PDA

View Full Version : It may be the time to move George or Granger



yoadknux
07-03-2012, 10:39 AM
Recent news are, the top free agent point guards - Deron and Nash, don't consider us at all, and we have recently agreed to a 5 year deal with George Hill. This means that our future starting 1, 2 and 3 spots are probably - unless something big happens - set with Hill, George and Granger.
The problem with that? Well, Granger is a good player, but I hate it when he starts dribbling. He doesn't control the ball that well - It results in turnovers, offensive fouls, traveling (.....), and billions of contested fades. Then you have Paul George, who can't really dribble his way through the much quicker, and smaller shooting guards. The Granger & George duo provides good range and size, but both are just so limited in terms of creating and slashing, and it's not like either is an elite passer, which makes our offense so damn predictable and passive.
Many people claimed they can't co-exist together. I thought we should give it a try, and my conclusion is that they can play together, and even provide amazing results, but need an elite point guard with them. The Nash-Rondo-Parker type of point guard, who would be able to shake the D and find these guys when they are open.
And then you have our (probably) point guard of the future - George Hill, with a locked contract. Now, George Hill isn't bad. He's pretty solid - Pretty good shooter, physical, got size, is willing to play defense (though not that great at it). But he can't break a defense, and he doesn't have any unusual ways of finding open teammates.
The Hill/George/Granger trio just doesn't look like it's going to work out to well together. Since Hill was just signed, you gotta wonder if it's time to move George or Granger.

Now, before I make a trade suggestion, I would like to state that I have never been on the "Gordon2Indy" wagon. I don't care about what Gordon did during his college days, as I have no real ties to the state of Indiana. I just like the Pacers, and don't care if our players are from Indiana, California or whatever.

Hill is the type of point guard who compliments a combo guard, or a ball dominant shooting guard well. He can defend both guard positions, he can shoot and he doesn't need the ball in his hands to score. Same can be said about Granger - he gets his points off screens, transition, the line, post ups etc. Not "give me the ball and watch me score" type of guy. George is still developing, but I find it hard to believe he could break defenses with his dribbling.

So, what do you do to fix that. You move George or Granger for a shooting guard who can score, can hold the ball, create his own shot. But who fits?
The first guy that came to my mind - Joe Johnson. The problem? He's older than Granger, declining, and has the most horrible contract in NBA History.
Another guy who might fit? Monta Ellis. But Monta's defense is so lacking, and he may be over-ball dominant and a chucker.
But there's one guy who's younger than both, is probably more talented and loves Indiana. He's also injury prone. We all know who he is.

And yes. I am tired of all the fanboys fantasies too. But considering our situation, the move that makes the most sense for this franchise - in my opinion - is trading Paul George (and maybe a salary filler) for Eric Gordon. I don't think Granger is going to get it done.
Any alternative of Granger/George for a shooting guard like I described is fine too, but I don't think there's a better option out there - In terms of Age, Talent and Motivation than Gordon.

This deal can only be done before (and if) we match Hibbert. Doing this move of course means we should re-sign Hibbert too and try to do our best with that core. If we match Hibbert and don't do this deal - Seems that we will be set with Hill/George/Granger/Hibbert - and these guys just may not compliment each other well enough for us to get anywhere. With Hill, Granger and Hibbert not getting younger, there's no time to waste.

Now, Please, save me the "omg another eric gordon thread!!". This isn't about him. This is about whether Hill/George/Granger can play together. In my opinion they can't, and that's why I suggested flipping George for Gordon.

What do you guys think?

IndyPacer
07-03-2012, 10:46 AM
You do not get rid of a player like Paul George, especially this early in his career and while he's in a rookie contract. You'd better be bringing something truly spectacular back in any trade that involves such a player, and Gordon isn't enough in my view, especially with his history of injuries. In terms of efficiency, George is nearly as effective as Danny already. If either Granger or George had to go, I'd be shipping out Granger.

graphic-er
07-03-2012, 10:50 AM
You do not get rid of a player like Paul George, especially this early in his career and while he's in a rookie contract. You'd better be bringing something truly spectacular back in any trade that involves such a player, and Gordon isn't enough in my view, especially with his history of injuries. In terms of efficiency, George is nearly as effective as Danny already. If either Granger or George had to go, I'd be shipping out Granger.

You have to give up talent to get talent. Paul George will most likely never the the type of player Eric Gordon already is. Is NOLA asks for George, you give it to them all day long. Eric Gordon makes us a contender in the East.

MnvrChvy
07-03-2012, 10:50 AM
I just don't think George would net Gordon. I like George, and I don't give a crap about Gordon, but if I'm a GM I wouldn't even consider this trade unless I was desperate to reduce payroll. I guess maybe if they believe he's gone anyway and want get something in return, but I think they would have a lot of other offers to consider.

pacerjones20
07-03-2012, 10:52 AM
No offense but how many more Eric Gordon threads can we have? Go to one of the other 100 to discuss this. It's really getting ridiculous.

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 10:53 AM
Recent news are, the top free agent point guards - Deron and Nash, don't consider us at all, and we have recently agreed to a 5 year deal with George Hill. This means that our future starting 1, 2 and 3 spots are probably - unless something big happens - set with Hill, George and Granger.
The problem with that? Well, Granger is a good player, but I hate it when he starts dribbling. He doesn't control the ball that well - It results in turnovers, offensive fouls, traveling (.....), and billions of contested fades. Then you have Paul George, who can't really dribble his way through the much quicker, and smaller shooting guards. The Granger & George duo provides good range and size, but both are just so limited in terms of creating and slashing, and it's not like either is an elite passer, which makes our offense so damn predictable and passive.
Many people claimed they can't co-exist together. I thought we should give it a try, and my conclusion is that they can play together, and even provide amazing results, but need an elite point guard with them. The Nash-Rondo-Parker type of point guard, who would be able to shake the D and find these guys when they are open.
And then you have our (probably) point guard of the future - George Hill, with a locked contract. Now, George Hill isn't bad. He's pretty solid - Pretty good shooter, physical, got size, is willing to play defense (though not that great at it). But he can't break a defense, and he doesn't have any unusual ways of finding open teammates.
The Hill/George/Granger trio just doesn't look like it's going to work out to well together. Since Hill was just signed, you gotta wonder if it's time to move George or Granger.

Now, before I make a trade suggestion, I would like to state that I have never been on the "Gordon2Indy" wagon. I don't care about what Gordon did during his college days, as I have no real ties to the state of Indiana. I just like the Pacers, and don't care if our players are from Indiana, California or whatever.

Hill is the type of point guard who compliments a combo guard, or a ball dominant shooting guard well. He can defend both guard positions, he can shoot and he doesn't need the ball in his hands to score. Same can be said about Granger - he gets his points off screens, transition, the line, post ups etc. Not "give me the ball and watch me score" type of guy. George is still developing, but I find it hard to believe he could break defenses with his dribbling.

So, what do you do to fix that. You move George or Granger for a shooting guard who can score, can hold the ball, create his own shot. But who fits?
The first guy that came to my mind - Joe Johnson. The problem? He's older than Granger, declining, and has the most horrible contract in NBA History.
Another guy who might fit? Monta Ellis. But Monta's defense is so lacking, and he may be over-ball dominant and a chucker.
But there's one guy who's younger than both, is probably more talented and loves Indiana. He's also injury prone. We all know who he is.

And yes. I am tired of all the fanboys fantasies too. But considering our situation, the move that makes the most sense for this franchise - in my opinion - is trading Paul George (and maybe a salary filler) for Eric Gordon. I don't think Granger is going to get it done.
Any alternative of Granger/George for a shooting guard like I described is fine too, but I don't think there's a better option out there - In terms of Age, Talent and Motivation than Gordon.

This deal can only be done before (and if) we match Hibbert. Doing this move of course means we should re-sign Hibbert too and try to do our best with that core. If we match Hibbert and don't do this deal - Seems that we will be set with Hill/George/Granger/Hibbert - and these guys just may not compliment each other well enough for us to get anywhere. With Hill, Granger and Hibbert not getting younger, there's no time to waste.

Now, Please, save me the "omg another eric gordon thread!!". This isn't about him. This is about whether Hill/George/Granger can play together. In my opinion they can't, and that's why I suggested flipping George for Gordon.

What do you guys think?

OMG, another Eric Gordon thread!!! I am sick of this talk about Gordon, he isn't coming here and thank goodness he and his fragile body are not arriving any time soon. I have heard enough of this and mark me down for the "anybody but Gordon" responses........The day dreams about Nash were even worse. At least Gordon is young and his career is in front of him.......:cool:

Mac_Daddy
07-03-2012, 10:57 AM
You have to give up talent to get talent. Paul George will most likely never the the type of player Eric Gordon already is. Is NOLA asks for George, you give it to them all day long. Eric Gordon makes us a contender in the East.

If Gordon can stay on the floor, he makes us a contender if we bring back Roy.

ECKrueger
07-03-2012, 10:57 AM
You have to give up talent to get talent. Paul George will most likely never the the type of player Eric Gordon already is. Is NOLA asks for George, you give it to them all day long. Eric Gordon makes us a contender in the East.

I think Gordon is just as much about potential as George is. George has the potential to get near Gordon's level, and Gordon has the potential to be great if he stays healthy.

Just depends on which you think is more likely: George continuing to work and get better, or Gordon staying healthy consistently. I'll take the former, although I won't deny a healthy Gordon would be great for us.

Miller_time04
07-03-2012, 11:02 AM
I'd be very hesitant to trade George for Gordon considering his potential and Gordon's injury history. But in the end I think I would pull the trigger. Players like Gordon that are hometown guys and want to be here, don't come around much at all. You gotta roll the dice and hope it pays off. Hill/Gordon/Granger/West/Hibbert is a contender with the right bench.

Ramitt
07-03-2012, 11:02 AM
You have to give up talent to get talent. Paul George will most likely never the the type of player Eric Gordon already is.

Always injured?

PacerPenguins
07-03-2012, 11:04 AM
well looks like we are getting oj mayo or gordon according to Steve Kyler


Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA
RT @MGBulldogBound: What teams are after Gordon that actually could get him? ---> Houston, Phoenix, Indiana and New Orleans


Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA
RT @MGBulldogBound: Brandon Roy and OJ Mayo sign with...? ---> Warriors want BRoy so I'd go Warriors there... Bob Meyers was his agent.


Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA
RT @MGBulldogBound: and OJ Mayo sign with... -- the team that doesn't get Eric Gordon

If we get Gordon, I believe either Granger or George is gone. But if we could somehow get Gordon straight up... man we are rockin'

Ace E.Anderson
07-03-2012, 11:06 AM
I'm not on the whole "Gordon to Indy" train either. BUT. The more I think about it, the more it could potentially make sense for both teams, IF in fact Gordon WANTS to come here that badly. After trading Ariza and Okafor, NO could use a young veteran presence in Danny Granger, who you know will net you between 18 and 22 ppg. Also it helps that Danny is from the area, and has never had any off the court issues. We could also send NO Darren Collison whom they really liked when he was there. They would obviously rather have Gordon, BUT if they're going to lose him, I hardly think that DG and DC are bad consolation prizes.

Then for the Pacers you have Hill, Gordon, George all fitting very nicely together. Hill is a good spot-up 3-pt shooter, Gordon is a good ISO slashing type of scorer, and PG can concentrate on wrecking havoc both offensively and defensively with his length and athleticism. If we somehow re-sign Roy, then we have a pretty good young, exciting type of team.

Obviously this is all a pipe dream, and depends on how badly Gordon REALLY wants to play here. But even if its not Gordon, but is another 2-guard who can slash and create his own shot, I agree with the premise of this thread. PG is simply a more athletic Danny Granger, so we need to move one of the two in order to add the type of player that we currently lack.

Ace E.Anderson
07-03-2012, 11:08 AM
well looks like we are getting oj mayo or gordon according to Steve Kyler

Lol your original comment got me all excited! Then I read the tweets and was disappointed. DANG YOU!!! :blush: haha

ECKrueger
07-03-2012, 11:08 AM
So three teams out of us, Hou, Pho, and NO is getting Mayo? There's obviously a very good chance we don't get either. I read OJ doesn't want MLE-type money.

Steve Kyler ‏@stevekylerNBA

RT @keemun: what kind of numbers is OJ Mayo looking for? ---> More than Mid-Level, not taking calls on Mid-level deals

Sandman21
07-03-2012, 11:11 AM
No offense but how many more Eric Gordon threads can we have? Go to one of the other 100 to discuss this. It's really getting ridiculous.

Especially since IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 11:11 AM
OJ Mayo would be a much better sign than Gordon. He is almost as productive per min played and actually stays healthy. Gordon may be a better player but he does not help you half the season when he is injured. Mayo can play a full season while Gordon is not physically able to help an NBA team over an 82 game schedule.

Besides, the only reason Gordon is talked about on this board so much is because he is from Indianapolis and went to IU. He was from another state (or College) the poster who mentioned trading for him would get killed on this board.

Karlton
07-03-2012, 11:13 AM
omg another eric gordon thread!!

yoadknux
07-03-2012, 12:20 PM
Hey, would be nice if you guys actually read the entire post I wrote before commenting!! thanks!!

Eleazar
07-03-2012, 12:29 PM
OJ Mayo would be a much better sign than Gordon. He is almost as productive per min played and actually stays healthy. Gordon may be a better player but he does not help you half the season when he is injured. Mayo can play a full season while Gordon is not physically able to help an NBA team over an 82 game schedule.

Besides, the only reason Gordon is talked about on this board so much is because he is from Indianapolis and went to IU. He was from another state (or College) the poster who mentioned trading for him would get killed on this board.

He might be as productive, but it is at a lower efficiency.

Gordon is talked about on this board because he is good, not because he is from Indiana. (see dozens of other hoosiers that don't get a lick of talk here) He might get more talk than a equally good player because he is from Indiana, but he would be talked about no matter where he is from.

BillS
07-03-2012, 12:30 PM
Hey, would be nice if you guys actually read the entire post I wrote before commenting!! thanks!!


And yes. I am tired of all the fanboys fantasies too. But considering our situation, the move that makes the most sense for this franchise - in my opinion - is trading Paul George (and maybe a salary filler) for Eric Gordon. I don't think Granger is going to get it done.
Any alternative of Granger/George for a shooting guard like I described is fine too, but I don't think there's a better option out there - In terms of Age, Talent and Motivation than Gordon.

How is this NOT another Eric Gordon thread?

Everyone seems absolutely convinced in these scenarios that Gordon is coming back as an old self he really hasn't been in the NBA. The most likely scenario is that he comes back as a 60-game-per-season player you are PRAYING stays healthy through the playoffs. How is it any kind of no-brainer to throw assets and money at that probability?

Eddie Gill
07-03-2012, 12:38 PM
How is this NOT another Eric Gordon thread?

Everyone seems absolutely convinced in these scenarios that Gordon is coming back as an old self he really hasn't been in the NBA. The most likely scenario is that he comes back as a 60-game-per-season player you are PRAYING stays healthy through the playoffs. How is it any kind of no-brainer to throw assets and money at that probability?

Agreed. Taking injuries out of the equation when talking about Eric Gordon is like taking religion out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


/end of my Gordon discussion until something actually happens

Bball
07-03-2012, 01:09 PM
Granger, IMO has hit his ceiling. Does George have a higher theoretical ceiling than Granger? Does he seem likely to reach it (based a lot on things we can't see like practice habits, workout habits, thirst for knowledge, etc. so we have to go with insiders on this)?

I'm not against trading one of them. I think Granger is a bad influence (as a player) on George. I don't want George emulating Granger. Someone with more NBA experience wouldn't necessarily look to pattern their NBA game around Granger's. But IMHO Granger is really all George has to look up to in his limited NBA time... at least as far as 'day in and day out'.

If Eric Gordon didn't have the injury prone label this would be a no-brainer to move one of the above for him. The only question being which one do you try and hang onto?

Count me among those that thing George would be better suited at SF... and this will only get more obvious as he ages.

joew8302
07-03-2012, 01:10 PM
The only thing more predictable than an Eric Gordon thread is people inside the thread complaining about too many Eric Gordon threads.

graphic-er
07-03-2012, 01:16 PM
If Eric Gordon didn't have the injury prone label this would be a no-brainer to move one of the above for him.

If Eric Gordon did have the injury prone perception, then we would probably never even have an opportunity to get him. Perceived or otherwise.

Bball
07-03-2012, 01:22 PM
The only thing more predictable than an Eric Gordon thread is people inside the thread complaining about too many Eric Gordon threads.

But as the OP pointed out... this is about do you trade Granger or George first and foremost. Secondarily is who could you seek in return.

If like me, you think George will need to be a SF sooner rather than later then trading one of them is pretty much a given. If you think their relative positions on the court are safe then it could change your desire to move one except for a sure-fire thing.

IndyPacer
07-03-2012, 01:26 PM
You have to give up talent to get talent. Paul George will most likely never the the type of player Eric Gordon already is. Is NOLA asks for George, you give it to them all day long. Eric Gordon makes us a contender in the East.

I'm certainly not convinced of that. Gordon didn't look any more impressive than Paul George in his second year. Gordon did score significantly more points (about 5 ppg more), although I'm also pretty sure Gordon wasn't ranked 6th in the NBA in steals per game per 48 min his sophomore season.

Another damning stat is that out of Gordon's 4-year career, he has only once played more games in a season than George just played in the abbreviated 2011-2012 season. George played more games in the shortened season than Gordon played from 2010 through 2012. No thanks on giving George plus another player for this guy.

ECKrueger
07-03-2012, 01:27 PM
If Eric Gordon did have the injury prone perception, then we would probably never even have an opportunity to get him. Perceived or otherwise.

Why not? Him reportedly wanting to play here isn't impacted by his injuries, and he's still commanding max money.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 01:28 PM
He might be as productive, but it is at a lower efficiency.

Gordon is talked about on this board because he is good, not because he is from Indiana. (see dozens of other hoosiers that don't get a lick of talk here) He might get more talk than a equally good player because he is from Indiana, but he would be talked about no matter where he is from.

I have to disagree with that. Gordon is really good when healthy but not nearly good enough for the majority of this board to overlook the fact he misses as many games as he plays.
Also, how can you say Mayo is less efficient? He actually plays the entire season and produces in far less mpg!

Eleazar
07-03-2012, 01:32 PM
I have to disagree with that. Gordon is really good when healthy but not nearly good enough for the majority of this board to overlook the fact he misses as many games as he plays.
Also, how can you say Mayo is less efficient? He actually plays the entire season and produces in far less mpg!

Exactly, Gordon does more while doing less.

PacerPenguins
07-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Why not? Him reportedly wanting to play here isn't impacted by his injuries, and he's still commanding max money.

its not likely we can sign him for anything considerably less.... the Hornets would just match it and laugh that they got him less than the max

Reginald
07-03-2012, 01:52 PM
Besides, the only reason Gordon is talked about on this board so much is because he is from Indianapolis and went to IU. He was from another state (or College) the poster who mentioned trading for him would get killed on this board.

Interesting theory. I kind of like him because he's a career 20-pt scorer who can get to the rim and create his own shot, but maybe that's just me. Well, maybe it's just me and U.S. Men's Basketball, which invited Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams and Eric Gordon to camp. I like Gordon; are those other guards any good?

vnzla81
07-03-2012, 01:56 PM
Danny's value is so low right now we'll be lucky to get anything good in return.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 01:58 PM
Interesting theory. I kind of like him because he's a career 20-pt scorer who can get to the rim and create his own shot, but maybe that's just me. Well, maybe it's just me and U.S. Men's Basketball, which invited Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams and Eric Gordon to camp. I like Gordon; are those other guards any good?

I am not questioning his talent. I am questioning his durability. If he is missing nearly whole seasons in his prime, how much time will he miss due to injuries when he ages? It would be a horrible trade to get rid of DG or PG for a guy who is not durable and WILL miss significant time. The guy cant stay healthy in the NBA and couldnt stay healthy in college - PASS

daschysta
07-03-2012, 02:01 PM
I would maybe give up george for Gordon, if we have to give up no other major assets, resign Hibbert and contend, but I disagree about the potential argument, we only do that trade because we are on the cusp of contending, and New ORleans is not. Gordon Constantly being injured tips this in the direction of bad idea though. George can in 2 years be just as valuable as Gordon, I stay with him if that's the price. If we get Gordon it's going to be because Gordon demanded here and we have so much leverage we can force the Hornets to deal with us.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 02:05 PM
Interesting theory. I kind of like him because he's a career 20-pt scorer who can get to the rim and create his own shot, get injured, miss the majority of games due to injury, and looks nice sitting behind the bench during games in an expensive suit,but maybe that's just me. Well, maybe it's just me and U.S. Men's Basketball, which invited Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams and Eric Gordon to camp. I like Gordon; are those other guards any good?

Glad I could fix it for you!

PR07
07-03-2012, 02:06 PM
Interesting theory. I kind of like him because he's a career 20-pt scorer who can get to the rim and create his own shot, but maybe that's just me. Well, maybe it's just me and U.S. Men's Basketball, which invited Kobe Bryant, James Harden, Chris Paul, Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams and Eric Gordon to camp. I like Gordon; are those other guards any good?

And Jamal Magloire once made an all-star team. And Luke Ridnour was on an Olympic team roster. Not saying Gordon isn't a good player, but that doesn't exactly mean he's arrived.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 02:11 PM
And Jamal Magloire once made an all-star team. And Luke Ridnour was on an Olympic team roster. Not saying Gordon isn't a good player, but that doesn't exactly mean he's arrived.

The guy is a terrific talent. But he has missed over 80 games due to injury the last 2 seasons. He also couldnt make it thru a full season in college. Do we really want to give up PG or DG and a max contract for a guy who will not make it thru the season?
All this ridiculous love for Gordon would turn to anger once we got to see him miss over half of every season because of injury. Im just hoping someone else is stupid enough to pay him max money to be on the injured list.

mb221
07-03-2012, 02:30 PM
Couldn't stay healthy in college? You realized he played 32 of 33 games during his one season at IU?

Karlton
07-03-2012, 02:33 PM
Couldn't stay healthy in college? You realized he played 32 of 33 games during his one season at IU?

I do remember him being sub-standard (at least according to his standards) after the wrist injury.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 02:37 PM
Couldn't stay healthy in college? You realized he played 32 of 33 games during his one season at IU?

I realized he played the last part of the season with a cast on hi broken hand! I also remember he was a shadow of himself after the injury.

mb221
07-03-2012, 02:52 PM
I realized he played the last part of the season with a cast on hi broken hand! I also remember he was a shadow of himself after the injury.

That is entirely different than saying he couldn't make it through a whole season of college. He played big minutes the entire season. Also, if you take a look at his game log, he still was plenty productive. Plus, the whole team slumped at the end of the season with the coaching mess.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 03:01 PM
That is entirely different than saying he couldn't make it through a whole season of college. He played big minutes the entire season. Also, if you take a look at his game log, he still was plenty productive. Plus, the whole team slumped at the end of the season with the coaching mess.

I said he couldnt stay healthy in college. The injury at the end of the year qualifies him for not making it thru the season healthy! It was merely a taste of what was to come once he got to the NBA

Jeremy
07-03-2012, 03:57 PM
If Gordon can stay on the floor, he makes us a contender if we bring back Roy.

This

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 04:27 PM
This

Silliness. Gordon has never shown that he can make a team a contender from college on up. Never has so much energy been wasted on a player with so few accomplishments and big problem getting on the floor.......:cool:

CJ Jones
07-03-2012, 04:31 PM
How is this NOT another Eric Gordon thread?

Everyone seems absolutely convinced in these scenarios that Gordon is coming back as an old self he really hasn't been in the NBA. The most likely scenario is that he comes back as a 60-game-per-season player you are PRAYING stays healthy through the playoffs. How is it any kind of no-brainer to throw assets and money at that probability?

Most people seem to be more then happy to give Roy a max contract with the hope that one day he'll earn it. It's different, I know, but it's still a gamble. At least Gordon has the talent to justify a max deal.

As for the op's question. I think it's a given, sooner then later Danny needs to go to make room for Paul. Even if that means taking a step back in the standings.

Gordon probably won't happen because I can't see us dealing Paul, but Granger for Monta might still be an option. He may or may not be better than Danny, but at least he balances the roster out. I actually think a Hill/Ellis back court compliment each other very well despite being a little undersized.

Justin Tyme
07-03-2012, 04:41 PM
Ah, as the off season starts the 1st of the annual "trade Granger" threads. I'm surprised it took this long to happen. I wonder how many more threads will be started about trading Granger b4 the season starts?

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 04:51 PM
Ah, as the off season starts the 1st of the annual "trade Granger" threads. I'm surprised it took this long to happen. I wonder how many more threads will be started about trading Granger b4 the season starts?

Granger is not going anywhere. People on here are amazing. There are threads suggesting the Pacers need to trade Granger, West, and George. Didn't any of these knuckleheads watch this team? We have a really good team with a strong core (providing Roy is back). We need to add talent to it not trade it away!

johndozark
07-03-2012, 05:00 PM
I agree that George and Granger are not a good combination on offense, although not too bad together on defense when they are both playing with motivation.

The big difference between the two at this point in time is their salary package. If we are looking to upgrade another starting position with a medium to large salary player, then we may need to shed some salary. That means that it is Granger who would have to go. I think that P. George's three-point scoring would go up if he were playing SF without Granger's competition for shot opportinuities.

I see G. Hill as the first guard off the bench, rotating backing up upgraded starting point guard and upgraded starting shooting guard.

That leaves us needing the upgrades.

I think that Goran Dragic is looking for about 10M/year; maybe we could get him for a little less, but not much.

If we did get Dragic or another point guard upgrade, Collison would need to be traded. It would make sense to send Granger and perhaps someone else along with Collison to New Orleans for Gordon. I believe that Granger is still attractive and that New Orleans could use both him and Collison.

I have not done the salary math. Can anyone do it? Preferably including a near max five year salary for Hibbert.

The Gordon risk is not so extreme when we already have Hill in place behind him.

Major Cold
07-03-2012, 05:07 PM
Oh my. I would like a healthy player like Gordon....but this is getting crazy. REBOOT in 10....9....8...

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 05:10 PM
I agree that George and Granger are not a good combination on offense, although not too bad together on defense when they are both playing with motivation.

The big difference between the two at this point in time is their salary package. If we are looking to upgrade another starting position with a medium to large salary player, then we may need to shed some salary. That means that it is Granger who would have to go. I think that P. George's three-point scoring would go up if he were playing SF without Granger's competition for shot opportinuities.

I see G. Hill as the first guard off the bench, rotating backing up upgraded starting point guard and upgraded starting shooting guard.

That leaves us needing the upgrades.

I think that Goran Dragic is looking for about 10M/year; maybe we could get him for a little less, but not much.

If we did get Dragic or another point guard upgrade, Collison would need to be traded. It would make sense to send Granger and perhaps someone else along with Collison to New Orleans for Gordon. I believe that Granger is still attractive and that New Orleans could use both him and Collison.

I have not done the salary math. Can anyone do it? Preferably including a near max five year salary for Hibbert.

The Gordon risk is not so extreme when we already have Hill in place behind him.


What in the world makes you think NO would take that package for Gordon? We are not getting Gordon (praise the Lord) and that is that. He is an injury prone guard who hasn't accomplished anything but missing a lot of games..... Enough already......:cool:

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 05:11 PM
Granger is not going anywhere. People on here are amazing. There are threads suggesting the Pacers need to trade Granger, West, and George. Didn't any of these knuckleheads watch this team? We have a really good team with a strong core (providing Roy is back). We need to add talent to it not trade it away!

You have to give up something to get something. Granger is not getting any younger and he isn't going to get any better. He is the player it makes the most sense to trade, IF, you can find anyone who will give you anything for him which I doubt.....................:cool:

docpaul
07-03-2012, 05:14 PM
You have to give up something to get something. Granger is not getting any younger and he isn't going to get any better. He is the player it makes the most sense to trade, IF, you can find anyone who will give you anything for him which I doubt.....................:cool:

If the goal is to get EG, or a player of his potential calibre, you *want* to use Granger as the piece, but you might *need* to use George as the piece.

I'm not sold on EG... but if we're talking someone like Rondo, it becomes a lot clearer/easier to imagine.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 05:23 PM
What in the world makes you think NO would take that package for Gordon? We are not getting Gordon (praise the Lord) and that is that. He is an injury prone guard who hasn't accomplished anything but missing a lot of games..... Enough already......:cool:
Unless NO is looking for draft picks or to clear space, they would be idiots not to take DC and Granger for Gordon. They get 2 quality starters for a guy who has talent but cant stay on the court. Easy decision there.
That trade makes no sense for the Pacers. They get fleeced in that deal.

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 05:28 PM
Unless NO is looking for draft picks or to clear space, they would be idiots not to take DC and Granger for Gordon. They get 2 quality starters for a guy who has talent but cant stay on the court. Easy decision there.
That trade makes no sense for the Pacers. They get fleeced in that deal.

I agree the trade makes no sense for the Pacers because Eric Gordon here makes no sense. But, NO would not take those two players for him, they can get much more than that if they decide to move him......:cool:

pacers74
07-03-2012, 05:33 PM
If PG improves like Danny did from year 2 to year 3 I will be estatic. Granger went from 13.9 ppg to 19.6 ppg.

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 05:39 PM
I agree the trade makes no sense for the Pacers because Eric Gordon here makes no sense. But, NO would not take those two players for him, they can get much more than that if they decide to move him......:cool:

I think you are probably right. I forgot about Jarret Jack. NO is not in need of a starting pg so while they would like to have DC, he would not be as important to them as maybe to another team.
Straight up talent and money wise, I dont think they could get any better. Unless they are looking for picks and cap space (young underpaid talent).

Eleazar
07-03-2012, 05:46 PM
If PG improves like Danny did from year 2 to year 3 I will be estatic. Granger went from 13.9 ppg to 19.6 ppg.

I think this is something a lot of people are overlooking with George. Most players make their biggest jump in season 3 or season 4.

Bball
07-03-2012, 06:20 PM
Silliness. Gordon has never shown that he can make a team a contender from college on up. Never has so much energy been wasted on a player with so few accomplishments and big problem getting on the floor.......:cool:

Jonathon Bender....

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 06:22 PM
Jonathon Bender....

Bender was just injured and he was never talked about like Gordon is. I think whoever get Gordon will be kicking themselves when he averages 50-60 games player per year........:cool:

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 06:28 PM
Bender was just injured and he was never talked about like Gordon is. I think whoever get Gordon will be kicking themselves when he averages 50-60 games player per year........:cool:

Yes, a max contract for Gordon will be a disaster for the team that gambles.
I wouldnt mind gambling on players but not at that price. Brandon Roy is worth the risk as long as he is not paid a ton. If we could get Gordon for George Hill money, I would be all for it.

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 06:35 PM
Yes, a max contract for Gordon will be a disaster for the team that gambles.
I wouldnt mind gambling on players but not at that price. Brandon Roy is worth the risk as long as he is not paid a ton. If we could get Gordon for George Hill money, I would be all for it.

But you can't. The latest rumor is that Portland is going to offer him a max deal too. I hope he signs with them, I'm tired of hearing about Gordon and Nash.. Lots of silliness.....:cool:

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 06:41 PM
But you can't. The latest rumor is that Portland is going to offer him a max deal too. I hope he signs with them, I'm tired of hearing about Gordon and Nash.. Lots of silliness.....:cool:


That's why I said "if"! I know someone will roll the dice. I just hope its not the Pacers!
I would like Nash for the right price if we can bring everyone back. But I am not going to be upset at all if we don't land him. Because we probably won't. He makes a lot more sense than Gordon and day!

troyc11a
07-03-2012, 06:42 PM
But you can't. The latest rumor is that Portland is going to offer him a max deal too. I hope he signs with them, I'm tired of hearing about Gordon and Nash.. Lots of silliness.....:cool:

I can see Portland offering him that kind of money: Sam Bowie, Greg Oden, and maybe Eric Gordon. Gordon fits with there history!

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 06:43 PM
That's why I said "if"! I know someone will roll the dice. I just hope its not the Pacers!
I would like Nash for the right price if we can bring everyone back. But I am not going to be upset at all if we don't land him. Because we probably won't. He makes a lot more sense than Gordon and day!

What? A nearly 40 year old player makes more sense? Wow!! :cool:

Eleazar
07-03-2012, 07:10 PM
Silliness. Gordon has never shown that he can make a team a contender from college on up.

Right, that was why he lead his college team to a 25-7 record (17-1 before the wrist injury). It isn't his fault that they whole Sampson thing happened.

OlBlu
07-03-2012, 07:25 PM
Right, that was why he lead his college team to a 25-7 record (17-1 before the wrist injury). It isn't his fault that they whole Sampson thing happened.

Actually, in my mind, it was his fault. He had to know his teammates were not attending classes. He had to know about recruiting violations. He had to know at IU was a cess pool of coruption but he stayed (signed there in the first place). All of thos wins should have been taken away from them. He gets no respect from me for being part of that whole situation. The other factor, he got injured, imagine that..... He is too frail for my taste and he will be for whoever does sign him and I sure hope it isn't the Pacers.......:cool:

Bball
07-03-2012, 07:54 PM
The only thing I wonder about Gordon, and I'm not sure it makes me feel any better if it was true, is how much of the sitting was 100% due to injury and how much was due to not liking his situation and/or the team not wanting risk an asset they planned to trade because they knew he wasn't going to stay with them anyway....

PacerGuy
07-03-2012, 09:19 PM
My Adjusted off-Season:
-Trade Danny/DC/Tyler/2-1st for EJ/Jack/2nd
-Match Roy
-Sign G.Green, E.Clark, C.Lee

C : Hibbert/Plumlee
PF: West, Clark, Pendergraph
SF: George, Green, Jones
SG: Gordon, Stephenson
PG: Hill, Jack, Hamilton

West & Jack expire n/y giving future flexibility.