Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

  1. #1
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I don't. I like Jack at 3 backed up by Granger. I'd change my tune for Rashard Lewis, but other than that I'll pass.

    I don't like the idea of aquiring a 4, either. And unless Tinsley's going somewhere, we're fine at PG. That leaves C and SG, right?
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  2. #2
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I've thought SG since the second he demanded the trade. We need a slashing SG.

    Although I'm starting to like Saras at SG next to Tins, so who knows what we need. I'm starting to think my second thought (young projects) may be best.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  3. #3
    cracktower
    Guest

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthem
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't. I like Jack at 3 backed up by Granger. I'd change my tune for Rashard Lewis, but other than that I'll pass.

    I don't like the idea of aquiring a 4, either. And unless Tinsley's going somewhere, we're fine at PG. That leaves C and SG, right?
    I don't think we can upgrade our center position(how many teams would be willing to give up a quality center for Artest) so that leaves S.G

  4. #4
    Banned Jermaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Your baby moms house
    Age
    26
    Posts
    11,717

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Tins-AJ
    Saras-Fred
    Jack-Danny
    Al-Cro
    JO-Foster

    I love it

  5. #5
    The Last Great Pacer BlueNGold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    15,291

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I am no Jax fan, but it will be tough to upgrade SG. If we could package Jax AND Artest up for Pierce, I would do it in a second. Pierce is the SG we need who can be a consistent 2nd option to JO. He is a couple notches above Jax.

  6. #6
    .
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    In another thread someone mentioned that their "in the know" source mentioned something about Artest for Brad Miller. I would be in heaven, and it'd be great for us because our biggest need is a center to let JO go back to being a PF. I'm happy with our PFs (JO, Cro, Foster, Granger) I'm happy with our SFs (Jackson, Granger), Sarunas is growing on me at the starting 2 with Tinsley at 1.

    Tinsley/Johnson
    Jasikevicius/Jones
    Jackson/Granger
    O'Neal/Croshere
    Miller/Foster

    YES PLEASE

  7. #7
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In another thread someone mentioned that their "in the know" source mentioned something about Artest for Brad Miller. I would be in heaven, and it'd be great for us because our biggest need is a center to let JO go back to being a PF. I'm happy with our PFs (JO, Cro, Foster, Granger) I'm happy with our SFs (Jackson, Granger), Sarunas is growing on me at the starting 2 with Tinsley at 1.

    Tinsley/Johnson
    Jasikevicius/Jones
    Jackson/Granger
    O'Neal/Croshere
    Miller/Foster

    YES PLEASE
    What thread was this? I miss all the good scoop on this forum somehow.


    Wouldn't they want Foster too? If they are trading Miller I'd think they would want a defensive big man back.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  8. #8
    Diesel_81
    Guest

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I don't really think it matters because Granger is so versatile on the defensive end. Once he fully gets adjusted to the NBA I think he will be able to defend most SG and Power forwards in the NBA which allows Rick Carlisle to get very creative in terms of creating mismatches on the court.

  9. #9
    Smooth tadscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenfield
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,838
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jermaniac
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Tins-AJ
    Saras-Fred
    Jack-Danny
    Al-Cro
    JO-Foster

    I love it
    You know how much time that could take away from Granger... Plus if we then resign Al that would make it really hard on us to gave Granger the big crontract he'll be owed when it comes time... I sure hope we don't get Al...

    I rather see Miller, Maggette, or a young project/ draft picks...
    "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

  10. #10
    Banned Jermaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Your baby moms house
    Age
    26
    Posts
    11,717

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by tadscout
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You know how much time that could take away from Granger... Plus if we then resign Al that would make it really hard on us to gave Granger the big crontract he'll be owed when it comes time... I sure hope we don't get Al...

    I rather see Miller, Maggette, or a young project/ draft picks...
    Al Harrington a 4 would take minutes away from Granger but Corey Maggette a guy who plays Danny's position wont take minutes away from him. Hey thats nice.

  11. #11
    Smooth tadscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenfield
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,838
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jermaniac
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Al Harrington a 4 would take minutes away from Granger but Corey Maggette a guy who plays Danny's position wont take minutes away from him. Hey thats nice.
    At 6'6 he could play the 2 or 3 for us... While Al plays the 4 or 3 both positions that Granger plays (and the 4 is were they're both are getting the most of their min. so far this season...).

    So Maggette would take far less time away...
    "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

  12. #12
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In another thread someone mentioned that their "in the know" source mentioned something about Artest for Brad Miller. I would be in heaven, and it'd be great for us because our biggest need is a center to let JO go back to being a PF. I'm happy with our PFs (JO, Cro, Foster, Granger) I'm happy with our SFs (Jackson, Granger), Sarunas is growing on me at the starting 2 with Tinsley at 1.

    Tinsley/Johnson
    Jasikevicius/Jones
    Jackson/Granger
    O'Neal/Croshere
    Miller/Foster

    YES PLEASE
    That ain't happenin'. Donnie leveraging the team's financial future to move Ron (for Brad of all people) is pure fantasy. Especially when you consider his reasons for letting him go in the first place.

  13. #13
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,962

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I truely believe Jack's best position is the 2. He's been playing better because he's a primary option with Ron gone, not because he's starting in a different spot.

    Part of me thinks Al may be the best option, cause he can start at the 3 and slide over to the 4 when Danny comes in for Jeff/Austin. I don't think we need to blow our wad getting a All-Star caliber 3, however, because he'll just impede Danny's development.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

  14. #14
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Maybe it's pure fantasy, but a Tinsley/Saras/Granger/O'Neal/Miller lineup would be a passing frenzy. That's a fantasy worth keeping around.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  15. #15
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Maybe it's pure fantasy, but a Tinsley/Saras/Granger/O'Neal/Miller lineup would be a passing frenzy. That's a fantasy worth keeping around.
    Wouldn't do us much good when 2 of those 3 players would most likely be injured or coming off an injury during the playoffs. Donnie ain't gonna do it.

  16. #16
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harmonica
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Wouldn't do us much good when 2 of those 3 players would most likely be injured or coming off an injury during the playoffs. Donnie ain't gonna do it.
    If Donnie wouldn't trade the mentally injured Ron for the sometimes physically injured Brad, I would be pretty disappointed. That's a step up IMO, Brad's nagging injuries might go away for a season, or happen before the playoffs start. Ron is just stark raving mad.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  17. #17
    Harmonica
    Guest

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by SoupIsGood
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If Donnie wouldn't trade the mentally injured Ron for the sometimes physically injured Brad, I would be pretty disappointed. That's a step up IMO, Brad's nagging injuries might go away for a season, or happen before the playoffs start. Ron is just stark raving mad.
    Thankfully Donnie is more practical than fans. He's not going to leverage the team's financial future by bringing Brad back at a time when his contract begins to swell (along with his aging legs). Sorry. Couldn't resist.

  18. #18
    flexible and robust SoupIsGood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Lappy Go Hucky
    Age
    26
    Posts
    17,540

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harmonica
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thankfully Donnie is more practical than fans. He's not going to leverage the team's financial future by bringing Brad back at a time when his contract begins to swell (along with his aging legs). Sorry. Couldn't resist.
    Okay, if Donnie thinks Brad would screw up the financial situation, I'll buy it. He's the head honcho, he makes the big bucks to know that stuff.

    I'm just saying, if he strayed from that trade for some other reason, like nagging injuries, I would...... disapprove
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  19. #19
    Smooth tadscout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenfield
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,838
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harmonica
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Thankfully Donnie is more practical than fans. He's not going to leverage the team's financial future by bringing Brad back at a time when his contract begins to swell (along with his aging legs). Sorry. Couldn't resist.
    I take back what I said earlier... Yes, I would love to have Miller, the player... but I just looked up his contract/ salary and that would hurt us in the furture in the efforts for example of giving Granger the big contract he'll be owed when it comes time...
    "George's athleticism is bananas!" - Marc J. Spears

  20. #20
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,699

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Does anyone think that the reason everyone maybe doing better is because they are getting more minutes and therefore more touches?

    Its evident with Croshere, Granger and SJax....the more minutes they get...the better they are on the offensive cuz they are being used more frequently.

    I would hope that an addition like Maggette or Harrington would make a huge difference.....but if we are to assume that we are doing good without Artest on the offensive and defensive end....at this point...we need role players ( not another superstar ) to come in and give us the depth to make it through the playoffs.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  21. #21
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,699

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Before we get excited......let's see how we do on the road against the 2nd/3rd and 9th best team in the league.

    If we can win at least 1 game....then I will be happy.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  22. #22
    Member Ultimate Frisbee's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pasadena, CA
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,374

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    I really just want someone who can play great defense, run, and slam dunk if necessary...

  23. #23
    White and Nerdy Anthem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    23,738

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Does anyone think that the reason everyone maybe doing better is because they are getting more minutes and therefore more touches?

    Its evident with Croshere, Granger and SJax....the more minutes they get...the better they are on the offensive cuz they are being used more frequently.
    Yes.

    I've been saying for a long time that being "too deep" isn't always a good thing. I wanted us to drop talent, although I didn't (then) want it to be Ron.
    Welcome to Pacers Digest! New around here? Here are three tips for making the forum a great place to talk about Pacers basketball.

    • Log in. Even if you want to read instead of post, it's helpful because it lets you:
    • Change your signature options. You can hide all signatures by choosing "Settings" (top right) then "General Settings" (middle left) and unchecking the box "Show Signatures" (in the "Thread Display Options" area).
    • Create an ignore list. I know it may seem unneighborly. But you're here to talk about the Pacers, not argue with someone who's just looking for an argument. Most of the regular users on here make use (at least occasionally) of the "Ignore" feature. Just go to "Settings" -> "Edit Ignore List" and add the names.

    Enjoy your time at PD!

  24. #24
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,699

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    ^^^Wouldn't that suggest that getting a player like Harrington / Maggette would mess things up?

    Players like that are only going to add offensive power to the team....or more specifically...add a player into the lineup that is going to take away minutes and shots away from scorers like Croshere/Granger/SJax and indirectly affect how the PG/SG rotation is going to be run for Tinsley/Freddie/Sarunas/AJ.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  25. #25
    Tree People to the Core! indygeezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cumberland
    Posts
    15,271
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Does anyone think we should be trading for a three?

    THere is also a "honeymoon" effect right now. The guys recognize the need to play together and give max effort and so they remain very focused. There is also the reshuffleing of the pecking order for more minutes too. I'll guess that with the disruption gone they are playing much more relaxed too (I think MJB may have alluded to this in one of his posts).

    Eventually they will adjust to this changed comfort zone and then we will be able to see where our weaknesses lie.

    As it currently stands...I vote for a decent rebounding 5, but if Danger keeps this level of play up, I could see that deal with the Lakes for someone like Bynam and picks being more attractive to TPTB.
    If you get to thinkin’ you’re a person of some influence, try orderin’ somebody else’s dog around..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •