PDA

View Full Version : Granger wants to stay a Pacer for life?



yoadknux
03-20-2012, 06:32 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WhKmIiI_53Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Didn't know he liked Indy so much. I always thought he's a more of a big town type of guy

Kstat
03-20-2012, 06:57 AM
Indy is where he's going to get paid. He's not viewed as a star in the NBA anymore, but he's still admired locally as one, and that's worth a bit more.

Reggie wanted to be a pacer for life...until his contract was up and he publicly flirted with the knicks in order to get the Pacers to pony up his asking price.

Roaming Gnome
03-20-2012, 06:57 AM
Nice shot of Naptown_Seth rockin' his Detlef jersey at :54 of the vid.

granger33
03-20-2012, 08:11 AM
People hate the players who want to go to the big market teams. Yet we have a Great player who loves Indiana, n wants to stay for life, And yet people bag him and want him traded......

Mackey_Rose
03-20-2012, 09:04 AM
People hate the players who want to go to the big market teams. Yet we have a pretty good player who knows Indiana is his best chance to maximize his value, And yet people bag him and want him traded......

Fixed.

Steagles
03-20-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm glad he wants to stay here! He's a great player for this team.

duke dynamite
03-20-2012, 09:38 AM
Atta boy, Danny!

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 09:53 AM
People hate the players who want to go to the big market teams. Yet we have a Great player who loves Indiana, n wants to stay for life, And yet people bag him and want him traded......

Great player? :hmm:

luis3ep
03-20-2012, 10:27 AM
great find. Danny has had the tools for a long time but isn't aggressive enough on the court. It's almost as if he's a little hesitant nowadays.

BRushWithDeath
03-20-2012, 10:29 AM
great find. Danny has had the tools for a long time but isn't aggressive enough on the court. It's almost as if he's a little hesitant nowadays.

I've thought many, many things about Danny Granger.

I've never once thought that he was too hesitant offensively.

Hicks
03-20-2012, 10:32 AM
Cynicism grows tiresome.

crunk-juice
03-20-2012, 10:35 AM
and Peyton Manning wanted to be a Colt for life

..i made myself sad

MiaDragon
03-20-2012, 10:51 AM
Great player? :hmm:

While he may not be a superstar this team rode his back for years. Who knows what happens to the franchise if we didn't draft Danny. I'm not a huge DG fan but its had not to like the guy, he says the "right things" never gets in trouble just plays the game like it should, and seems like the perfect mentor to our young guys.

Mackey_Rose
03-20-2012, 10:53 AM
While he may not be a superstar this team rode his back for years. Who knows what happens to the franchise if we didn't draft Danny. I'm not a huge DG fan but its had not to like the guy, he says the "right things" never gets in trouble just plays the game like it should, and seems like the perfect mentor to our young guys.

To what?

pizza guy
03-20-2012, 10:55 AM
We harp on Danny quite a bit around here, but I don't think there's another player in the NBA who would've stayed so professional and happy through everything Danny has been through here. To be drafted to a contender (we were at the time), then to watch the team fall apart almost immediately thereafter, be a bottom feeder for years, have a coach no one liked, and finally be back in the mix now - it's been quite a roller coaster for Danny. To his credit, he has happily taken on any and every role the team has asked of him, been a model citizen, and is a pretty darn good player.

Gamble1
03-20-2012, 10:56 AM
Nice shot of Naptown_Seth rockin' his Detlef jersey at :54 of the vid.
Glad he got rid of the long hair.

BillS
03-20-2012, 10:59 AM
To what?

To people gaining some respect for our players as men.

Like it or not, that step was necessary.

Mackey_Rose
03-20-2012, 10:59 AM
We harp on Danny quite a bit around here, but I don't think there's another player in the NBA who would've stayed so professional and happy through everything Danny has been through here. To be drafted to a contender (we were at the time), then to watch the team fall apart almost immediately thereafter, be a bottom feeder for years, have a coach no one liked, and finally be back in the mix now - it's been quite a roller coaster for Danny. To his credit, he has happily taken on any and every role the team has asked of him, been a model citizen, and is a pretty darn good player.

JOB let Danny do exactly what he wants to do. Why wouldn't he like him?

MyFavMartin
03-20-2012, 11:02 AM
Granger... former All-Star
DWest... former All-Star
Hibbert... All-Star
PGeorge... future All-Star

Why not keep a talented player whose happy here? Only circumstance is if Bird gets blown away with trade proposal.

Mac_Daddy
03-20-2012, 11:02 AM
I'm glad. Maybe he'll be up for taking a more affordable contract in the future if this is really true.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 11:02 AM
To people gaining some respect for our players as men.

Like it or not, that step was necessary.

Have that happen yet? last in attendance in the NBA disagrees with your statement.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 11:05 AM
Granger... former All-Star
DWest... former All-Star
Hibbert... All-Star
PGeorge... future All-Star

Why not keep a talented player whose happy here? Only circumstance is if Bird gets blown away with trade proposal.

Don't worry he is not going anywhere, 12/13 mil a year for his production is a hard thing to trade.

BillS
03-20-2012, 11:21 AM
Have that happen yet? last in attendance in the NBA disagrees with your statement.

No one said the only reason people weren't attending was the character of the team. As I have said over and over and over and over, people will hang together through losing seasons when it is a team they like. They will not hang together when it is a team they don't like. We lost people because when they started losing the team had not recovered from its reputation and no one cared enough to stick around and watch.

Even keeping the players that were daily negative PR bombs for the Pacers would sooner or later have led to a problem, as every team has a bad season and so as soon as they stopped winning the bandwagon would be emptied.

We've fixed the "like", we have to fix the winning to get people back.

Why do we need to keep rehashing this every month or so? So you are convinced that people would have come around and the team of Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and Jamaal Tinsley would have sold out the Fieldhouse for years and year. I'm not.

Hibbert
03-20-2012, 11:28 AM
No one said the only reason people weren't attending was the character of the team. As I have said over and over and over and over, people will hang together through losing seasons when it is a team they like. They will not hang together when it is a team they don't like. We lost people because when they started losing the team had not recovered from its reputation and no one cared enough to stick around and watch.

Even keeping the players that were daily negative PR bombs for the Pacers would sooner or later have led to a problem, as every team has a bad season and so as soon as they stopped winning the bandwagon would be emptied.

We've fixed the "like", we have to fix the winning to get people back.

Why do we need to keep rehashing this every month or so? So you are convinced that people would have come around and the team of Ron Artest, Stephen Jackson, and Jamaal Tinsley would have sold out the Fieldhouse for years and year. I'm not.

Also, a lot of "Pacer fans" stopped caring or being fans after Reggie Miller left, we had a lot of Reggie Miller fans as Pacer fans if that makes any sense. Than came the success with the Colts and Indy became a Colts town. I think a lot of the fans we had were lost due to these two things.

Sandman21
03-20-2012, 12:09 PM
In a world where fans despise players being disloyal to their teams (coughLebronBoshcough) and going ring chasing by creating superteams, Danny is a breath of fresh air, and not just because he has spoken out about these teams who are trying to buy their rings.

And then the same fans want to trade him for unproven rookies and players who may or may not want to stay once their contract expires....

:banghead:

Mackey_Rose
03-20-2012, 12:24 PM
Also, a lot of "Pacer fans" stopped caring or being fans after Reggie Miller left, we had a lot of Reggie Miller fans as Pacer fans if that makes any sense. Than came the success with the Colts and Indy became a Colts town. I think a lot of the fans we had were lost due to these two things.

And most of those same fans don't have the slightest clue who Danny Granger is.

Danny Granger is not moving the needle with the casual Pacer/sports fan. He just isn't.

graphic-er
03-20-2012, 12:24 PM
You guys are so freaking cynical it makes my heart weep. Guy says he loves Indiana as his home, wants to play out his career here, and you postulate its all about money. GTFO.

I guarantee that if Granger were a FA this summer he would easily get close to what he makes now. Granted he wont' get the 13 million because that is on the tail end of his current contract. NBA teams see the whole picture, they see who he plays with over the past several years, who was dishing him passes; and they'll say there is a guy who can easily average over 20pts a game again with the right PG.

Quietly this year Granger has transformed himself into more of a 2way player. So his shooting is going to be off a bit because he isn't looking to score every trip down the court. But he is making up for the poor percentage with his defense. He causes alot of turnovers, and on many of the defensive lapses its because he has to rotate over to cover somebody's man. Ala the Wade pass to Lebron for the corner 3.

yoadknux
03-20-2012, 01:01 PM
Don't worry he is not going anywhere, 12/13 mil a year for his production is a hard thing to trade.
There's a rumor that the Nets offered Brooks, Okur and this year 1st for Danny & Bird declined.
Granger has trade value. Don't turn him into Joe Johnson.

Heisenberg
03-20-2012, 01:05 PM
There's a rumor that the Nets offered Brooks, Okur and this year 1st for Danny & Bird declined.
Granger has trade value. Don't turn him into Joe Johnson.
Don't think the Nets can trade a 1st after moving theirs in the Deron trade last year. Unless they have a 2nd one I don't know about.

yoadknux
03-20-2012, 01:06 PM
Don't think the Nets can trade a 1st after moving theirs in the Deron trade last year. Unless they have a 2nd one I don't know about.
They can & they have used it in the Gerald Wallace trade

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 01:10 PM
There's a rumor that the Nets offered Brooks, Okur and this year 1st for Danny & Bird declined.
Granger has trade value. Don't turn him into Joe Johnson.

Brooks, Okur and pick? That pretty much tells you how valuable he is around the league, that package is crap.

sopgy
03-20-2012, 01:10 PM
There's a rumor that the Nets offered Brooks, Okur and this year 1st for Danny & Bird declined.
Granger has trade value. Don't turn him into Joe Johnson.

If that is true, I probably would have taken the offer and I actually like Granger a lot. I just don't think he is the best fit for our team going forward. The Nets will probably pick around 5th.

I didn't think he had that kind of trade value, but then again the Nets made a similar stupid trade for Gerald Wallace and Granger is definitely better.

sopgy
03-20-2012, 01:12 PM
Brooks, Okur and pick? That pretty much tells you how valuable he is around the league, that package is crap.

You think trading Granger for the 5th pick in this draft is crap? Plus Marshan Brooks and cap relief?

I'd take that

LA_Confidential
03-20-2012, 01:49 PM
If that is true, I probably would have taken the offer and I actually like Granger a lot. I just don't think he is the best fit for our team going forward. The Nets will probably pick around 5th.

I didn't think he had that kind of trade value, but then again the Nets made a similar stupid trade for Gerald Wallace and Granger is definitely better.

How is Danny not the best fit for the team, when the team has been built around him?

pacerDU
03-20-2012, 01:57 PM
There's something about playing for the Pacers that endears the players to the city and the team. Granger's not the first player who's said he want to remain a Pacer lifer.

Dale Davis said that back in the day (before he was traded for JO) and Antonio said he always wanted to return to the Pacers. We've had Reggie and Rik Smits who played their entire careers with Indy and several players have mentioned their time here as the most enjoyable of their careers.

We've got another current player on the roster who wants to see-out his entire career here in Jeff Foster. He was highly sought by contending teams a few years ago but decided to stay. Now of course you can say money was a reason, that the Pacers were willing to pay him more, but to be honest I don't know that I necessarily believe that. He said he wanted to see this team return to contenders. We don't know what other teams offered.

JO has said he'll aways be a Pacer and wants to, at the very least, sign a 1 day contract to officially finish his career here. I'm sure he'd be very happy to actually play a season though. Sure, his best years were here, but he credits Indiana for giving him his shot.

The same can be said for Hibbert, who's credited the Pacers for believing in him. He's stated his wants to remain here.

I miss the days when it was common-place for players to remain with the teams that drafted them. It provides a team with an identity and on the flip-side creates more of a legacy for the players.

We have some people on here who are impatient. Who don't realise that many (most) teams have gone through much longer rebuliding processes than the Pacers. The Pacers were one of the highest-win teams during the decade of the 90s. They went from making the Finals in 2000, to title contenders again (with a completely different team) by 2003. I'm glad these same people aren't Warriors, Bucks, Raptors, Wizards, Kings etc fans. Teams that have rarely been good or have gone through extensive periods of time without making the playoffs.

A small-market team must build through patience and diligence. It must draft well and make wise decisions through free agency and in trades. There's not much room for error.

I'm not saying you don't try for the home-run. If you can get a superstar, then you have to investigate that. But in today's NBA, where so many players just want to be in the big market, you risk losing good players and assets for short-term rentals. Even good small-market teams can't keep their stars, as we've seen with Carmelo Anthony, Howard and Deron Williams.

I respect Danny Granger. He's a very good player, an intelligent person, a good representative for the Pacers and state of Indiana. He wants to be here and with the addition on one more good player (who we have the cap-room for), will be a massively valuable member of a title contender.

What more can you ask for?

Ichi
03-20-2012, 02:03 PM
Brooks, Okur and pick? That pretty much tells you how valuable he is around the league, that package is crap.


That pick is more than likely going to be around 4 or 5.. I don't see that as crap.. Idk that I would move Granger for that, because I want some established players on the team in big roles, but that's not too bad of a package.

sopgy
03-20-2012, 02:08 PM
How is Danny not the best fit for the team, when the team has been built around him?
It has kind of been beaten to death, but I just don't think we can be a championship team with Granger as our best player. With our team currently built I think we will max out at the 2nd round and maybe Eastern Conference Finals in the young guys develop. That would be nice and all, but ECF shouldn't be the goal.

If we can in fact move Granger (and other pieces if need be) for a better player or the 4th pick in this draft we can build around them with a higher ceiling. Granger is a solid 2 way player and helps this team a lot (except his weird shooting this season) but SF is the easiest position to replace and I don't think we will be able to contend for a championship while Danny and D. West are still in their prime. Sell now and pick a stud in the top 5.

I just don't think he is a good fit for our team because we won't be ready while he is still good. Paul George even said on a video from pacers crate that they don't run many plays for him and the SF is offensive focal point. I think Paul George can be almost as effective as Granger next year at SF and turn Granger into Rondo or Gordon or something and maximize our roster.

Ace E.Anderson
03-20-2012, 02:11 PM
How is Danny not the best fit for the team, when the team has been built around him?

If the team were built around DG, we would have at least another facilitator or two who could get him easier scoring opportunities, and athletic shot blocking bigs to make up for his "below the rim" type of game.

I don't think the pacers are "BUILT" around anybody except Larry Bird's image of what a small market team should look like: a team full of quality but not overly talented players who collectively are greater than the sum of its parts, and are paid accordingly.

Justin Tyme
03-20-2012, 02:13 PM
I appreciate Granger wanting to finish out his career here as a Pacer, but the reality of it is he probably won't due to a possible trade or what he feels his worth is come his next contract. Maybe another team will make him an offer he can't turn down, and the Pacers don't want to match. IOW, too many variables that Granger will finish out his career as a Pacer, but it's nice to know he feels that way. Thanks Danny for thinking that way.

RLeWorm
03-20-2012, 02:16 PM
even though i would trade Granger for a star i would like to see him a pacer for life. Not many players stay with one team. Not even Lebron....lol

PGisthefuture
03-20-2012, 02:29 PM
The people that hate on Danny on this forum make me sick. He changed his game and is still trying to do so. Remember when he used to basically bring the ball up and shoot a three every chance he got?

Ace E.Anderson
03-20-2012, 02:34 PM
The people that hate on Danny on this forum make me sick. He changed his game and is still trying to do so. Remember when he used to basically bring the ball up and shoot a three every chance he got?

You're 100% correct. But there are SOME TIMES where I miss Danny Granger, the scorer. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's back to playing really good defensively, but when our offense goes into one of it's funks, I think back to the DG that hit that game winner against the suns in Phoenix a few years ago, or the DG that averaged over 25 ppg...

PGisthefuture
03-20-2012, 02:44 PM
You're 100% correct. But there are SOME TIMES where I miss Danny Granger, the scorer. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he's back to playing really good defensively, but when our offense goes into one of it's funks, I think back to the DG that hit that game winner against the suns in Phoenix a few years ago, or the DG that averaged over 25 ppg...

I do too, but we weren't necessarily a good team during those days either.

ilive4sports
03-20-2012, 03:12 PM
This thread is just down right sad with how some of you are posting. Danny has been GREAT for this franchise on and off the court. And he wants to stay here. Which is what this thread is about. And he gets **** on. bravo...

BringJackBack
03-20-2012, 03:23 PM
Yeah, this cynicism and bashing is ****ing stupid. I can't even read this board without hearing this ********.

Kstat
03-20-2012, 03:40 PM
I just don't see the "hate" for Danny Granger in this thread. I'm not even sure it's cynicism.

I'm going to clarify what I said: I'm not doubting Granger's sincerity, I'm just pointing out that claiming he wants to be a Pacer for life is self-serving from a financial standpoint. He has more value here than on another NBA team, and his contract is up for renewal in a couple years. It's in his best interest to ingratiate himself as much as possible. Was that his motive for saying that? Maybe, maybe not. I was just providing an alternative viewpoint.

I certainly don't get the notion that Danny is somehow being treated unfairly here. He's got more fan support than %90 of NBA players in the kind of slump he's in, for the kind of money he makes.

sopgy
03-20-2012, 03:54 PM
I really don't think anyone is bashing Danny on here. I think we can respect the fact that he is bucking the trend of nba stars basically ******** on their teams and being selfish. Danny is not selfish at all, I don't really think he puts himself before the team.

I remember a few games after he signed his extension he went for a loose ball out of bounds and cracked his teeth or something, blood all over the place. We were all pumped up because Danny actually gave a ****. He was almost the lone bright spot we had.

He is a good Pacer and ambassador for this team, no question about it. But just because he wants to retire a Pacer doesn't make him Reggie or something. This doesn't have to be a Granger appreciation thread.

Because of the type of person he is (or seems to be, none of us really know about any of these athletes) and his dedication to the Pacers, I am very torn. I want us to do well With him on the team but above that I want the Pacers to do well at any cost.

TMJ31
03-20-2012, 03:54 PM
Maybe the man just holds our team close to his heart for his own personal reasons? Maybe he wants to be remembered for sticking it out through the good and the bad with a team that can rally around him, instead of bailing ship for a "superteam".

Or maybe he is just trolling the entire city, the entire franchise, and our entire fanbase in an attempt to be liked more to make extra money...

Give the man a freakin break!

TheDavisBrothers
03-20-2012, 03:55 PM
I just don't see the "hate" for Danny Granger in this thread. I'm not even sure it's cynicism.

I'm going to clarify what I said: I'm not doubting Granger's sincerity, I'm just pointing out that claiming he wants to be a Pacer for life is self-serving from a financial standpoint. He has more value here than on another NBA team, and his contract is up for renewal in a couple years. It's in his best interest to ingratiate himself as much as possible.

I can see both sides of the argument...

I really like Granger, I think he's been a very good player for us over the years, and am glad (tho not really suprised) that he wants to be a Pacer for life.

On the other side, I understand that he is not the type of guy who is going to generate interest from casual fans, and is not a "great" player. I also understand that it is still a business.

I think the biggest thing that people need to get over is the constant, "Danny is not a superstar or a #1 on a championship team." I DON"T THINK THAT ANYONE IS REALLY ARGUING THAT OR HAS DEBATED THAT FACT, WE ALL KNOW IT AND DON'T NEED IT THROWN OUT THERE EVER POST ABOUT DANNY!

graphic-er
03-20-2012, 04:02 PM
I have a what has become a notorious saying about Granger's biggest problem. So I wont' repeat it, but you know what it is.

Major Cold
03-20-2012, 04:25 PM
Why was DC's shoulder iced like Curt Schilling?

Will Galen
03-20-2012, 04:58 PM
I want the Pacers to do well at any cost.

Disagree with that type thinking!

Anthem
03-20-2012, 05:17 PM
I can definitely see how Danny, while talking to a reporter from his childhood hometown (for a team likely to soon have some decent cap space) would want to tell them he loves where he's at and doesn't want to leave. Seems like a solid strategy to drive up his market value. Sure, that makes sense.

I thought Danny would have made more on the open market than he did by signing that extension, and that maybe it says something about him liking Indiana, but that's probably just because I'm a rube.

Look, the heart is deceitful in all things, and maybe the dude is cynically pretending to be a classy individual instead of actually being classy. If that's your position, I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

I think we can all agree, though, that all else being equal, it's nice to have classy players.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 05:18 PM
I'm glad. Maybe he'll be up for taking a more affordable contract in the future if this is really true.
He's already done it once, I don't think it's unreasonable to think he'll do it again.

Bball
03-20-2012, 05:34 PM
This isn't hating on Danny... If you can get a top 5 draft pick for him you do it and run before anyone has a chance to change their mind.

Paul George or even George Hill can easily be "Danny Granger" for the Pacers... but Danny Granger can only be Danny Granger. That top 5 pick could easily be so much more than that if chosen wisely.

docpaul
03-20-2012, 06:30 PM
That top 5 pick could easily be so much more than that if chosen wisely.

The key word there, is could. Granger is a known quantity that's been streaky lately, but genuinely reliable and plays at a high level, without question. I can't imagine a team out there who doesn't see him as a solid starter on a competitive team.

I remember when Granger signed his extension, and pretty much everyone (including me) thought that the contract was very reasonable. I remember that first game after he signed the contract was the memorable one vs. the Celtics where he knocked 3/4 of his front tooth out and kept playing with heart. That turned out to be his all-star year. Everyone was so glad to have him on the team.

Now a number of people on this thread are saying that he's overpaid and no good. This is classic "what have you done for me lately" syndrome. He's got the 37th highest salary in the NBA right now, and makes the equivalent of Noah, Horford, and Bogut. I'd still say that's pretty fair, but have higher expectations for his performance generally based on past history.

I for one am really happy to have him on the team, and haven't known him to be anything other than a straight shooter who speaks his mind. So when I hear him say he wants to retire here, I think it's legit.

D-BONE
03-20-2012, 06:57 PM
Respect DG the person and profession immensely. He's a solid, if inconsistent player. Really appreciate his loyalty and effort for our team. Still, you get a good deal for him, you have to make it.

Pacersalltheway10
03-20-2012, 07:15 PM
And most of those same fans don't have the slightest clue who Danny Granger is.

Danny Granger is not moving the needle with the casual Pacer/sports fan. He just isn't.

No, I know tons of those types of "former" fans. They all know who Danny Granger is. Every casual sports fan I know (I know a lot my town is full of them), knows who Danny Granger is.

Of course Danny isn't going to move the needle with the casual fans. He's still just one player. Danny Granger is what got the Pacers noticed some during their "dark" years.

Bball
03-20-2012, 07:51 PM
Now a number of people on this thread are saying that he's overpaid and no good. This is classic "what have you done for me lately" syndrome.

It's not that he's no good... It's that he's peaked and is regressing before he got where the team could have reasonably projected he'd be at this point in his contract.

As Mackey put it, Granger isn't moving the needle. It's time to start looking into making that needle move and maximizing what value we have with Granger. Whether that is a new role that he can accept or a new team... that's the question.

But a top 5 pick for Granger should be a no-brainer. I can't believe anyone would offer it.

Dr. Hibbert
03-20-2012, 08:38 PM
Yet we have a Great player

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/markey_mark_wtf.gif

Dr. Hibbert
03-20-2012, 08:40 PM
This is classic "what have you done for me lately" syndrome.

No, this is classic "hey, it's painfully obvious that Danny Granger is not giving his best effort and being really lazy on defense and continuing to display terrible shot selection" syndrome.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 09:42 PM
No, this is classic "hey, it's painfully obvious that Danny Granger is not giving his best effort and being really lazy on defense and continuing to display terrible shot selection" syndrome.
In the beginning of the season, Danny was shooting a couple per game where I hated the shot from the moment (before) he took it. He's had very few of those over the past 15-20 games.

I agree he hasn't been hitting as many as I'd like, but I don't think shot selection is the problem it was the last two years.

oxxo
03-20-2012, 09:52 PM
It's not that he's no good... It's that he's peaked and is regressing before he got where the team could have reasonably projected he'd be at this point in his contract.

As Mackey put it, Granger isn't moving the needle. It's time to start looking into making that needle move and maximizing what value we have with Granger. Whether that is a new role that he can accept or a new team... that's the question.

But a top 5 pick for Granger should be a no-brainer. I can't believe anyone would offer it.

So once a player peaks it's time to trade? How is that even remotely logical? You aren't going to get fair value in the vast majority of cases and why would you want to trade a player at his peak?

By the same logic the Nets ought to trade D Will, Orlando should trade Howard, and the Lakers should've traded Kobe 2 or 3 years ago.

Granger has a very reasonable contract, enjoys playing in Indiana (which is far from common), has been loyal, and has a game that will age well. WHY IS EVERYONE SO HELLBENT ON TRADING HIM? I honestly come here less and less because of this kind of garbage.

Hibbert
03-20-2012, 09:58 PM
What player with class and respect doesn't want to play his entire career with the same team and retire with that team? Danny has been one of the few bright spots on our team since The Brawl and has maintained that this entire time. It's not like he's had Dwayne Wade and Lebron James on his team over the years. Seriously, what do you expect? Have some respect for him if anything, he's always given us all he's had and that's all you can ask for from anyone. At least shows up every day and comes to play, that can't be said for half the players in the league.

docpaul
03-20-2012, 09:59 PM
No, this is classic "hey, it's painfully obvious that Danny Granger is not giving his best effort and being really lazy on defense and continuing to display terrible shot selection" syndrome.

It's funny how people see what they want to see.

Do you have evidence on how Granger was a lazy defender tonight? There are a lot of things to be disappointed in this year, as it relates to his <40% FG%, and his struggles to create his own shot... but coasting on defense is not how I'd describe him.

My only point is that the guy has been a solid player for our team for quite a few years now, and has certainly outplayed anyone's expectations of a 17th draft pick. He's not a superstar, but neither are any of the players that are his salary contemporaries.

I just think the backlash against him is a bit unfair given his history with the team. He deserves a little leeway during this shooting slump, IMO.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 10:11 PM
It's funny how people see what they want to see.

Do you have evidence on how Granger was a lazy defender tonight? There are a lot of things to be disappointed in this year, as it relates to his <40% FG%, and his struggles to create his own shot... but coasting on defense is not how I'd describe him.

My only point is that the guy has been a solid player for our team for quite a few years now, and has certainly outplayed anyone's expectations of a 17th draft pick. He's not a superstar, but neither are any of the players that are his salary contemporaries.

I just think the backlash against him is a bit unfair given his history with the team. He deserves a little leeway during this shooting slump, IMO.


His FG % is .391 and how much leeway you want to give the guy? Just because he was good in the past we shouldn't talk about him? Please!!!

docpaul
03-20-2012, 10:14 PM
His FG % is .391 and how much leeway you want to give the guy? Just because he was good in the past we shouldn't talk about him? Please!!!

Stop turning this into something it isn't. I literally just criticized his shooting this year as well. A half year of poor shooting doesn't mean we should just trade him, though.

Sandman21
03-20-2012, 10:19 PM
His FG % is .391 and how much leeway you want to give the guy? Just because he was good in the past we shouldn't talk about him? Please!!!

He's shooting 42% for his last ten games. Can't be holding his slow start against him at this point.

Dr. Hibbert
03-20-2012, 10:24 PM
Stop turning this into something it isn't. I literally just criticized his shooting this year as well. A half year of poor shooting doesn't mean we should just trade him, though.

Having a good game against a terrible team doesn't excuse the vast majority of a season where he hasn't given his all on defense. Of course I don't have stats to prove that. What stat exists for that? But if you're objective, it's apparent.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 10:27 PM
Stop turning this into something it isn't. I literally just criticized his shooting this year as well. A half year of poor shooting doesn't mean we should just trade him, though.

Half year of poor shooting? :lmao:

docpaul
03-20-2012, 10:32 PM
Having a good game against a terrible team doesn't excuse the vast majority of a season where he hasn't given his all on defense. Of course I don't have stats to prove that. What stat exists for that? But if you're objective, it's apparent.

Hmm, how about this:

http://www.82games.com/1112/1112IND.HTM

Best defensive rating on the team?

Bball
03-20-2012, 10:41 PM
So once a player peaks it's time to trade? How is that even remotely logical? You aren't going to get fair value in the vast majority of cases and why would you want to trade a player at his peak?

By the same logic the Nets ought to trade D Will, Orlando should trade Howard, and the Lakers should've traded Kobe 2 or 3 years ago.

Granger has a very reasonable contract, enjoys playing in Indiana (which is far from common), has been loyal, and has a game that will age well. WHY IS EVERYONE SO HELLBENT ON TRADING HIM? I honestly come here less and less because of this kind of garbage.

When a player peaks short of where projected, then yes... you need to either trade that player or restructure his role. Whatever makes the most sense realistically.

Somewhere in this thread it was mentioned there was a trade that would've netted the Pacers something in the neighborhood of the #5 pick in the draft. If there is any truth to that then it was IMHO a mistake not to run with it. So that's the first point to be considered here. It's merely a hypothetical more than anything... But if you can get a top 5 pick for Granger you're foolish not to take it. The potential at the 5th pick should be much higher than what we're getting from Granger. More importantly, much higher than what we need from Granger.

We have guys on the team right now that can replace Granger.

Personally, I don't see anyone ponying up a #5 for Granger in the first place.

If we're ever to build this team into a contender then it's going to take some cold-blooded, but logical moves. You cannot believe Granger is falling short of the player we need him to be but then argue "But gosh darn it, he's our's and we need to be good to him because he's good to us... even if he is in an extended slump and career slide".

But again, there's 2 points I'm trying to make... One is we need more out of Granger in his current role than we're getting. So something is going to have to give... A change in role... A change in Granger... Something...

#2 On the hypothetical notion someone would give up a top 5 pick (or really anywhere around that) for Granger then you have to do that because that fulfills the first point I'm making.

If the "devil you know" is that Granger isn't good enough for whatever reason... then it's time to gamble on the devil you don't know when that opportunity is presented... if it is presented....

IMHO Granger has played himself out of a Pacer for life running and will in fact be traded or even not re-signed at some point in the coming few years. Probably sooner rather than later in order to maximize what value he has left.

docpaul
03-20-2012, 10:42 PM
Half year of poor shooting? :lmao:

Look, it's hard for me to take you seriously. Aren't you the same guy that wanted to throw close to a max deal to Nene, and trade Granger for Ellis straight up? I don't get the armchair GM'ing from you. It doesn't suit you.

Granger has a pretty consistent history of being the team's best player. He's a starter without question on a contending team. He's been disappointing this year offensively, without question. But he's also contributed to our winning season in some pretty important ways. Trading him would be a zero sum game. Complementing his strengths makes a whole lot more sense.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 10:44 PM
Having a good game against a terrible team doesn't excuse the vast majority of a season where he hasn't given his all on defense. Of course I don't have stats to prove that. What stat exists for that? But if you're objective, it's apparent.
Granger's been giving a pretty solid defensive effort this year, and occasionally a fantastic effort.

When I see you criticizing him for shot selection and defense, I think you haven't been watching much this year. Last two years, those are valid complaints. This year, much less so.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 10:46 PM
Look, it's hard for me to take you seriously. Aren't you the same guy that wanted to throw close to a max deal to Nene, and trade Granger for Ellis straight up? I don't get the armchair GM'ing from you. It doesn't suit you.
Not just wanted to trade Granger for Ellis... said we were homers for not jumping on that.

But my favorite is that he predicted this team would be sub-.500 for the year.

jeffg-body
03-20-2012, 10:47 PM
I was in for trading DG at the beginning of the year and I know that he has struggled a lot this year but I have been impressed with Danny's game this year minus the scoring. His defense has improved, he has been more of a vocal leader, he's not tried to win the games on his own and his loyalty to the Pacers is rare in today's sports.

AusPACER
03-20-2012, 10:49 PM
I can't believe this ****. The stuff people are on about in this thread. Danny Granger provides kids who follow the Pacers with a hero. I was in my late teens when we drafted Danny and watching him grow and lead this team to a point where we can consistently win games is a pleasure as I am now a young adult. His not just a contract, or a rental, or a player, he provides someone to look up to with the way he conducts himself and he loves it.

When you ask someone down under about the pacers, especially younger NBA fans the first words they spit out are 'Danny Granger'. He has provided a POSITIVE identity for this franchise for the first time since Reggie. Every other star (yes he was an all star don't forget that) has ****ed up badly somewhere on the way. This guy is a first class role model who has stuck with us through hard times, now half of you want to boot him as you think his not good enough.

Danny Granger was an all star, and is still a very good player. He gives us an identity and provides a model for young fans to look up to. We need him, both on and off the court.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 10:55 PM
No, this is classic "hey, it's painfully obvious that Danny Granger is not giving his best effort and being really lazy on defense and continuing to display terrible shot selection" syndrome.
I'm actually watching the game right now (tape delay FTW) and not 3 minutes after I responded the first time I saw Danny's monster block at 1:15 in the 1st. Lazy on defense? Time to find a new song.

docpaul
03-20-2012, 10:57 PM
I'm actually watching the game right now (tape delay FTW) and not 3 minutes after I responded the first time I saw Danny's monster block at 1:15 in the 1st. Lazy on defense? Time to find a new song.

It's silly that this is even being disputed, especially this year.

Hibbert
03-20-2012, 11:17 PM
Not just wanted to trade Granger for Ellis... said we were homers for not jumping on that.

But my favorite is that he predicted this team would be sub-.500 for the year.

Actually I think I got you beat Anthem....my favorite was when he decided to create a "new and improved" trade deadline rumors thread simply cause he couldn't/didn't want to abide by the "rules" the original one had set out. Than wondered why nobody was posting anything close to a real rumor on his thread full of espn trade machine trade proposals, half of which were made by him and had nothing to do with any real rumor or truth.

Hibbert
03-20-2012, 11:31 PM
Brooks, Okur and pick? That pretty much tells you how valuable he is around the league, that package is crap.

That's way more than Monta Selfish brought the Warriors.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 11:32 PM
Not just wanted to trade Granger for Ellis... said we were homers for not jumping on that.

But my favorite is that he predicted this team would be sub-.500 for the year.

I would still trade him for Monta straight up, Monta is the better player for sure and I don't know if you know this but the season hasn't ended yet.

By the way I'm only talking about that because you brought it up, no way The Bucks are crazy to trade Monta now, they know better.

Hibbert
03-20-2012, 11:38 PM
I would still trade him for Monta straight up, Monta is the better player for sure and I don't know if you know this but the season hasn't ended yet.

By the way I'm only talking about that because you brought it up, no way The Bucks are crazy to trade Monta now, they know better.

In what world is Monta a better player? Better "scorer", maybe? But any body who's anybody in this league can put those points right back up when Monta is on them. Danny is a better all around player and would command, obviously, more than Ellis did/would in any trade...still.

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 11:41 PM
I'm done arguing anything related to Monta, we have been through this for few weeks now.

DemonHunter1105
03-20-2012, 11:47 PM
I'm done arguing anything related to Monta, we have been through this for few weeks now.

Praise the Lord.

Anthem
03-20-2012, 11:47 PM
I'm done arguing anything related to Monta, we have been through this for few weeks now.
For weeks I've been needling you about thinking the Pacers would finish below .500, but you never respond. :cry:

vnzla81
03-20-2012, 11:52 PM
For weeks I've been needling you about thinking the Pacers would finish below .500, but you never respond. :cry:

The season hasn't ended yet and my prediction on the other thread was 35wins, meaning 2 games over .500.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1358559&postcount=14

TheDavisBrothers
03-20-2012, 11:55 PM
The season hasn't ended yet.

Do you live a miserable life? :laugh:

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 12:02 AM
Do you live a miserable life? :laugh:

I don't get it.

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 12:11 AM
The season hasn't ended yet and my prediction on the other thread was 35wins, meaning 2 games over .500.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1358559&postcount=14

Anyone can change their prediction in the middle of the year when they've seen that the team is clearly better then they thought, so that doesn't really mean diddly squat!


I don't get it.

If you are really going to say that there is still a chance of them ending up below .500, then you most be a mesirable person to be that extremely negative...

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 12:16 AM
Anyone can change their prediction in the middle of the year when they've seen that the team is clearly better then they thought, so that doesn't really mean diddly squat!



If you are really going to say that there is still a chance of them ending up below .500, then you most be a mesirable person to be that extremely negative...

A ok I didn't know you are the one that makes the rules, I'll let you know next time......

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 12:19 AM
A ok I didn't know you are the one that makes the rules, I'll let you know next time......

Be sure you do! :p

Anthem
03-21-2012, 12:19 AM
The season hasn't ended yet and my prediction on the other thread was 35wins, meaning 2 games over .500.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1358559&postcount=14
:laugh: Seriously? That's your prediction after the Pacers went 12-5 in the first month of the season. Which means you predicted they'd go 23-26 (three games under .500) the rest of the way.

Your preseason prediction was 31 wins, meaning 2 games under .500.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showpost.php?p=1325679&postcount=2

Hibbert
03-21-2012, 12:22 AM
I don't get it.

Your first, original prediction was 31-35 so we'll just go with that. Right now we're 26-18 with 22 games to go. We only need to go 5-17 the rest of the way so it looks like, once again, you are right on the money. Man, you are never wrong! It's probably awesome being right all the time....

Eddie Gill
03-21-2012, 12:25 AM
The season hasn't ended yet and my prediction on the other thread was 35wins, meaning 2 games over .500.

http://www.pacersdigest.com/showpost.php?p=1358559&postcount=14


Wouldn't your loyalty to the team outweigh your need to defend your prediction by continually diminishing the team?

Nuntius
03-21-2012, 12:27 AM
Brooks, Okur and pick? That pretty much tells you how valuable he is around the league, that package is crap.

Really? A promising rookie, an expiring (who is going to retire anyway) and the effin' Nets 1st round pick (who is probably going to be in the lottery is a crap package?

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 12:27 AM
Your first, original prediction was 31-35 so we'll just go with that. Right now we're 26-18 with 22 games to go. We only need to go 5-17 the rest of the way so it looks like, once again, you are right on the money. Man, you are never wrong! It's probably awesome being right all the time....

Yes it's awesome, trust me I know is not that hard to be that good.

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 12:29 AM
Wouldn't your loyalty to the team outweigh your need to defend your prediction by continually diminishing the team?

Yeah Larry must be "diminishing the team" by predicting 38wins :rolleyes:

Anthem
03-21-2012, 12:37 AM
Yeah Larry must be "diminishing the team" by predicting 38wins :rolleyes:
Larry thought coming into the season that it was a 38-win team. That's a little different than looking at a 12-5 team and saying "They'll go 3 games under .500 the rest of the way."

Dr. Hibbert
03-21-2012, 12:37 AM
Homers gonna homer. Keep calling him a great player. Have fun with that.

Nuntius
03-21-2012, 12:45 AM
Having a good game against a terrible team doesn't excuse the vast majority of a season where he hasn't given his all on defense.

Once again.

Are the Clips a terrible team?

They are the 4th seed in the West Conference!

If they are terrible then which team is good? Only Miami, Chicago and OKC? And the Spurs can get away with being mediocre, I guess?

Seriously, this "the Clips are terrible" excuse does not make any sense at all.

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 12:48 AM
Larry thought coming into the season that it was a 38-win team. That's a little different than looking at a 12-5 team and saying "They'll go 3 games under .500 the rest of the way."

Many people changed their predictions on that thread if you don't want to take those as valid that's your problem.

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 12:48 AM
Homers gonna homer. Keep calling him a great player. Have fun with that.

Ignore the ignorant.
Are you completely oblivious? As far as I can tell only 1 poster on here has called him a great player. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated: THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS NOT A GREAT PLAYER!

daschysta
03-21-2012, 12:51 AM
Once again.

Are the Clips a terrible team?

They are the 4th seed in the West Conference!

If they are terrible then which team is good? Only Miami, Chicago and OKC? And the Spurs can get away with being mediocre, I guess?

Seriously, this "the Clips are terrible" excuse does not make any sense at all.

Some individuals in this forum appear to believe that the only qualification for a team being awful is the Pacers managing to beat them. But when the Pacers lose the teams are amazing and far beyond what this team is or ever could be without selling the whole farm and starting over.

Pacers win= The opponent is automatically awful or had a fluke bad game.

Pacers lose= The Pacers suck, no excuses, the sky is falling.

SMH

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 12:51 AM
Once again.

Are the Clips a terrible team?

They are the 4th seed in the West Conference!

If they are terrible then which team is good? Only Miami, Chicago and OKC? And the Spurs can get away with being mediocre, I guess?

Seriously, this "the Clips are terrible" excuse does not make any sense at all.

To be far he posted his ignorant comment before the Clippers game...

Nuntius
03-21-2012, 12:56 AM
To be far he posted his ignorant comment before the Clippers game...

He called the Clippers terrible on the post-game thread, anyway.

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 01:02 AM
He called the Clippers terrible on the post-game thread, anyway.

Gotcha, I haven't been to the post game yet..

Anthem
03-21-2012, 01:21 AM
Many people changed their predictions on that thread if you don't want to take those as valid that's your problem.
Dude, I don't care if you or anybody else change your predictions. Go wild. But when I say "you predicted before the season that the Pacers would be a sub-500 team" and you respond with "No i didn't, check this thread" and point to a thread was actually after a month of .700 ball, it's not unreasonable for me to call you on it.

I'd let the whole thing go if you'd just say "Yeah, I guess I was a bit pessimistic there. The last few seasons really wore me down. I'm glad to be wrong, though!"

But your bizarre attempts to save face just make you look sillier. You knew that thread wasn't your preseason prediction. You knew you were twisting Bird's words out of context. You've still not given any reasons to think the 12-5 Pacers would follow that performance by being 3 games under .500 the rest of the way.

In general, I really like debating with you. You're clever and know a heck of a lot about basketball. I think you overrate individual skills and underrate team chemistry, but that's a place where we can disagree. No biggie. But why do you do such elaborate contortions to avoid admitting you're wrong?

vnzla81
03-21-2012, 01:27 AM
I still don't understand what do you want? Me changing my prediction later on the season is not enough to prove that I admitted that I was wrong with my first prediction? How is that hard to understand? I'm done with this argument by the way, this is silly.

TheDavisBrothers
03-21-2012, 01:47 AM
I still don't understand what do you want? Me changing my prediction later on the season is not enough to prove that I admitted that I was wrong with my first prediction? How is that hard to understand? I'm done with this argument by the way, this is silly.

It's only silly when you lose :p

Nuntius
03-21-2012, 01:50 AM
Ok, let me add some things now.

Danny Granger is a good player. He is not as good as his fan club think he is (pretty much every player has a fan club) but he is not as bad as his detractors make him out to be either. His trade value is higher than most people think because most GMs did not show him perform under JOB which made a lot of you despise.

Also, a large number of his detractors are ex-fans who thought that he was the second coming of Reggie. He is not. He never was. He was the 17th pick of a not so good draft.

Let's take a look at the players who were drafted above him and how they turned out:

1) Andrew Bogut: Great player but has injury problems. Great centers do not grow on trees so people would pick him over Granger at the moment as well.

2) Marvin Williams: I think that the Hawks still regret this pick. He still has upside but for a 2nd pick he has been a bust.

3) Deron Williams: He is better than DG. No questions asked.

4) Chris Paul: Again, without a question.

5) Raymond Felton: Good player on a horrible season. People would probably pick Granger over him at the moment.

6) Martell Webster: He is a solid player but DG is better.

7) Charlie Villanueva: Horrible contract and he never even reached DG's production.

8) Channing Frye: Solid player but DG is better.

9) Ike Diogu: Underperformed and is now playing in China (replacing Gani Lawal).

10) Andrew Bynum: Sure, you would pick him over DG at any time. Injury prone but as dominant as it gets most of the time.

11) Fran Vázquez: He never came in the league and I doubt that he does now.

12) Yaroslav Korolev: Seriously, who? He never even played for his national team for crying out loud.

13) Sean May: Never recovered from his injury enough to play in the NBA. He played in Croatia earlier this year (he was TJ Ford's teammate for the games that TJ played overseas) and he is now playing in Italy.

14) Rashad McCants: Had a decent season off the bench for Minessota and he is now playing in Puerto Rico for Caciques de Humacao.

15) Antoine Wright: Had a mediocre season as a 7th-8th man for Dallas but also had several bad ones and eventually played himself out of the league, went to China and now is playing in Spain.

16) Joey Graham: He had a better career than his brother, Stephen, but that does not say a lot. He was waived last year by the Cavaliers and no one has picked him up.

As for the players who were drafted after Danny. You could make a case for the following:

30) David Lee

36) Ersan Ilyasova

40) Monta Ellis

45) Louis Williams

57) Marcin Gortat

Several other solid players were picked after Danny as well (Turiaf, Amir Johnson, Warrick, Kleiza, Nate Robinson, Jarrect Jack, Cisco Garcia, Brandon Bass, CJ Miles, Maxiell, Blatche, Gomes and maybe even Gerald Green) but you could make a case only for the above.

A recap now:

Danny has outplayed 12 players that were picked ahead of him. 5 players that were picked after him can make a case of being equally important to their respective teams but that does not change the fact that Danny was better than what he was projected to.

Also, about his peak. Danny's game is not based on his athleticism. It is based on strength, sharp shooting and fundamentals (not a bunch of them but he has some crucial ones). Age deprives you of speed, leaping ability, explosion and the like. It does not deprive you of shooting ability, strength or knowledge. So, Danny will continue to be serviceable even after his peak. Because just like Nash (not making a comparison between the two on anything other than what I'm saying) his game is not based on his athleticism and thus age is not going to influence it (save a serious injury).

Anthem
03-21-2012, 06:55 AM
Also, about his peak. Danny's game is not based on his athleticism. It is based on strength, sharp shooting and fundamentals (not a bunch of them but he has some crucial ones). Age deprives you of speed, leaping ability, explosion and the like. It does not deprive you of shooting ability, strength or knowledge. So, Danny will continue to be serviceable even after his peak. Because just like Nash (not making a comparison between the two on anything other than what I'm saying) his game is not based on his athleticism and thus age is not going to influence it (save a serious injury).
This is several years old, and you probably haven't seen it:

http://hoopshype.com/blogs/johnson/old-man-moves

BillS
03-21-2012, 09:51 AM
Homers gonna homer.

Can we get a "Wankers gonna wank" smiley?

Not THAT smiley. The other one...

k_lewis93
03-21-2012, 12:36 PM
You think trading Granger for the 5th pick in this draft is crap? Plus Marshan Brooks and cap relief?

I'd take that

Telling you right now that if you move Danny you lose other players as well. Paul George and Danny are close therefore I see him leaving if you move Danny. West stated a big reason he wanted to come to Indy is to play next to Granger and Hibbert; you move Danny you lose West and possibly Hibbert IMO. Not all players go towards the money some genuinely love the city and love to play with people they like. You take away the center piece of the team you lose it all. Danny is saying he loves Indy and you guys wonna trade him or accuse him of bs. No wonder players never wonna come here I wouldn't either with being criticized all the time.

BillS
03-21-2012, 12:38 PM
No wonder players never wonna come here I wouldn't either with being criticized all the time.

Yeah, 'cause they are so <i>gentle</i> with their players in places like New York.

Come on, the griping on both sides is getting over the top here.

xIndyFan
03-21-2012, 01:17 PM
I'm actually watching the game right now (tape delay FTW) and not 3 minutes after I responded the first time I saw Danny's monster block at 1:15 in the 1st. Lazy on defense? Time to find a new song.

jmo, but trade danny and the pacer defense falls apart. right now, danny and paul are the guys that hold the defense, paint defense, together. they are the guys that sag to help out. block shots because the pacer PF's are so ground bound. rebound. help out inside when roy gets caught at the top of the key and everyone has to rotate to help out. danny allows the pacers to play small without much drop in their defense.

i think danny gets a bum rap because of his stoic demeanor and old man's game. casual watching of the game looks like he doesn't care or is just playing. and some of his defensive lapses are being caught inside having to help and late getting out.