce circa 2004-2007.

Yes but I think we can all agree that Pierce is a better player than Danny making hard for him to be replace, the guy is a hall of famer, Danny is a good player but is easier to replace him, there are a lot of players like him in the NBA(Wallace,Deng,Gay,JJ,etc).

You are right the Celtics were Loyal to Pierce but they were not Loyal to their young core, they traded their whole team for veterans to compete for a championship and I could never see Larry doing that, I hope I'm wrong though.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:14 PM
Danny has returned this year, he's not "Dunleavy in his career year". I think we can easily expect Danny to continue at this level for 5-6 more years.



Are you sure about that? Danny has regressed every year in almost every category, if he keeps regressing at the rate he has he is going to be shooting a low percentage while averaging way less ppg that he is getting now or in 5 or 6 years.

I would like to know why you are saying that "Danny has returned"

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2012, 02:21 PM
you can pretty much forget about this iteration of the Pacers ever really contending.I just can't get how any Pacers fan ever thinks this. I'm actually really sick of hearing this general "we need a mega-star" or "we must have a top 5 pick/tank" angles from a team that already proved that is wrong.

Everyone acts like they knew about Reggie, Smits, playoff success, etc when the team lost 3-1 to the Knicks the year before Brown. At that time the team's best player was DETLEF, not Reggie. Det was back to back 6th man and the CURRENT all-star. It had been a few years since Reggie's ONLY AS appearance (at the time).

So if you were living in that era with the views on Danny/talent we show now you would have said the following:

1) Detlef is your best player, you build around him. And if you trade him it must be for another regular AS player (McKey was NOT that, so fail 1)

2) Reggie is a nice SG but he's never going to be Jordan, he can't get his own shot, he's not a great defender and the team will never get to the Finals if he's your best player. I like him but he's just not good enough. (Fail 2 because they didn't upgrade him)

3) Smits isn't the answer at C. He's not athletic enough and can defend the paint. He's a soft, touch scorer, not a power player and not a defensive force. (fail 3, no upgrade here either)


By the way, there is also no way you can expect to get a borderline AS PF from the 2nd round, maybe even sent to Europe to improve his skills. Antonio Davis does not exist and no one thought he could exist.


Also there is no way you could acquire Mark Jackson at that point. He's not with the team and all you are going to have is guys like Fleming, Workman or Michael Williams who are not enough to lead a team. They are good bench types but not elite team starters.


And then the team swapped coaches, did trade down in total talent level for Larry Brown's desire*, had 2nd rounder Antonio return from Europe, and with Workman at point they went to the ECF game 7. And then they did it again the next year. And 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years later. 5 ECF in 7 years is ELITE, and they did this from years of .500 with no high picks, no major FA, and not even a regular AS.

The Pacers have won using the team concept, and the Pistons reproved it a few years ago as well. I'd say even Memphis has proven it in recent years.




In short, this team has nearly all the talent it needs right now. Maybe you need one more guy on the bench, maybe you need Tyler to improve a little (or upgrade him), maybe you could slightly upgrade DC or Roy, but you probably don't need to do all of those things.


*As a reminder, Det was 19.6, 9.5, 6.0 the prior year, so #2 ppg, #1 rpg, #2 apg. Traded. I understand the defensive thing and I liked McKey, but people forget that Det was a killer offensive all-around threat and went on to be part of a multi-threat elite Seattle team (the Pacers justification was too many options, needed a defensive specialist...that's Brown-speak for justifying his random roster changes, like trading Jax then benching Rose, then asking for Jax back)

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 02:41 PM
OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 02:44 PM
Detlef was never the Pacers best player. He was a great 6th man, but without Reggie Miller that team was paralyzed.

Also, looking at the team's best players...Smits was a #2 pick. Miller #11. You will not see another pick at that level unless we bring Jim O'Brien back in.

...and this team certainly does not have the talent it needs to contend. There is still no PG on this team and we are not that strong in the front court.

Bottom line is, this team will need to win as a team, not a few super stars. So I think I agree on that point with you. But the problem I see is that Granger and George are 7 years apart in age. In contrast, James and Bosh are both 27 and DWade is 30. Having guys grow up and peak at the same time is quite important if you really want that ring...

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 02:49 PM
I might add that another cog in that team was Dale Davis...picked at #13. Let's just say that he started and Antonio backed him up for a reason.

See, the extreme talent on that team WAS actually picked in the draft by the Pacers. Those were the horses this team rode on in the 90's....

Smits Happens
02-19-2012, 02:53 PM
OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?

I think the point is it was a championship-caliber team, even if it never won a title. The '98 team in particular could have easily been a championship team in many other seasons.

gummy
02-19-2012, 03:00 PM
So, if we trade Danny PG is going to start dribbling a lot better, finishing in traffic, and he'll also stop bowling over someone in the paint for a charge 1-2 times per game?

Great, sign me up! ;)

PG is not ready, folks. His sometimes laid back/not aggressive enough demeanor is a thing that scouts talked about with him going into the draft. There have always been questions about whether or not PG has that "killer instinct." It's not new, nor is it caused by Danny. If we trade Danny and try to thrust PG into a new position with the mantle of "that dude," this season I think we will be a bottom dwelling team again. We could miss the playoffs. PG has great talent but is still pretty inconsistent. We're a year or two away from knowing what we really have there.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 03:03 PM
I think the point is it was a championship-caliber team, even if it never won a title. The '98 team in particular could have easily been a championship team in many other seasons.

Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.

Smits Happens
02-19-2012, 03:17 PM
Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.

I don't think so either, but I was merely referring to the earlier team that you pointed out never won anything. My point was simply that they were good enough to be a championship team, and that's about all you can ask of management is to put together a team that's good enough to win it all.

PGisthefuture
02-19-2012, 03:24 PM
Danny is basically the emotion of this team. If a teammate gets in a fight Danny is there to stick up for his guy. If someone talks about our team publicly Danny isn't afraid to say something publicly right back. If somebody upsets Danny he goes off for 30+ points. If we trade him we will lose that and who knows if the guy we bring in will bring that same mentality? Danny has been loyal and has never asked to leave or complained about playing in a small market. I think he'll be here his whole career whether everyone likes it or not. I just hope there isn't a point where he gets traded in a similar scenario that Jermaine did.

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2012, 03:27 PM
Are you sure about that? Danny has regressed every year in almost every category, if he keeps regressing at the rate he has he is going to be shooting a low percentage while averaging way less ppg that he is getting now or in 5 or 6 years.

I would like to know why you are saying that "Danny has returned"
He's "returned" because of his defensive intensity, which is clearly higher. As for his "constant regression", that's not really statistically true. He did decline during the JOB years, but what he's doing this year is pretty much in his normal range or just slightly below his top level. His BLK% is at his recent norm which runs well below his peak, but his STL% is his all-time high this year.

Using PER as the compilation of various stats...

14.7 - Rick
13.9 - Rick
16.7 - JOB
21.8 - JOB (4 years of growth to his peak)
19.8 - JOB
17.8 - JOB to Vogel
18.1 - Vogel

Danny's 5 game average has trended up on FG%, FTAs, and Points all year. For the last 10 games or so Danny's FTA rate is way above his career high even (above 8, career 4.9), and despite a couple of lower FTA outings recently the 5 game average remains higher than his career average as does his season average.

His 5 game FG% took a hit in recent games, but had climbed into the upper 40s. It dipped back below 40 for a few games (the 5 game avr, not single game) and has now rising back to the high 40s.

His PPG 5game average got up to 25 after starting the year below 15 through 9 games. It, like the FG%, dipped recently to below 20 but has recovered back to almost 23.


What the 5 game average is doing is monitoring trends in behavior but with a bit of a low pass filter to remove single game bounces. These things all show that week by week Danny's offensive game has been improving in general, and that the good/bad game ratio is getting higher. And not just higher, but heading into the area of output that would be on par with as good as Danny has done in general.


WHY SOME OF THE PAST STATS...
Offensively JOB ramped up the 3pt shooting and leaned on Danny especially to shoot the 3 in very high volume, thus he hit a PER peak with JOB. But as the JOB method continued on and made the situation worse and worse we saw Danny start to decline.

Vogel seems to have stabilized Danny overall and actually inspired him on the defensive end.

Danny's Win Shares per minute is way up and is currently the 2nd highest in his career. His TOs are way down (on a team that's not been good at protecting the ball) and his fouls are way down as well. He's playing smarter, more aggressive ball in the more structured Vogel strategy.


And all of this is in spite of a terrible shooting slump at the beginning of the season. Apart from changes due to strategy pace and that poor run of 2P% he's dead-center in being what his normal game is.



EVALUATION OVERALL...
I'm not calling him a regular all-star, but I am saying that Reggie Miller was also not a regular AS, he sporadically made the team and made his biggest contributions as a playoff hero. In that way, regular season Danny is equal to regular season Reggie in terms of a guy that can "get you there". Reggie worked in conjunction with several other guys and Danny can and is doing the same.

People want him to be something he's not, just like those same people (or people like them) thought Reggie wasn't enough right up until the point when he suddenly was enough.

If you don't have a clear #5 guy then you don't really need a clear #1 guy either. If your 3,4,5 guys are winning every night then they can easily offset the losses at the 1,2 level. If Danny and Paul lose to Lebron and Wade they can still win overall if West, DC and Roy win their matchups. I admit they haven't done that the first two times, but there is reason to expect them to be able too. Chalmers should not be > DC, Bosh should not be > West (not by much) and Roy > any Miami center.

They weren't, but they can be. And that's why you don't have to trade Danny to "fix" the situation. It's not broke, not talent-wise at least. Chemistry and effort...yes, that was broken for 4-5 games, but we hope maybe it's mending now.

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 03:28 PM
I don't think so either, but I was merely referring to the earlier team that you pointed out never won anything. My point was simply that they were good enough to be a championship team, and that's about all you can ask of management is to put together a team that's good enough to win it all.

Yes...they were good enough. However, the pieces were close to the same age and they peaked together. That's my main point with Granger. Unless you have a Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant on your team...good luck winning at all. When neither of your best players peak at the same time, you can pretty much forget it. Sure, they'll be good and fun to watch. Certainly above .500 once this team grows up. But as presently constructed this isn't a contender.

The team in the 90's, although it did not have a superstar, it was built far better and its best players were closer in age than 7 years. Miller and Jackson were born in 65. Smits and McKey in 66. The Davis's in 68 and 69. This is not an unimportant issue when you consider Granger's future on this team...and the value he might bring in trade.

Edit: ...and if someone brings up Jalen Rose...consider this. Reggie Miller was a serious odd ball in terms of longevity....

Mourning
02-19-2012, 03:34 PM
Very nice post, Seth :thumbsup:.

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2012, 03:38 PM
Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.
That's a ridiculous standard though. They were LEADING the 98 Bulls in Chicago, late in the 4th. That was the same as the Colts vs Pats. If the Colts lose that game to the Pats in the AFCCG, they don't go on to beat the Bears and go down as a "non elite team" by these standards.

The Bulls could have lost that game, and we KNOW they were championship level elite. They were losing Jordan's ONLY game 7, at home, with just 4-5 minutes left. And considering the caliber of talent of the Bulls vs Jazz, the Bulls were the toughest opponent in the path (thus the Pats/Bears metaphor).

The Pacers went to 4 ECF game 7s in 7 years. Not just the ECF, but "in 48 minutes you might be in the Finals" games. That's it. That's elite. It was actually basically better than everyone but the Bulls and Rockets, and in an overall number of elite seasons it was better than the Rockets in that era.

Or am I supposed to believe that over 15 years there were only 4 elite teams, and only 1-2 at any given moment? Sorry Jazz, Sonics, Knicks, Pacers, 90's Lakers...you SUCK. Try again. Maybe trade Stockton and Malone for elite players than can put you over the top and win a title.

I just hate that #2 = #LAST view. It makes people do desperate, panic moves as they chase after unrealistic goals. If Denver had that attitude they never would have won a Super Bowl with Elway...and neither would the Colts with Manning. How many blown chances to you give Peyton before you realize he's good, but not good enough? By the measure you put forth here you wouldn't have given him enough to get to the Super Bowl season.

Naptown_Seth
02-19-2012, 03:54 PM
Yes...they were good enough. However, the pieces were close to the same age and they peaked together. That's my main point with Granger. Unless you have a Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Tim Duncan or Kobe Bryant on your team...good luck winning at all. When neither of your best players peak at the same time, you can pretty much forget it. Sure, they'll be good and fun to watch. Certainly above .500 once this team grows up. But as presently constructed this isn't a contender.

The team in the 90's, although it did not have a superstar, it was built far better and its best players were closer in age than 7 years. Miller and Jackson were born in 65. Smits and McKey in 66. The Davis's in 68 and 69. This is not an unimportant issue when you consider Granger's future on this team...and the value he might bring in trade.

Edit: ...and if someone brings up Jalen Rose...consider this. Reggie Miller was a serious odd ball in terms of longevity....
But Rose is to Reggie as Paul is to Danny in terms of age.

Maybe when they win it all it's with a vet Danny who's not the top player anymore but still very good. Was Reggie really ever the top guy on those playoff teams? His best year by far was year 3, well before the perennial ECF teams. On his famous 8 in 8.9 night he stunk for 47 minutes and the team lived on Smits the entire time. Other guys often did that. Reggie was "one of the" best, but not "the" best much of the time. Only in the critical moments did he typically own the situation.



I'm not against the jist of the idea, trading a vet to get younger or trading to adjust the talent disbursement across positions. But to me this is like trading Mark Jackson for Jalen Rose, and actually fits very well. Vet vs young, adjust where your talent is.

That's the season that shall not be named. So the last time they really tried to make a move like this it destroyed offensive chemistry and resulted in a VERY LUCKY "undo" for the Pacers when Denver gifted Jax right back to us.

Getting Rose was great, but ultimately it was great because it ended up not being Jax for Rose but rather "various deep bench" for Rose.*


If the team was cap locked this might be different, or if they had a 3rd guy behind Paul and Danny who was on par with them (in terms of length, Hill can't go to the SF ever). But this team does not have too many wings of that caliber. They have 2 of them.





*I will concede that another part of the issue was that moron Brown stubbornly chose to make some random point to Rose that was akin to setting himself on fire as a way to clean the clothes he was wearing, and they were counting on Workman who proceeded to get basically career-ending injured right after that.

Peck
02-19-2012, 03:58 PM
Yeah but the point is that they never won anything, right now the goal would be to get pass through Miami, do I think we beat them with the way we are formed right now and as Danny as our best player? I don't think so.

I say this for the sake of your own sanity.

If this is the only goal for you then you need to either A.) become a bandwagon fan and just follow great teams/players around. B.) stop watching the NBA.

Pray tell what team in the NBA right now is built to beat a team that got two of the top players of their generation and another great player to come on board?

OKC? Maybe, we'll see.

Chicago? Didn't work out so well last year.

Remember this is Indiana, we are not going to be able to build a team of Dwight Howard, Daron Williams & Carmellow Anthony.

What we are doing now is what we have to do, the way we will have to build.

We may get lucky and get a star player this summer who decides he wants to win and doesn't care about the sun & sand and bright lights to come here as a free agent, but I doubt it.

I think some of you guys forget how far we have come in just one short year. Remember just a year and a month ago we were one of the worst teams in the NBA with a coach who had no clue.

Now, even with recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams in the NBA (even if not elite).

Also as to comparing the 90's teams to now. I think what people are forgetting is that this team did not come together overnight. We started drafting these players in the late 80's and got a few trades in the early 90's and kept on drafting.

Seth is actually saying it, but I want to re-emphasize it.

90'sNBARocked
02-19-2012, 04:03 PM
I might be in the minority here, but I trade PG before I trade Granger

Granger is by far and away our most consistent player. West is probably second.

If we were to get Rondo, I would rather a package of DC/PG and picks

Anthem
02-19-2012, 04:46 PM
If we traded Danny, wouldn't it be for a player of at-least-similar stature? And so wouldn't Paul George just defer to that guy instead?

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 04:48 PM
There are very few trades involving Danny Granger that make sense for both teams.

habart30
02-19-2012, 04:55 PM
As someone has already mentioned, Granger won't be going anywhere unless it involves Dwight Howard this year. Trading Hibbert, Granger, LOU and a pick or two for Howard, and JRich or Hedo would be the only move that would make us better this year.

Do I see this happening? Absolutley not. Why? B/c Orlando wants more, and we would be stupid to give it up.

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 04:58 PM
But Rose is to Reggie as Paul is to Danny in terms of age.

Maybe when they win it all it's with a vet Danny who's not the top player anymore but still very good. Was Reggie really ever the top guy on those playoff teams? His best year by far was year 3, well before the perennial ECF teams. On his famous 8 in 8.9 night he stunk for 47 minutes and the team lived on Smits the entire time. Other guys often did that. Reggie was "one of the" best, but not "the" best much of the time. Only in the critical moments did he typically own the situation.

I'm not against the jist of the idea, trading a vet to get younger or trading to adjust the talent disbursement across positions. But to me this is like trading Mark Jackson for Jalen Rose, and actually fits very well. Vet vs young, adjust where your talent is.

That's the season that shall not be named. So the last time they really tried to make a move like this it destroyed offensive chemistry and resulted in a VERY LUCKY "undo" for the Pacers when Denver gifted Jax right back to us.

Getting Rose was great, but ultimately it was great because it ended up not being Jax for Rose but rather "various deep bench" for Rose.*


If the team was cap locked this might be different, or if they had a 3rd guy behind Paul and Danny who was on par with them (in terms of length, Hill can't go to the SF ever). But this team does not have too many wings of that caliber. They have 2 of them.

*I will concede that another part of the issue was that moron Brown stubbornly chose to make some random point to Rose that was akin to setting himself on fire as a way to clean the clothes he was wearing, and they were counting on Workman who proceeded to get basically career-ending injured right after that.

IDK. I consider Miller to be the most talented Pacer since they've been in the NBA. He's not the most well rounded. Granger might be that. But the extreme level of talent in terms of converting difficult shots when it counted matter more to me than anything I've seen JO or Granger do. Danny did wake me up a bit last year in the playoffs....when he did truly bring it. So there is some hope.

But the comparisons with Jalen/Reggie and Paul/Danny are off. First, Reggie was a freak in terms of longevity. In the late 90's, Reggie was entering his mid 30's but still played like he was 25. Danny is not likely to have a career like that. Second,by the time Jalen came along, the team was getting old by the time their run was over and age was a factor in their limitations. Smits was already kicking the idea of retirement around. If you go back and look at his stats, he clearly was peaking in the mid 90's, not the late 90's when Jalen came along. ...so I think this backs up my point.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 05:15 PM
[I just hate that #2 = #LAST view. It makes people do desperate, panic moves as they chase after unrealistic goals. If Denver had that attitude they never would have won a Super Bowl with Elway...and neither would the Colts with Manning. How many blown chances to you give Peyton before you realize he's good, but not good enough? By the measure you put forth here you wouldn't have given him enough to get to the Super Bowl season.

Manning and Elway? The equivalent to Jordan/Lebron compared to Danny? I guess everybody hates Danny because he is not Manning :whoknows:

Peck
02-19-2012, 05:18 PM
IDK. I consider Miller to be the most talented Pacer since they've been in the NBA. He's not the most well rounded. Granger might be that. But the extreme level of talent in terms of converting difficult shots when it counted matter more to me than anything I've seen JO or Granger do. Danny did wake me up a bit last year in the playoffs....when he did truly bring it. So there is some hope.

But the comparisons with Jalen/Reggie and Paul/Danny are off. First, Reggie was a freak in terms of longevity. In the late 90's, Reggie was entering his mid 30's but still played like he was 25. Danny is not likely to have a career like that. Second,by the time Jalen came along, the team was getting old by the time their run was over and age was a factor in their limitations. Smits was already kicking the idea of retirement around. If you go back and look at his stats, he clearly was peaking in the mid 90's, not the late 90's when Jalen came along. ...so I think this backs up my point.

Reggie was a nobody until 1994. Sure some people had heard about him but believe me in the NBA he was cast in the lot of Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, etc. In fact each year there was an argument that you could say any of those players were better than the other.

Then in 1994 Reggie had his series in the Garden, his spike moment. But the thing is that in 1994 Reggie's scoring went down, he shot less and focused more on defense. He tried to blend into the team game knowing that he didn't have to have big offensive games for us to win.

That was seven years into Reggie's career.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? Who else is in the second tier of NBA star players? Who else has tried to blend into a team game and knowing that he doesn't have to score big for us to win every game.

Also who is in his 7th year?

Danny just hasn't had the chance yet to make playoff noise. However who is to say that the United Center can't be his MSG. Danny hates the Bulls as much as Reggie hated the Knicks.

Side by side the two of them are almost identical through 7 years

http://bkref.com/tiny/plvc7

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2012, 05:23 PM
Call me crazy, but am I the only who wants to keep the defensive advantage of George @ SG spot and Granger @ the SF spot? We're the ONLY team with a SG/SF combo where EACH player is in the Top 7 for blocks and steals AND Top 10 in STL/TO ratio at their respective position.

Peck
02-19-2012, 05:25 PM
Call me crazy, but am I the only who wants to keep the defensive advantage of George @ SG spot and Granger @ the SF spot? We're the ONLY team with a SG/SF combo where EACH player is in the Top 7 for blocks and steals AND Top 10 in STL/TO ratio at their respective position.

No your not crazy, in fact you are dead on accurate here.

This is what I've been trying to say all season long to the Paul George posse. They compliment each other. Danny is far stronger and far more physical than Paul.

Paul is much quicker and has far more athletic ability than Danny.

Why people want to get rid of that is beyond me.

They are a destitue man's version of Pippen and Jordan. No I'm not comparing them to Pippen and Jordan but you get my point.

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 05:42 PM
Call me crazy, but am I the only who wants to keep the defensive advantage of George @ SG spot and Granger @ the SF spot? We're the ONLY team with a SG/SF combo where EACH player is in the Top 7 for blocks and steals AND Top 10 in STL/TO ratio at their respective position.

Honestly thats my favorite part of Granger/George combo.

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 05:45 PM
Reggie was a nobody until 1994. Sure some people had heard about him but believe me in the NBA he was cast in the lot of Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, etc. In fact each year there was an argument that you could say any of those players were better than the other.

Then in 1994 Reggie had his series in the Garden, his spike moment. But the thing is that in 1994 Reggie's scoring went down, he shot less and focused more on defense. He tried to blend into the team game knowing that he didn't have to have big offensive games for us to win.

That was seven years into Reggie's career.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? Who else is in the second tier of NBA star players? Who else has tried to blend into a team game and knowing that he doesn't have to score big for us to win every game.

Also who is in his 7th year?

Danny just hasn't had the chance yet to make playoff noise. However who is to say that the United Center can't be his MSG. Danny hates the Bulls as much as Reggie hated the Knicks.

Side by side the two of them are almost identical through 7 years

http://bkref.com/tiny/plvc7

Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer, I don't think Danny would get a vote for that.

And also just because Danny averages the same as Reggie at the same age doesn't mean that Danny is going to be Reggie.

This is similar to the people that tried to tell me that DC could be compared to Nash because their numbers are similar in their 3rd year in the NBA.

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2012, 05:54 PM
No your not crazy, in fact you are dead on accurate here.

This is what I've been trying to say all season long to the Paul George posse. They compliment each other. Danny is far stronger and far more physical than Paul.

Paul is much quicker and has far more athletic ability than Danny.

Why people want to get rid of that is beyond me.

They are a destitue man's version of Pippen and Jordan. No I'm not comparing them to Pippen and Jordan but you get my point.

Thanks. I'm glad that I'm not crazy. I started comparing some additional numbers (RPG, FG%, PPG, etc) for the SF/SG position, and I have to agree with your statement about George/Granger complimenting each other REAL well. Then you have to stop to realize that George is only in his 2nd year. IMHO, our SG/SF combo is probably our MOST effective situation that we have. Why mess with it?

doctor-h
02-19-2012, 05:55 PM
I say this for the sake of your own sanity.

If this is the only goal for you then you need to either A.) become a bandwagon fan and just follow great teams/players around. B.) stop watching the NBA.

Pray tell what team in the NBA right now is built to beat a team that got two of the top players of their generation and another great player to come on board?

OKC? Maybe, we'll see.

Chicago? Didn't work out so well last year.

Remember this is Indiana, we are not going to be able to build a team of Dwight Howard, Daron Williams & Carmellow Anthony.

What we are doing now is what we have to do, the way we will have to build.

We may get lucky and get a star player this summer who decides he wants to win and doesn't care about the sun & sand and bright lights to come here as a free agent, but I doubt it.

I think some of you guys forget how far we have come in just one short year. Remember just a year and a month ago we were one of the worst teams in the NBA with a coach who had no clue.

Now, even with recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams in the NBA (even if not elite).

Also as to comparing the 90's teams to now. I think what people are forgetting is that this team did not come together overnight. We started drafting these players in the late 80's and got a few trades in the early 90's and kept on drafting.

Seth is actually saying it, but I want to re-emphasize it.

Now with our recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams and maybe even elite. You are delusional. We are 18-12. Our last ten we have a very bad record. We get a win over one of the worst teams in the league at home and had to struggle to do it and all is right in paradise. We are way closer to mediocre than good. You say we should be happy to get to the conference finals and if we do, we are elite. Elite plays for championships not a treat after the game. They are competitors not pretenders. Vnzl is exactly right, we are not there yet. We should not just say we can't beat Miami because they have 2 of the best players on the planet, we should do everything we can to beat them. You say Bird is loyal to his players. I am sure he is but he is loyal the franchise first. He is also one of the greatest competitors of all time. If he can get a piece that will help us compete at the highest level and it takes Granger to do it, Granger will be out of here so fast his head will spin. There are franchises that compete to be the best and some are just happy to be in the league. Everyone knows who they are. They do not settle for mediocrity and will do whatever it takes to win. Sometimes they hit it and sometimes they miss. But at least they are taking a swing at it. I for one, want my franchise to go for it and if they do, I will be proud of them. But if they are afraid to take that swing, I will not support them. We absolutely need a star player, someone that people have got to see play and want to see play. Aren't you paying any attention to the attendance at the games. It is awful and they are practically giving the tickets away. Our city's corporate base could care less about supporting the team because they are not a team that anyone really takes serious and has that name everyone wants to be associated with. The Colts were exactly like this until Peyton came along and look what he did for the franchise. Until the Pacers get someone similar to that, nobody will care about Pacers basketball that much except a few of us diehards. I am sick and tired of hearing on this board how good DC is. You see in New York what a true point guard can do for a team. Again that franchise needed something, found it (probably with alot of luck) but they found it and look at the excitment it has generated. We have got to take that position seriously and upgrade it ASAP or this team is destined to be inconsistent, unable to score when the game is on the line and we will never know how truly good Granger or George or Hibbert can be. They will be somewhere else.

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2012, 05:56 PM
Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer, I don't think Danny would get a vote for that.

And also just because Danny averages the same as Reggie at the same age doesn't mean that Danny is going to be Reggie.

This is similar to the people that tried to tell me that DC could be compared to Nash because their numbers are similar in their 3rd year in the NBA.

Danny Granger's career isn't over yet....the man is only 28.

PaceBalls
02-19-2012, 05:57 PM
Time to tank? That's what would happen if Danny is traded. It is Larry waving the white flag.

BTW we are having our best year since 2003-2004 when the Pacers went to the ECF. Just sayin...

ilive4sports
02-19-2012, 06:01 PM
Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer, I don't think Danny would get a vote for that.

And also just because Danny averages the same as Reggie at the same age doesn't mean that Danny is going to be Reggie.

This is similar to the people that tried to tell me that DC could be compared to Nash because their numbers are similar in their 3rd year in the NBA.

How many people had Reggie becoming a HOF at this stage in his career?

EDIT: I'm not saying Danny is going to be a HOF player, but that doesn't mean he will be a damn good player for years to come still, one that is very valuable to this team.

immortality
02-19-2012, 06:03 PM
Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer, I don't think Danny would get a vote for that.

And also just because Danny averages the same as Reggie at the same age doesn't mean that Danny is going to be Reggie.

This is similar to the people that tried to tell me that DC could be compared to Nash because their numbers are similar in their 3rd year in the NBA.

:'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2012, 06:06 PM
Now with our recent struggles, we are at the very least one of the good teams and maybe even elite. You are delusional. We are 18-12. Our last ten we have a very bad record. We get a win over one of the worst teams in the league at home and had to struggle to do it and all is right in paradise. We are way closer to mediocre than good. You say we should be happy to get to the conference finals and if we do, we are elite. Elite plays for championships not a treat after the game. They are competitors not pretenders. Vnzl is exactly right, we are not there yet. We should not just say we can't beat Miami because they have 2 of the best players on the planet, we should do everything we can to beat them. You say Bird is loyal to his players. I am sure he is but he is loyal the franchise first. He is also one of the greatest competitors of all time. If he can get a piece that will help us compete at the highest level and it takes Granger to do it, Granger will be out of here so fast his head will spin. There are franchises that compete to be the best and some are just happy to be in the league. Everyone knows who they are. They do not settle for mediocrity and will do whatever it takes to win. Sometimes they hit it and sometimes they miss. But at least they are taking a swing at it. I for one, want my franchise to go for it and if they do, I will be proud of them. But if they are afraid to take that swing, I will not support them. We absolutely need a star player, someone that people have got to see play and want to see play. Aren't you paying any attention to the attendance at the games. It is awful and they are practically giving the tickets away. Our city's corporate base could care less about supporting the team because they are not a team that anyone really takes serious and has that name everyone wants to be associated with. The Colts were exactly like this until Peyton came along and look what he did for the franchise. Until the Pacers get someone similar to that, nobody will care about Pacers basketball that much except a few of us diehards. I am sick and tired of hearing on this board how good DC is. You see in New York what a true point guard can do for a team. Again that franchise needed something, found it (probably with alot of luck) but they found it and look at the excitment it has generated. We have got to take that position seriously and upgrade it ASAP or this team is destined to be inconsistent, unable to score when the game is on the line and we will never know how truly good Granger or George or Hibbert can be. They will be somewhere else.

Having a Star player won't do us any good if we start losing after acquiring that player.

We're a GOOD team. Once the team start getting more NATIONAL coverage and appear in the playoffs CONSISTENTLY, the attendance will increase.

Too many of you want to keeping making these tweaks to what we have because it's not "perfect". At this rate, we'll break what we have, end up as a bottom dweller team, then we'll be using hindsight to say "DAMN! Had we just left it alone....".

ksuttonjr76
02-19-2012, 06:10 PM
:'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.

Except for Darren. He's really the ONLY player that I would trade without batting an eyelash. However, it's mainly because I'm not a fan of small PGs.

BlueNGold
02-19-2012, 06:19 PM
Reggie was a nobody until 1994. Sure some people had heard about him but believe me in the NBA he was cast in the lot of Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith, etc. In fact each year there was an argument that you could say any of those players were better than the other.

Then in 1994 Reggie had his series in the Garden, his spike moment. But the thing is that in 1994 Reggie's scoring went down, he shot less and focused more on defense. He tried to blend into the team game knowing that he didn't have to have big offensive games for us to win.

That was seven years into Reggie's career.

Does that sound familiar to anyone? Who else is in the second tier of NBA star players? Who else has tried to blend into a team game and knowing that he doesn't have to score big for us to win every game.

Also who is in his 7th year?

Danny just hasn't had the chance yet to make playoff noise. However who is to say that the United Center can't be his MSG. Danny hates the Bulls as much as Reggie hated the Knicks.

Side by side the two of them are almost identical through 7 years

http://bkref.com/tiny/plvc7

Danny's a good player, but even your numbers show he's made less points while launching more shots. I thought scoring was his forte'.

His attempts are going to go down as Paul matures and other players start taking the load...and you may see his percentages improve. But his production is going to drop at the same time. It already has dropped.

Back in 94, Reggie was shooting over 50% from the floor and 42% from three while scoring 20ppg. Granger is scoring almost 20ppg too, but he's shooting 39% from the floor and 37% from three...and that's after he's picked it up.

IDK, I don't see a future HOF'er in Danny....and to be sure, when the chips are on the table I'd pick Reggie to shoot it 100 out of 100 times.

spazzxb
02-19-2012, 06:20 PM
OK Naptown Seth I get all what you are saying but you know that the Pacers never won a championship with that team and only made it to the finals one time right? is that the goal?

Obviously the goal is to win game seven of the finals. :-} truthfully I want a full size PG as well.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

vnzla81
02-19-2012, 06:22 PM
:'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.

So there is not point to trade either one of our starters unless is for Lebron? Wow.

McKeyFan
02-19-2012, 06:36 PM
Call me crazy, but am I the only who wants to keep the defensive advantage of George @ SG spot and Granger @ the SF spot? We're the ONLY team with a SG/SF combo where EACH player is in the Top 7 for blocks and steals AND Top 10 in STL/TO ratio at their respective position.
David West gave this as one of his main reasons for choosing the Pacers, citing particularly the length of the starting wings.

jeffg-body
02-19-2012, 06:36 PM
Unless it is a lopsided trade in our favor, I'd hope we don't trade Danny because like a few of the guys here has said, the defensive match-up for Danny and PG on the floor together is tough for a lot of teams. I think that I'd rather try trading any combination of people not named Danny, PG, DW, GH, RH or DW. I am thinking the cap space will be even more of an advantage rather than the package of players we will be interested in offering.

doctor-h
02-19-2012, 07:00 PM
So there is not point to trade either one of our starters unless is for Lebron? Wow.

Give up, they just don't get it.

sothenrobbiesaid
02-19-2012, 10:39 PM
Interesting topic, for sure.

One thing to keep in mind if Danny was moved is the increased burden that would be on Paul as a defender. If he had more plays ran for him (isolation, running through screens, post ups, whatever), that will be more taxing on him from an energy standpoint.

Do you think he'd have the energy to play defense against guys like Rose or D. Williams if he had an increased offensive burden?

I like the team - I don't see anything happening before the deadline. We could always use another piece, but I just don't see it happening this year.

Go Pacers!

TheDavisBrothers
02-19-2012, 11:09 PM
Been thinking about this. Danny is playing really good right now. His stock is fairly high and will get higher if he keeps it up. But a few thoughts...

1) Watching Danny and Paul play together, it seems like Danny is in Pauls way. I feel like George should be the man and he can't, becausE he defers to Danny. So his play looks clunky at times. It's kind of like Paul doesn't know when to assert himself, because Danny is here. Also, I think Paul is playing out of position. I think he's a 3. Not a 2. I don't think Paul can fully blossom until Danny is out of the way.

2) I like Darren Collison, but there are PG's available that could really push Indiana to a legit contender status. Darren just isn't there yet. He's solid though and I think he could get there. Which is why I think you keep DC.

A George Hill, Granger and 2012 first rounder could net you something really nice. Boston might take that for Rondo and another contact. Maybe you get Nash and Dudley or Lopez or Gortat. I dunno, my point is, trading Danny Granger while his stock is high, makes so much sense right now and could not only make you a legit contender for the title depending on what you get back, but also could pave the way for #24 to become a top SF in the league.

I love Danny. His defense, in my eyes, has been amazing . And his shooting is coming back. But it just makes sense to trade him. Sometimes the difference between a title contender and a title pretender is whether or not your GM has the guts to see past loyalty and make a cutthroat move at the deadline. This is the move. Danny is the peice.

I'm sorry but this whole post just deserves :rolleyes:

Pacer Fan
02-19-2012, 11:19 PM
I think Danny will most certainly be here. Why would the Pacers even have the desire to trade him now. DWest came here to play with Danny and the opportunity to win.

Pacers had a choice last year, either go with a young rebuild, which would've traded Danny to boost this option or rebuild around what you have which is what the FO has done by getting West and Hill in here.

If the front office wants to make a major push forward right now then Paul George and Roy Hibbert is your biggest assets for a game changer type trade going into this years playoffs.

However, Paul and Danny is prolly the best in the league to possibly slow down Lebron and Wade or Deng and Rose, so it would make little sense to trade Paul with his defense abilities.

Hibbert, to me is the best option if any of the starters are traded. However, I think getting Kaman in here would solidify the Paint for 48 minutes and Hibbert would not have to play 30+ minutes, therefor, both Hibbert and Kaman could play a high energetic 25ish minutes apiece.

If Kaman was to be here...
We would have an 8 man rotation with Kaman, Hill, Hans coming off the bench.

If there is a position that needs to be address at this point it would be a quality back up pg or a starting pg to take DC's place.

At this point one needs to decide is Kaman or a starting pg more important, I say at this point of the year Kaman is more important. Kaman will be easier to infuse into the team and again should dominate the paint for 48 minutes.

I say this cause looking around the league at pg's that would take the team to the next level is few and far from speculating a trade. I see Rondo and Dwill as possibilities but both would rip this team apart on trying to acquire either of them. I puke of the thought of Harris and his 18mil. I'm not hating on Felton, but he would take the Kaman option off the table as he is 7.6 mil and I'd rather have Kaman, DC then Felton, Birdman (for example).

My perfect trade deadline deal that is plausible is Kaman and Sessions. It appears that in order to get Sessions, either Lou or Hans contract has to go out to make it work, but with Kaman here, Lou would be the perfect one to move.

I like Sessions and DC seems to burn himself out in games. So, like Hibbert and Kaman, DC and Sessions can share minutes and keep the pressure going.

With these 2 trades we would have a nine man rotation with Hill, Hans, Kaman and Sessions coming off the bench. Again, Kaman and Sessions would generally see very high minutes. We would also see a rotation of Danny, Paul and Hill in the wing positons. No more Lance, Jones, Price unless foul trouble or garbage time.

Hibbert / Kaman
West / Hans
Granger / George
George / Hill
Collison / Sessions

Hicks
02-20-2012, 03:08 PM
If you're in position to be in MULTIPLE game 7's in the conference finals, you're in position to reach your goal of winning the Finals. Just because no one's going to promise you that result doesn't mean you aren't damned close by that point. Typically the line between a team that can do that (make those game 7's) and a team that can win the Finals is thin.

dgranger17
02-20-2012, 04:32 PM
Granger's contract expires just in time for Paul George to hit RFA. The Pacers will probably cross that bridge when the time comes.

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2012, 05:00 PM
Yep I'm never going to see the Danny/Reggie comparison, Reggie is a future hall of famer...but would not be were it not for his playoff heroics
I fixed it for you.

And I'm serious. We love the guy, but this is the truth. He was a great catch and shoot guy who was pretty strong (but never really a leader) in 3P%. The playoff moments put him over the top, as they should.

And if Granger were to have those playoff moments this would no longer be a debate for anyone. He likely will not, nor will anyone in the NBA have quite those moments. This is just discussing his general impact on day to day games totaling up the impact on both ends of the court.



Give up, they just don't get it.
Yeah, that's the problem here. It's us not getting that you gotta trade Danny now, and it has nothing to do with the fact that you will NOT BE UPGRADING the team nor addressing any need greater than what you give up when you make this trade.

You gotta trade because you gotta trade, and us dummies just don't get it.


What piece are you getting that's making the team better...what REALISTIC piece. And just exactly HOW does this piece make the team better?

These are the answers you need to bring to this debate. Just lobbing "trade Danny to make the Finals" is nowhere even in the ballpark of remotely close to an answer. Just how in the f-bomb does trading Danny get you to the Finals? Saying "he'll never be the guy to lead you there" is not enough because frankly maybe George "leads" or maybe West "leads" or maybe FA-not-here-yet "leads".

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2012, 05:12 PM
IDK, I don't see a future HOF'er in Danny....and to be sure, when the chips are on the table I'd pick Reggie to shoot it 100 out of 100 times.
Yes, but you'd pick Danny to get the defensive stop 100 out of 100 times too.

Reggie was more unbalanced in favor of scoring/shooting. Danny is not the same shooter, but is clearly a better defender.

Peck and I aren't trying to be jerks, we just happened to be fans of the team BEFORE Reggie and lived through the development. We heard the fans and saw the empty arenas prior to the playoff run. Reggie going for 24 ppg and being an AS didn't bring the fans out and didn't have anyone talking "HOF" at the time.

Even one NYK series wasn't enough. He had 25 in the 4th, he had 8 in 8.9, he had the shot against Mike, he had the dunk and shot vs NJ.

Reggie Miller 100% does NOT TRACK as a HOF on box scores alone. Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith....these are similar guys for sure.


And until Reggie had those moments no one thought he was going to have those moments. This is why CHUCK PERSON was the man when they went 5 games vs Boston, not Reggie. And it wasn't freaking close. Chuck was the star, Chuck was the interview, Chuck was getting the final shots which he did in game 5 going against Bird.



The similarities of the squads is actually remarkable to me, the amount of general talent balance I mean. You expect 5-6 guys to have almost identical impacts on most nights.



BTW, it was Reggie's approach to the game as a team sport that made me like him so much. His low volume, high quality shot selection made him great to watch and root for. He wasn't Jordan and didn't try to be.

Trader Joe
02-20-2012, 05:13 PM
This successful team has brought back the old Naptime Seth. He brings it strong to the hole and goes hard in the paint. He's cut off the fat and has returned leaner and maybe a bit meaner. I approve.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 05:18 PM
Yes, but you'd pick Danny to get the defensive stop 100 out of 100 times too.

Reggie was more unbalanced in favor of scoring/shooting. Danny is not the same shooter, but is clearly a better defender.

Peck and I aren't trying to be jerks, we just happened to be fans of the team BEFORE Reggie and lived through the development. We heard the fans and saw the empty arenas prior to the playoff run. Reggie going for 24 ppg and being an AS didn't bring the fans out and didn't have anyone talking "HOF" at the time.

Even one NYK series wasn't enough. He had 25 in the 4th, he had 8 in 8.9, he had the shot against Mike, he had the dunk and shot vs NJ.

Reggie Miller 100% does NOT TRACK as a HOF on box scores alone. Mitch Richmond, Steve Smith....these are similar guys for sure.


And until Reggie had those moments no one thought he was going to have those moments. This is why CHUCK PERSON was the man when they went 5 games vs Boston, not Reggie. And it wasn't freaking close. Chuck was the star, Chuck was the interview, Chuck was getting the final shots which he did in game 5 going against Bird.



The similarities of the squads is actually remarkable to me, the amount of general talent balance I mean. You expect 5-6 guys to have almost identical impacts on most nights.



BTW, it was Reggie's approach to the game as a team sport that made me like him so much. His low volume, high quality shot selection made him great to watch and root for. He wasn't Jordan and didn't try to be.

Even Quinn Buckner knows that great offense beats great defense. The only thing is, the only thing great when you're talking about Reggie and Danny is Reggie's offense. Danny is just good. There's nothing spectacular at all about his game, including his 37% FG%.

The reality is, they are different players and Reggie is better at shooting the ball than Danny is at anything. I think given an opportunity to trade Danny for Reggie Miller in his prime, I have no doubt that Miller is more valuable.

BTW, I've watched the Pacers since the late 1960's...

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Manning and Elway? The equivalent to Jordan/Lebron compared to Danny? I guess everybody hates Danny because he is not Manning :whoknows:
Really? Give me a break on this, you can't possibly think this was the point being made.


The question that was brought up was about the 90's Pacers and how since they never won it all they weren't a good example of how to build an elite team.

So stay on point and keep your arguments consistent.

1) Danny fits with this squad in a way that Reggie did with his - overall talent balance rather than 1-2 elites leading a rag tag pack of also rans.

2) The 90's Pacers were elite because even though they didn't win it all they competed consistently right at the edge of winning it all, moreso than just about any other team not names the Bulls in fact.


And since you don't want #2 to be correct because it would then support keeping Danny per #1, you and a few others dismiss the idea of them being elite because they didn't win it all.

So I dismissed the idea of Win it all or Fail using two guys who famously didn't win it all several times, but who were kept around rather than traded for "something better" and went on to stop "sucking" simply by "not losing the big game" finally, without actually doing much of anything better than they had in the years they didn't win.


YOU DID THE LEBRON=DANNY from that argument, not me. I can't help if you can't follow the basic logic.


I'm so tired of people that can't differentiate the comparison of RELATIONSHIPS from the comparison of the examples used to show those relationships.

ME: Jordan=basketball as Ruth=Baseball

YOU: So you are saying Jordan was as good with the White Sox as Ruth was with the Yanks, that's pathetic. So I guess some minor league baseball games make you Babe Ruth now. Whatever, your talking crazy, and Babe Ruth didn't even play basketball anyway.

And we wonder why some of these debates go round and round.

LA_Confidential
02-20-2012, 05:35 PM
All I hear around here is that we have a balanced team and I agree. We don't have a single superstar in our starting 5. But what we do have is 2 all star caliber vets in Danny an D West, a budding all star Center in Roy and an athletic freak in PG. What we have with DC is an undersized inconsistent point guard who is not capable of carrying this team.

I fully understand that PG is inconsistent and unable to carry the team as well but he is a mismatch problem on both ends of the floor with the ability to play shut down, stat stuffing basketball.

DC is a liability on both ends of the court. He cannot guard his position and honestly cannot beat defenses. Dude is fast and I like speed in a point guard but how often does that speed equate to dribble penetration, drive and kicks or just plain old coming around the pick and roll with some effectiveness. Not often.

As far as trading Danny goes, honestly I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the team or franchise as a whole. He's one of the more identifiable players we've had for a while. As far as DC is concerned however, I'd be willing to take just about any point guard who is obviously better than him just as long as we wouldnt be sacrifising any more than DC, a pick, or cap room. I'll even throw in Tyler for the right man.

Point is were not moving Danny unless their is an extreme upgrade. That's not likely to come along. So we need to just scrap that thought for the moment. All we need to do is make a significant upgrade to the point guard spot, then add extra bits and pieces with cap room.

Naptown_Seth
02-20-2012, 05:49 PM
Even Quinn Buckner knows that great offense beats great defense. The only thing is, the only thing great when you're talking about Reggie and Danny is Reggie's offense. Danny is just good. There's nothing spectacular at all about his game, including his 37% FG%.

The reality is, they are different players and Reggie is better at shooting the ball than Danny is at anything. I think given an opportunity to trade Danny for Reggie Miller in his prime, I have no doubt that Miller is more valuable.

BTW, I've watched the Pacers since the late 1960's...
Well I agree with your point that Reggie as a clutch shooter, a tough shot maker, had a skill that is greater than any single skill Danny has. This is by far the most reasonable "anti-Danny" argument I've heard put forward.

This does take us into "is there anything Danny does that can put you over the top". But I still think that we didn't really know if Reggie had that either given the general poor outings in the playoffs prior to the breakthrough (not his box score, but the loss and no particular heroics in those games). So it's possible that Granger could have moments like that ahead of him.


I strongly think that people using the trade Danny logic now would have put forth that exact same argument in the 1992-93 era. In fact the team DID trade Chuck to get a "big time playmaker" at PG with Pooh.

So we actually have 2 pretty good examples of them giving up a key piece to improve overall and having it not work out. (Jax for Rose, Chuck for Pooh)


If we trade Danny for "PG with 1 specific great skill but not a total higher talent level" ala your Reggie vs Danny point that could work. But how do you know that guy, which guy is that? (sub in SG instead of PG if you'd like)

It's like trying to know Lin is about to go Lin. What made Reggie great is something that it's hard to be certain about. I'm not sure who I think is an available "the man" type of shooter that is lights out when it counts without being a big volume chucker in total (which would wreck chemistry and result in Paul deferring all over again).


And one of the original points was that Danny holds Paul back and that's just not true IMO. One of the things I'm saying here in regards to "the man" is that Paul may very well end up being the man to Danny's Chuck Person, so to speak. Except we don't need to trade him for Pooh.

BlueNGold
02-20-2012, 07:02 PM
Well I agree with your point that Reggie as a clutch shooter, a tough shot maker, had a skill that is greater than any single skill Danny has. This is by far the most reasonable "anti-Danny" argument I've heard put forward.

This does take us into "is there anything Danny does that can put you over the top". But I still think that we didn't really know if Reggie had that either given the general poor outings in the playoffs prior to the breakthrough (not his box score, but the loss and no particular heroics in those games). So it's possible that Granger could have moments like that ahead of him.


It is an unknown whether Danny can perform at a high level beyond the first round, but the Chicago series was a good sign. I will give him that much. But it was only one series.

To me, greatness cannot be achieved in the regular season. The playoffs are at an entirely different level and that's where the great ones make their mark. That's why guys like Dominique didn't get much respect...until he finally did show it. Same with Danny. He's earned some respect from the Chicago series. Problem is, he's been digging himself out of a hole since Jim O'Brien left town.

Personally, I valued Reggie's ability to convert extremely difficult shots under pressure...guys were hanging all over him 25 feet from the basket...chasing him everywhere...not a few times...but on a pretty regular basis. If he were guarded like Granger, he'd be completely unstoppable. That is a critical high level skill needed for success in the playoffs.

McKeyFan
02-20-2012, 08:07 PM
As far as trading Danny goes, honestly I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the team or franchise as a whole. He's one of the more identifiable players we've had for a while. As far as DC is concerned however, I'd be willing to take just about any point guard who is obviously better than him just as long as we wouldnt be sacrifising any more than DC, a pick, or cap room. I'll even throw in Tyler for the right man.

Thanks to Jim Rome, I think Danny's Bat Cave has done more to promote the team nationally than anything the Pacers marketing dept has accomplished.

:laugh:

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 10:21 PM
Really? Give me a break on this, you can't possibly think this was the point being made.


The question that was brought up was about the 90's Pacers and how since they never won it all they weren't a good example of how to build an elite team.

So stay on point and keep your arguments consistent.

1) Danny fits with this squad in a way that Reggie did with his - overall talent balance rather than 1-2 elites leading a rag tag pack of also rans.

2) The 90's Pacers were elite because even though they didn't win it all they competed consistently right at the edge of winning it all, moreso than just about any other team not names the Bulls in fact.


And since you don't want #2 to be correct because it would then support keeping Danny per #1, you and a few others dismiss the idea of them being elite because they didn't win it all.

So I dismissed the idea of Win it all or Fail using two guys who famously didn't win it all several times, but who were kept around rather than traded for "something better" and went on to stop "sucking" simply by "not losing the big game" finally, without actually doing much of anything better than they had in the years they didn't win.


YOU DID THE LEBRON=DANNY from that argument, not me. I can't help if you can't follow the basic logic.


I'm so tired of people that can't differentiate the comparison of RELATIONSHIPS from the comparison of the examples used to show those relationships.

ME: Jordan=basketball as Ruth=Baseball

YOU: So you are saying Jordan was as good with the White Sox as Ruth was with the Yanks, that's pathetic. So I guess some minor league baseball games make you Babe Ruth now. Whatever, your talking crazy, and Babe Ruth didn't even play basketball anyway.

And we wonder why some of these debates go round and round.

The point is that the comparisons you came up with are horrible ones though, you are saying that I would trade Manning or Elway before they won anything because they were "losers", those guys were great, one in a lifetime players, is like having Lebron or Kobe in your team, why would you trade either one of those guys if you know you are not going to get an upgrade? is the same as Utah having Malone/Stockton, who was a better duo than that duo? MJ/Pippen of course.

I'm sorry but I don't think Danny is a one in a lifetime type of player, there are like 15 players in the NBA that are better or similar than him, he is not as irreplaceable as many of you think, nobody here is suggesting to trade Danny for a bag of cheetos all people are saying is that if we have a chance to upgrade any position on the team we should at least consider it.

Again I've say this before but people seems to ignore it, IF WE COULD KEEP DANNY/PG/HIBBERT and get a huge upgrade at PF/PG I'm all for it, and by "huge" I mean somebody better than Danny because we don't have anybody like that yet.

doctor-h
02-20-2012, 11:20 PM
Having a Star player won't do us any good if we start losing after acquiring that player.

We're a GOOD team. Once the team start getting more NATIONAL coverage and appear in the playoffs CONSISTENTLY, the attendance will increase.

Too many of you want to keeping making these tweaks to what we have because it's not "perfect". At this rate, we'll break what we have, end up as a bottom dweller team, then we'll be using hindsight to say "DAMN! Had we just left it alone....".

It absolutely depends on the player and how he fits our team. You have no idea whether we would start losing or not, nobody does. Nobody is talking about tweaking the team just for the sake of tweaking the team. I am talking about getting a difference maker not just any trade. I have a suspicion that we will learn about our team after we get through this very weak part of the schedule and the schedule has a really tough stretch. Our team is not mentally tough enough to withstand adversity. I think that will show if we struggle during that stretch. Once the team starts getting more national coverage and makes the playoffs consistently attendance will increase. When do think we will ever get serious attention without a star player. It doesn't happen. We don't have the kind of time to wait on this. Good players want to play in full houses and on national TV so we could struggle to even keep the players we have. Same old Pacer fan base. Overvaluing the players we have and just happy to be a little above average. If we can land a true point guard that is a very good player and have to give up DC and something to do it, this team will not become a loser, it will improve. It might get some people excited enough to attend games.

doctor-h
02-20-2012, 11:35 PM
:'( You seem to not understand what everyone is saying. Any move involving Danny Granger is a lateral trade, that will have no significant impact on the Pacers. Paul George does not have the ability to score and is too passive to carry the burden of the team like Danny Granger does currently.

You fail to understand the history of the Pacers, never have we gotten a superstar player through free agency let alone trades, Pacers have always been a very balanced team like the Detroit Pistons in 2004. Reggie Miller is not a super-star like Jordan, Lebron, or Bryant, but he had the mentally to carry the team when it was needed, especially during the playoffs. We have seen in recent games that Danny Granger can be clutch and can carry a team on some nights. So like everyone else has been saying, unless we get Lebron, there is no point in trading anyone of our starters right now.

You cannot be serious. Unless we get Lebron for any one of our starters it is not worth considering a trade. Everyone is not saying that is the truth, nobody but you has said that. Everyone does not agree with your logic and I am absolutely sure the Pacers front office does not agree with you. They did not bring Pritchard in here because he thinks like you. They did not free up all this cap space to think like you. We need upgrades at certain positions, that is absolutely obvious. Our bench is not as deep as everyone said, that is obvious. Matter of fact it is very limited. We have no back up center that we can depend on and no point guard that can run a team. So in the playoffs when the game slows down and we have to depend on set offenses good luck. When Hibbert gets in foul trouble good luck. When we get into one of those periods where nobody can hit an outside shot and nobody can create for someone else good luck.

CJ Jones
02-20-2012, 11:37 PM
No your not crazy, in fact you are dead on accurate here.

This is what I've been trying to say all season long to the Paul George posse. They compliment each other. Danny is far stronger and far more physical than Paul.

They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.

Peck
02-20-2012, 11:47 PM
They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.

I'll be happy to answer your question if you will answer mine first.

What do you consdier the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward?

graphic-er
02-20-2012, 11:50 PM
I'll be happy to answer your question if you will answer mine first.

What do you consdier the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward?

I'd say that SF should be alittle thicker. Certainly there are Guards just as tall as SFs but generally the Forwards are a bit thicker.

vnzla81
02-20-2012, 11:51 PM
They compliment each other defensively yeah, but there's 2 sides of the court. Can anyone explain to me how they compliment each other on the offensive side?

I'm still not convinced Paul George's best position on the court is sg. Can someone find me another sg in the league with worse handles than Paul? Do we really want Paul running around pretending to Kobe or Ray? I'm not sure if that's the best way to use him on offense.

I don't think you need PG or Danny to dribble much if you find a good player to play the point, Danny and George are capable of playing off the ball, they could catch and shoot all day if they had somebody that could find them easy shots.

ThA HoyA
02-20-2012, 11:57 PM
Paul George doesn't have the strength right now to go up against the "SF's" in the league.... Whether its offensively or defensively.

doctor-h
02-21-2012, 12:03 AM
I just can't get how any Pacers fan ever thinks this. I'm actually really sick of hearing this general "we need a mega-star" or "we must have a top 5 pick/tank" angles from a team that already proved that is wrong.

Everyone acts like they knew about Reggie, Smits, playoff success, etc when the team lost 3-1 to the Knicks the year before Brown. At that time the team's best player was DETLEF, not Reggie. Det was back to back 6th man and the CURRENT all-star. It had been a few years since Reggie's ONLY AS appearance (at the time).

So if you were living in that era with the views on Danny/talent we show now you would have said the following:

1) Detlef is your best player, you build around him. And if you trade him it must be for another regular AS player (McKey was NOT that, so fail 1)

2) Reggie is a nice SG but he's never going to be Jordan, he can't get his own shot, he's not a great defender and the team will never get to the Finals if he's your best player. I like him but he's just not good enough. (Fail 2 because they didn't upgrade him)

3) Smits isn't the answer at C. He's not athletic enough and can defend the paint. He's a soft, touch scorer, not a power player and not a defensive force. (fail 3, no upgrade here either)


By the way, there is also no way you can expect to get a borderline AS PF from the 2nd round, maybe even sent to Europe to improve his skills. Antonio Davis does not exist and no one thought he could exist.


Also there is no way you could acquire Mark Jackson at that point. He's not with the team and all you are going to have is guys like Fleming, Workman or Michael Williams who are not enough to lead a team. They are good bench types but not elite team starters.


And then the team swapped coaches, did trade down in total talent level for Larry Brown's desire*, had 2nd rounder Antonio return from Europe, and with Workman at point they went to the ECF game 7. And then they did it again the next year. And 3 years, 4 years, and 5 years later. 5 ECF in 7 years is ELITE, and they did this from years of .500 with no high picks, no major FA, and not even a regular AS.

The Pacers have won using the team concept, and the Pistons reproved it a few years ago as well. I'd say even Memphis has proven it in recent years.




In short, this team has nearly all the talent it needs right now. Maybe you need one more guy on the bench, maybe you need Tyler to improve a little (or upgrade him), maybe you could slightly upgrade DC or Roy, but you probably don't need to do all of those things.


*As a reminder, Det was 19.6, 9.5, 6.0 the prior year, so #2 ppg, #1 rpg, #2 apg. Traded. I understand the defensive thing and I liked McKey, but people forget that Det was a killer offensive all-around threat and went on to be part of a multi-threat elite Seattle team (the Pacers justification was too many options, needed a defensive specialist...that's Brown-speak for justifying his random roster changes, like trading Jax then benching Rose, then asking for Jax back)

I bet you play fantasy basketball don't you? Because it is obvious you have never stepped on the floor yourself outside a pick up game. I am always amused by the guys that belittle everyone's opinion that do not agree with them by using the most meaningless comparisons and stats that nobody can prove or disprove. Open your eyes and watch what happens on the floor. Do you honestly think that Danny is comparable in any way to Reggie. Reggie is one of the greatest clutch players in history. Danny has never been considered a clutch player. Those Pacer teams you keep referring to had one of the best point guards in the league at running a team. That is how Reggie got alot of those shots, the ball was delivered and on time. Do you honestly think Collison has those same abilities to do what Jackson did. The only similarity is that they neither one played defense. Everyone that thinks like you, hang their hats on the fact that we played the Bulls tough last year. We lost 3-1 and were blown out in an elimination game. We got beat in early games because we were completely out matched at the point. What makes you think that will be different this time?

cdash
02-21-2012, 12:05 AM
Reggie Miller was a more clutch player than Danny Granger could ever dream of being. As all-around basketball players, honestly, it's close.

Peck
02-21-2012, 12:10 AM
I bet you play fantasy basketball don't you? Because it is obvious you have never stepped on the floor yourself outside a pick up game. I am always amused by the guys that belittle everyone's opinion that do not agree with them by using the most meaningless comparisons and stats that nobody can prove or disprove. Open your eyes and watch what happens on the floor. Do you honestly think that Danny is comparable in any way to Reggie. Reggie is one of the greatest clutch players in history. Danny has never been considered a clutch player. Those Pacer teams you keep referring to had one of the best point guards in the league at running a team. That is how Reggie got alot of those shots, the ball was delivered and on time. Do you honestly think Collison has those same abilities to do what Jackson did. The only similarity is that they neither one played defense. Everyone that thinks like you, hang their hats on the fact that we played the Bulls tough last year. We lost 3-1 and were blown out in an elimination game. We got beat in early games because we were completely out matched at the point. What makes you think that will be different this time?

First & I say this as a person who has horrid spelling, punctuation and general basic englis skills, paragraphs are your friend. You have some good things to say but I fear a lot of people will just pass them by because it's a little hard to read. Yes I am aware I often have the same problem.

Second Reggie is considered one of the great clutch performers because of what happened in his 7th season and forward. Before that he was just another shooting guard who could score but couldn't defend.

Also you are 100% correct here, Mark Jackson was the man. This is considered a Dale Davis video but the truth is it is really more of a Mark Jackson highlight film.

However whenever I have a chance to spread the good word about Dale I will take it.:D

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8df2zCpypk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Peck
02-21-2012, 12:12 AM
I'd say that SF should be alittle thicker. Certainly there are Guards just as tall as SFs but generally the Forwards are a bit thicker.

Ok I should have been more specific.

How in the course of playing basketball is the small forward position different than the shooting guard.

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 12:26 AM
First & I say this as a person who has horrid spelling, punctuation and general basic englis skills, paragraphs are your friend. You have some good things to say but I fear a lot of people will just pass them by because it's a little hard to read. Yes I am aware I often have the same problem.

Second Reggie is considered one of the great clutch performers because of what happened in his 7th season and forward. Before that he was just another shooting guard who could score but couldn't defend.

Also you are 100% correct here, Mark Jackson was the man. This is considered a Dale Davis video but the truth is it is really more of a Mark Jackson highlight film.

However whenever I have a chance to spread the good word about Dale I will take it.:D

Peck you keep repeating that Reggie became Reggie in his 7th year and that Danny's numbers are similar and all that but have you ever thought that there are a lot of players in the NBA in their 7th year whose numbers are similar to Reggie's? does that mean that they are going to be like RM? just because a player average the same numbers as X player in X year doesn't mean that player is going to be as good as X player.

Peck
02-21-2012, 12:30 AM
Peck you keep repeating that Reggie became Reggie in his 7th year and that Danny's numbers are similar and all that but have you ever thought that there are a lot of players in the NBA in their 7th year whose numbers are similar to Reggie's? does that mean that they are going to be like RM? just because a player average the same numbers as X player in X year doesn't mean that player is going to be as good as X player.

True but there is a huge similarity between Reggie & Danny. I'm waiting for someone to answer it for me here in post 219

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=69791&page=9

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 01:04 AM
I'll be happy to answer your question if you will answer mine first.

What do you consdier the difference between a shooting guard and a small forward?

Here's what I posted the last time you asked. You must have missed it...




lack of ball handling, lack of play making, inability to use his height as an advantage on offense, inability to drive around smaller quicker players, thinking he's kobe and shooting too many jumpers...

There's some offensive reasons. I'd say the first 2 are the most important. Having a sg that can handle and create would help our offense. We rely too much on our pgs right now.
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Also can you really define the difference between a small forward and shooting guard?

Depends on the roster, but typically your sg is quicker and a better ball handler than your sf. He's used to help initiate offense (run the PnR) with the pg. He's usually a good shooter. Normally he's not a good rebounder or shot blocker.

Your sf typically is a good defender, good rebounder, and he's able to knock down spot up jump shots. If he can block shots that's a plus. Normally he's an average ball handler.

This is obviously just basic stuff here, and it all depends on your roster. They can be interchangeable if you got a ball handler/playmaker at sf, but there aren't many of those.



Also why is he better closer to the rim when he has shown to be a very good perimeter defender against point guards let alone shooting guards?

Here's some defensive reasons...

rebounding, shot blocking, help defense, he'd be able to freelance for steals more because of less responsibility. Basically he could be our Lebron on defense.

All those things listed he is or will be better than Danny at.

Just because a player can guard sgs and pgs doesn't necessarily mean he should play a certain position. LeBron can guard 4 or 5 positions, but they don't put him at the sg. That's the type of impact I believe Paul will have eventually. I think he has 1st team defense type potential, and he'd be better off closer to the rim as long as we had someone that can handle other teams sgs. That doesn't mean he can't guard other positions at times.

Now can someone please come up with a list of reasons why they think his game is better suited for sg long term? (IMF maybe... since you think this opinion's stupid )

graphic-er
02-21-2012, 01:11 AM
True but there is a huge similarity between Reggie & Danny. I'm waiting for someone to answer it for me here in post 219

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=69791&page=9

Experience?

Both lost in the first round of playoff in their sixth year.
Both seen a drop in production but a rise in overall play in their 7th season.

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 01:16 AM
True but there is a huge similarity between Reggie & Danny. I'm waiting for someone to answer it for me here in post 219

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?t=69791&page=9

Again Peck I think you can visualize if you wanted to that Danny can be as good as Reggie because Danny haven't had the chance to prove it yet, the point is that you can make the same case for a bunch of player in the NBA.

I know that people love to fantasize and compare the new Pacers with the old ones but the fact is that neither one of those players are as similar or as good as we like to think, comparing Danny to Reggie, PG to Rose, Hibbert to Smith, West to Dale and Mark to DC is not going to make us the old Pacers team.

PR07
02-21-2012, 01:19 AM
Danny isn't untouchable, but you sure as heck better be getting a superstar player back.

I also think the talk of "Danny getting in PG's way is premature". George has shown flashes of offensive brilliance, but he still hasn't put it all together consistently on a night in and night out basis, and that's even true when Granger went down and he struggled.

Plus, as others have alluded to, George is an asset at SG with his length and freakish athleticsm at the position. He's quick enough to guard anyone there, but hardly anyone has that kind of length and athleticism which makes him a matchup nightmare and disruptive defensive force. It's a huge part of why our starting lineup is so long and tall. You put him at SF, and suddenly these traits aren't as advantageous anymore as these taller, stronger SF's get into his body and push him around, nullifying those attributes.

Also, who's starting in his spot?

-Dahntay is better served with his energy off the bench
-Lance can't hit a jumpshot

HC
02-21-2012, 01:24 AM
Danny isn't untouchable, but you sure as heck better be getting a superstar player back.

I also think the talk of "Danny getting in PG's way is premature". George has shown flashes of offensive brilliance, but he still hasn't put it all together consistently on a night in and night out basis, and that's even true when Granger went down and he struggled.

Plus, as others have alluded to, George is an asset at SG with his length and freakish athleticsm at the position. He's quick enough to guard anyone there, but hardly anyone has that kind of length and athleticism which makes him a matchup nightmare and disruptive defensive force. It's a huge part of why our starting lineup is so long and tall. You put him at SF, and suddenly these traits aren't as advantageous anymore as these taller, stronger SF's get into his body and push him around, nullifying those attributes.

Danny is a good player, and obviously not untouchable. Honestly though I'd rather see him stay. That being said it is going to take a lot more than just Granger to bring a superstar here. Our best bet is free agency in the offseason. It's not worth gutting the team unless Dwight Howard is coming and signing an extension.

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 01:26 AM
One more thing... we can't create a team like we've had in the past and expect to compete against The LeBrons. The leagues different now. You better have a superstar and you better have athletic players that can run with them or you're not winning the 'ship'. JMO

TheDavisBrothers
02-21-2012, 01:31 AM
One more thing... we can't create a team like the teams we've had in the past and expect to compete against The LeBrons. The leagues different now. You better have a superstar or you better have athletic players that can run with them or you're not winning the 'ship'. JMO

tell that to Detriot...

Peck
02-21-2012, 01:42 AM
One more thing... we can't create a team like the teams we've had in the past and expect to compete against The LeBrons. The leagues different now. You better have a superstar and you better have athletic players that can run with them or you're not winning the 'ship'. JMO

How exactly are the LeBrons of today significantly better than the Jordans of back then?

HC
02-21-2012, 01:50 AM
How exactly are the LeBrons of today significantly better than the Jordans of back then?

They aren't, and it isn't even close imo. The Bulls were such a complete team from top to bottom.

Peck
02-21-2012, 01:51 AM
Here's what I posted the last time you asked. You must have missed it...



lack of ball handling, lack of play making, inability to use his height as an advantage on offense, inability to drive around smaller quicker players, thinking he's kobe and shooting too many jumpers...

There's some offensive reasons. I'd say the first 2 are the most important. Having a sg that can handle and create would help our offense. We rely too much on our pgs right now.


Depends on the roster, but typically your sg is quicker and a better ball handler than your sf. He's used to help initiate offense (run the PnR) with the pg. He's usually a good shooter. Normally he's not a good rebounder or shot blocker.

Your sf typically is a good defender, good rebounder, and he's able to knock down spot up jump shots. If he can block shots that's a plus. Normally he's an average ball handler.

This is obviously just basic stuff here, and it all depends on your roster. They can be interchangeable if you got a ball handler/playmaker at sf, but there aren't many of those.



Here's some defensive reasons...

rebounding, shot blocking, help defense, he'd be able to freelance for steals more because of less responsibility. Basically he could be our Lebron on defense.

All those things listed he is or will be better than Danny at.

Just because a player can guard sgs and pgs doesn't necessarily mean he should play a certain position. LeBron can guard 4 or 5 positions, but they don't put him at the sg. That's the type of impact I believe Paul will have eventually. I think he has 1st team defense type potential, and he'd be better off closer to the rim as long as we had someone that can handle other teams sgs. That doesn't mean he can't guard other positions at times.

Now can someone please come up with a list of reasons why they think his game is better suited for sg long term? (IMF maybe... since you think this opinion's stupid )

You make some good points but again I wonder why you think that Paul George will automatically be better at this? Have you considered that he might be over powered by other power forwards? Why do you think he is a better shot blocker? He gets blocks right now but they are from guarding perimater players and sometimes he gets them at the rim.

Danny on the other hand.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/u3ywj5hnpF8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Look it is obvious we are both entrenched in our positions. I respect your opinion and will just say that I think both of them can not only co-exist but compliment each other.

In fact I'll go so far as to say this. If we feel the need to make Paul the small forward and we can find a good shooting guard by some other means, Danny is big enough and athletic enough to play the power forwards position against most 4's in the NBA. I wouldn't prefer it, but it could be done.

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 02:44 AM
tell that to Detriot...

This is true. If we can find our Billups then we might have a chance.


How exactly are the LeBrons of today significantly better than the Jordans of back then?

We didn't win anything then either, but yes you're right we did compete.

I guess my point is that it's hard in today's nba to win without star power.

edit: Anyone find a worse ball handling sg than Paul? And as far as their blocks are concerned, he already averages the same even though Danny spends much more time around the rim playing help defense.

He weighs a little less than Danny now. What makes you think he won't be heavier and stronger than Danny in a few years.

TheDavisBrothers
02-21-2012, 02:56 AM
edit: Did anyone find a worse ball handling sg than Paul?

Just starters or bench players also?

Just starters, the team with the best record in the league, OKC has 2 in Thabo or Cook, since Thabo's injuried
The team with the 2nd best record in the west to OKC, SA also has 2 in Leonard or Green
Pho's Dudley

xBulletproof
02-21-2012, 02:58 AM
lack of ball handling, lack of play making, inability to use his height as an advantage on offense, inability to drive around smaller quicker players, thinking he's kobe and shooting too many jumpers...

Paul's issue on most of these is the same. Lack of physical strength. He's better at these things this year because he's stronger. He will continue to improve them. He's a capable passer and as his ball handling improves, so will his ability to create and drive.

But honestly, 'thinking he's Kobe and shooting too many jumpers'? That comes across like serious nitpicking. You're comparing the guy who takes 9 shots per game and shoots 40% from 3 point range to a guy taking 24 shots per game and 28% from long range? That just doesn't even make sense.

If you put him at SF, his lack of physical strength issue that causes him problems now is compounded as you get closer to the rim on both sides of the court and you're putting him in some really bad spots. It's just a bad, bad idea.

TheDavisBrothers
02-21-2012, 03:11 AM
He weighs a little less than Danny now. What makes you think he won't be heavier and stronger than Danny in a few years.

I think we were talking more about this year tho, not coming years, and don't act like 18 lbs. is a little. You put on 18 lbs. and see if it's a little...

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 03:15 AM
Just starters or bench players also?

Just starters, the team with the best record in the league, OKC has 2 in Thabo or Cook, since Thabo's injuried
The team with the 2nd best record in the west to OKC, SA also has 2 in Leonard or Green
Pho's Dudley

I was just looking at starters... OKC has Harden at sg most of the game. SA normally has Ginobili. I'll give you PHO.



But honestly, 'thinking he's Kobe and shooting too many jumpers'? That comes across like serious nitpicking.

I'm talking about him settling for jumpers too often not how many shots he takes. Did you see that step back 3 last night when he had a wide open lane?

I think he'll get better with his handles, but I doubt he'll ever be one of the better ball handling sgs. If you put him at sf though in a few years he becomes one of the better ball handling sfs.

TheDavisBrothers
02-21-2012, 03:20 AM
I was just looking at starters... OKC has Harden at sg most of the game. SA normally has Ginobili. I'll give you PHO.



I'm talking about him settling for jumpers too often not how many shots he takes. Did you see that step back 3 last night when he had a wide open lane?

I think he'll get better with his handles, but I doubt he'll ever be one of the better ball handling sgs. If you put him at sf though in a few years he becomes one of the better ball handling sfs.

Hey, a starter is a starter :p

It really comes down to less handles and more length at SG or less muscle and more handles at SF. I think most here, including myself, chose the former for now...

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 03:20 AM
I think we were talking more about this year tho, not coming years, and don't act like 18 lbs. is a little. You put on 18 lbs. and see if it's a little...

I count 13 lbs.

Paul's 221 at 21 and he put 10 lbs. on last off season. He'll keep putting on weight most likely. He'll also gain strength the older he gets.

TheDavisBrothers
02-21-2012, 03:33 AM
I count 13 lbs.

Paul's 221 at 21 and he put 10 lbs. on last off season. He'll keep putting on weight most likely. He'll also gain strength the older he gets.

According to yahoo George is listed at 210 lbs, and Granger is at 228 lbs. That's where I got 18 lbs.
Just looked it up on NBA.com they have Paul at 215 and Granger at 228. 13lbs as you say.
I'm sure he will continue to put on muscle in the future, but that's not gonna help him right NOW and right now he is not strong enough to play SF.
Also the fact that he is taller then Granger means they can weight the same and he would still not have as much build...

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 06:03 AM
According to yahoo George is listed at 210 lbs, and Granger is at 228 lbs. That's where I got 18 lbs.
Just looked it up on NBA.com they have Paul at 215 and Granger at 228. 13lbs as you say.
I'm sure he will continue to put on muscle in the future, but that's not gonna help him right NOW and right now he is not strong enough to play SF.
Also the fact that he is taller then Granger means they can weight the same and he would still not have as much build...

There was a report earlier in the year saying George was up to 221. I think it was the same one that talked about him growing an inch in the off season.

Regardless of what he weighs, I think you guys might be overrating his need for strength. I'll take quickness and athleticism over strength any day. Kevin Durant's one of the weakest players in the league yet still manages to do alright at sf.

I'm not advocating for Paul to play sf right now anyway. I'm just putting it out there that it might best for him and the team at some point. Unless of course we can persuade Derron Williams to sign with us this summer. :drool:

Malakai432
02-21-2012, 08:58 AM
You definitely don't kill this teams mojo when they have an easy shot of being 23-12 in the next four games. The team is developing some wonderful chemistry and still much room for improvement. West has been tearing it up in Feb thus far, Hill is coming back, Roy is an All-Star, this team will get back on track after the 5 game losing skid hopefully to win 6 in a row (knock on wood). Yes, it will be against sub .500 teams, but this is a great time to get confidence and momentum back. I would be livid if they got rid of Granger, heck I don't want Rondo anyways. You might be able to fill some needs in the draft next year anyways. Keep these boys intact, perhaps pick up another solid player if they have room/$. Paul gets plenty of play time, he's still incredibly young and will get better regardless if he's splitting @ the SF & SG spot.

doctor-h
02-21-2012, 11:39 AM
First & I say this as a person who has horrid spelling, punctuation and general basic englis skills, paragraphs are your friend. You have some good things to say but I fear a lot of people will just pass them by because it's a little hard to read. Yes I am aware I often have the same problem.

Second Reggie is considered one of the great clutch performers because of what happened in his 7th season and forward. Before that he was just another shooting guard who could score but couldn't defend.

Also you are 100% correct here, Mark Jackson was the man. This is considered a Dale Davis video but the truth is it is really more of a Mark Jackson highlight film.

However whenever I have a chance to spread the good word about Dale I will take it.:D

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8df2zCpypk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for the tip Peck, I am still pretty new to this. I will never consider DG in Reggies category because I don't think he matches up at all as a competitor. I don't think it is fair to compare that team to this team. We are not trying to build that team all over again. We shouldn't be. I don't know how all this talk got to be about trading Danny. I feel the biggest need is at point guard. I feel to be great we need a great point guard. The only way to get that is to give up something of value to get something of value. I believe Danny is more easily replaced than finding a good point guard. I don't want to give him up but if we had to I would do it. Sorry for another paragraph.

daschysta
02-21-2012, 11:48 AM
The league is actually pretty stacked with more than adequate point guards. Noone is trading an elite PG for Danny, and pg's of the next tier down are not really that hard to find, and they wouldn't be worth Danny.

As for PG I prefer him at SG anyhow. His length is a bigger advantage at the 2/ guarding the one than his speed would be playing the 3, particularly when you account for PG's somewhat thin frame. There isn't really a functional difference offensively between the two positions, and defensively pg right now is better suited to guard smaller quicker players.

doctor-h
02-21-2012, 11:48 AM
Danny isn't untouchable, but you sure as heck better be getting a superstar player back.

I also think the talk of "Danny getting in PG's way is premature". George has shown flashes of offensive brilliance, but he still hasn't put it all together consistently on a night in and night out basis, and that's even true when Granger went down and he struggled.

Plus, as others have alluded to, George is an asset at SG with his length and freakish athleticsm at the position. He's quick enough to guard anyone there, but hardly anyone has that kind of length and athleticism which makes him a matchup nightmare and disruptive defensive force. It's a huge part of why our starting lineup is so long and tall. You put him at SF, and suddenly these traits aren't as advantageous anymore as these taller, stronger SF's get into his body and push him around, nullifying those attributes.

Also, who's starting in his spot?

-Dahntay is better served with his energy off the bench
-Lance can't hit a jumpshot

We in no way are going to get a superstar player in return for Danny alone. Danny is not a superstar. We would have to package something.

daschysta
02-21-2012, 11:52 AM
We likely aren't getting a superstar anyhow, in a trade or otherwise, that illusion is likely better put out of mind. We don't build teams like that here, and unless PG develops into one it won't be our MO.

xIndyFan
02-21-2012, 12:13 PM
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/t8df2zCpypk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

seeing this reminds me of what was true before the lockout and, all things considered, is still true. the pacers are two players away from being a ECF team. those players being dale davis and mark jackson. it's not monta ellis they need, it's not moving danny to let paul play, it's a couple of grown men who know how to play.

xBulletproof
02-21-2012, 12:15 PM
I'm talking about him settling for jumpers too often not how many shots he takes. Did you see that step back 3 last night when he had a wide open lane?

I think he'll get better with his handles, but I doubt he'll ever be one of the better ball handling sgs. If you put him at sf though in a few years he becomes one of the better ball handling sfs.

I'm not sure why being one of the better ball handling players at his position is so important to you. Reggie Miller certainly wasn't one, and it never bothered him. I'm more concerned about George being one of the best players at his position overall, not just a high ranking ball handler at his position.

I think Paul drives quite often this year so I don't get the complaint overall. Yet, at the same time you're complaining that he has problems with his handles, but on the other side you're complaining he doesn't play into his weakness by using his handles more often? That's confusing.
.

dgranger17
02-21-2012, 01:09 PM
I was born the year Reggie was drafted (and graduated the year he retired), so I can't really speak for the first 5-8 years of his career, but from what I remember he always guarded the other team's best perimeter player. When I watch the old Knicks and Bulls games, who's guarding Starks and Jordan? Reggie. Reggie on a bum ankle always seemed to take the challenge for defending Jordan. Calling out Reggie's defense is ignorant in my opinion.

In regards to the posters arguing about weight.. who gives a ****?

BillS
02-21-2012, 01:26 PM
Calling out Reggie's defense is ignorant in my opinion.

Reggie's defense was adequate. He could hold his own well enough that you usually didn't need to switch off on his man. However, I'd venture to say that Derrick McKey probably played most of the hard man-to-man defensive assignments.

In today's PD, where anything less than stellar man-to-man defense is equivalent to "sucks", that might sound like an attack.

xIndyFan
02-21-2012, 01:26 PM
I was born the year Reggie was drafted (and graduated the year he retired), so I can't really speak for the first 5-8 years of his career, but from what I remember he always guarded the other team's best perimeter player. When I watch the old Knicks and Bulls games, who's guarding Starks and Jordan? Reggie. Reggie on a bum ankle always seemed to take the challenge for defending Jordan. Calling out Reggie's defense is ignorant in my opinion.

In regards to the posters arguing about weight.. who gives a ****?

i was born before that. and did see reggie's early year. reggie was never a 'good' defender. he did try hard, but never good.

fwiw, reggie would've been better with the current zone rules defensively. he seemed to know what to do, just couldn't always get there.

Peck
02-21-2012, 01:35 PM
Reggie's defense was adequate. He could hold his own well enough that you usually didn't need to switch off on his man. However, I'd venture to say that Derrick McKey probably played most of the hard man-to-man defensive assignments.

In today's PD, where anything less than stellar man-to-man defense is equivalent to "sucks", that might sound like an attack.

Reggie had to work to get there though. Until Brown came along he never had a coach that challenged him to be an adequate defender. Larry changed all of that and made Reggie into the defender he became.

I know personality wise it would have been a disaster but I wonder how good Reggie could have been as a defender if he had someone like Brown from his rookie season on?

BillS
02-21-2012, 01:41 PM
Reggie had to work to get there though. Until Brown came along he never had a coach that challenged him to be an adequate defender. Larry changed all of that and made Reggie into the defender he became.

I know personality wise it would have been a disaster but I wonder how good Reggie could have been as a defender if he had someone like Brown from his rookie season on?

Given his conditioning and the amount of effort he put into running players off screens, I'd venture to say he would have been one of the few players to be able to play good defense while still being an offensive weapon.

However, I still maintain his best defensive weapon was wearing his man out while on offense by running him through screens set by teammates like Dale Davis.

Yes, that was a gratuitous Dale Davis reference. :dance:

Peck
02-21-2012, 01:50 PM
Given his conditioning and the amount of effort he put into running players off screens, I'd venture to say he would have been one of the few players to be able to play good defense while still being an offensive weapon.

However, I still maintain his best defensive weapon was wearing his man out while on offense by running him through screens set by teammates like Dale Davis.

Yes, that was a gratuitous Dale Davis reference. :dance:

You had me at Dale Davis.

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 01:56 PM
You had me at Dale Davis.

Talking about Dale Davis I was looking at some numbers from previous Pacers players and one of those guys numbers were just as good as DD numbers at around the same age and yet that guy didn't become DD.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/davisda01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

:devil: Gotcha :b

The Sleeze
02-21-2012, 01:59 PM
Talking about Dale Davis I was looking at some numbers from previous Pacers players and one of those guys numbers were just as good as DD numbers at around the same age and yet that guy didn't become DD.


How dare you mention Troy Murphy in the same thread as Dale Davis.

If you mention Troy Murphy in a dream, you better wake up and apologize to Dale Davis.

Peck
02-21-2012, 02:09 PM
Talking about Dale Davis I was looking at some numbers from previous Pacers players and one of those guys numbers were just as good as DD numbers at around the same age and yet that guy didn't become DD.



http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/davisda01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/murphtr01.html

:devil: Gotcha :b



Oh you'll smoke a turd in hell for that one.:tongue:

vnzla81
02-21-2012, 02:17 PM
:evil:

LA_Confidential
02-21-2012, 04:45 PM
That DD vid reminded me of how sweet a passer MJax was. Oh how I miss the days where we could score easy baskets.

CJ Jones
02-21-2012, 04:51 PM
seeing this reminds me of what was true before the lockout and, all things considered, is still true. the pacers are two players away from being a ECF team. those players being dale davis and mark jackson. it's not monta ellis they need, it's not moving danny to let paul play, it's a couple of grown men who know how to play.

That's a low blow on Monta. The things he does are exactly what this team needs. Don't act like he couldn't help the team win. Unless you're trying to play psychologist like my man Beast there's really no good reason to hate on Monta.

BTW... Mark Jackson's and Dale Davis's don't grow on trees. If we're trying to recreate a team (that didn't win it all) like the old Pacers we'll probably be waiting a while.





=xBulletproof;1378984]I'm not sure why being one of the better ball handling players at his position is so important to you. Reggie Miller certainly wasn't one, and it never bothered him. I'm more concerned about George being one of the best players at his position overall, not just a high ranking ball handler at his position.

You don't think ball handling is important on offense? Being the worst ball handling sg isn't a big deal? I think it's important to have players that can handle the ball. Our wings are way below average, that's a problem.

We like comparisons here so I'll throw one out there. You're right Reggie's handles weren't good, but he had Mark Jackson and Jalen Rose passing him the ball, while Paul has Darren and Danny. Big difference.

Reggie's a bad example anyway because he's not your typical sg. I'd rather not see Paul mimic Reggie's game.


I think Paul drives quite often this year so I don't get the complaint overall. Yet, at the same time you're complaining that he has problems with his handles, but on the other side you're complaining he doesn't play into his weakness by using his handles more often? That's confusing.


Peck asked for reasons I thought he was naturally a sf so I listed them. He can't drive around quicker sgs, but at sf he's quicker than almost everyone so he'd have an easier time attacking the rim.

Paul's bench press or a Reggie Miller comparison isn't gonna change my mind. He looks like a sf to me.

imbtyler
02-21-2012, 05:53 PM
I know I'm constantly busting on Danny for all the things he does which I hate. But I don't think I'm willing to lose our leading scorer and long-time leader to upgrade ANY position on the roster, without it being a "no-brainer" upgrade. Paul is still young, and will grow into his position (both roster- and team-wise), with or without Danny. They're a good team for the time being, and hopefully they can start playing off each other.

With that said, Danny, for being a 7-year veteran, still has trouble dribbling with his head up, picking his shots properly, shooting too early, finding and making that extra pass, and some other things. I just hope that Paul can develop and train his handling abilities and attack mentality from someone other than Danny.

Keep the two together. When the time comes for a proper burial of Danny's Pacers jersey, it will come with grandeur and respect.



Or not.

LA_Confidential
02-21-2012, 06:26 PM
Everytime I read the thread title the next thing that pops into my head is, "so were going to suck."

Yes we did suck for a while even with Danny but if we trade him NOW, after finally putting what looks to be good pieces around him, that actually fit his game and his personality then I feel as if all that sucking was in vain.

90'sNBARocked
02-21-2012, 06:37 PM
Everytime I read the thread title the next thing that pops into my head is, "so were going to suck."

Yes we did suck for a while even with Danny but if we trade him NOW, after finally putting what looks to be good pieces around him, that actually fit his game and his personality then I feel as if all that sucking was in vain.

Yep, it seems for some, that we wouldnt appreciate or understand his importance unless Granger was gone

He has issues no doubt, but he is far and away our most sonsistent scorer, big game guy.....and its not even close, although West is making a claim

LA_Confidential
02-21-2012, 06:41 PM
Yep, it seems for some, that we wouldnt appreciate or understand his importance unless Granger was gone

He has issues no doubt, but he is far and away our most sonsistent scorer, big game guy.....and its not even close, although West is making a claim


Agreed, especially with your point about West. He's shown that he can play big for us at times but we all know that he would be most effective if he had a point guard who could find him in the right spots. Seems like people are so quick to ship Danny out and neglect our most pressing need.