Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 68

Thread: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

  1. #1
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,063

    Default Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

    I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

    Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

    1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

    Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

    2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

    Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

    3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

    4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

    I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

    5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


    Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

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

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    We would have to be getting one hell of a player to justify trading Danny over Dun... and more than likely, that "one hell of a player" ain't for sale. If we traded Danny we'd probably be making a poor move.

    I can see how you might "trust" Dun's shot more, but Danny's has a better history of going in at a good %.

    Honestly I think we should try to trade Dun because he just had what will probably be the best year of his career. We could possibly get something of value for him.
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

  3. #3
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,474

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I like them both. But it's hard to be a good team if your two best players are wing players. We have to get some sort of post player or point guard, and it could very well cost one of them. Granger is the obvious choice to keep as he has more upside, but of course he could net you more in a trade.

    I'd be against trading Danny unless it was for a very sweet deal that brought a PG/Post player in. Then it would be very very hard to say no, especially given how good of a year Dunleavy had for us this season.

  4. #4
    Dood. Ownagedood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Franklin
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,635

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    ..And I would take Granger and wins.

  5. #5
    Danny Granger PowerRanger DGPR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Whiteland, IN
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,028

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Danny's a lifer with the Pacers I'm hoping.
    "I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

  6. #6

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I don't see us getting rid of either.

    My question with them being our 2 and 3 is can we be good enough on defense with those two starting? It would be a question to be answered down the road.

    Right now I am not worried about it. We are not close to being a team that competes for a championship and not until then would I really worry about trading Mike or Danny for that matter.

    We have a long ways to go. Really we don't even know who our go to guy is right now or hell who has a future with this team (Williams, Diogu).

    I think we have another 2-3 years of Mike and Danny before we really considering moving one of the other.

  7. #7
    Headband and Rec Specs rexnom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    8,751

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    How much better is Mike going to get?

    How much better is Danny going to get? does anyone feel like he's hit his ceiling?

    I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.

  8. #8
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I don't see it. Trading Danny won't make us better because everyone knows what he is and what he isn't (within a spectrum of possibility). We won't get a franchise player for someone who figures to be a 2nd-to-the-franchise player.

  9. #9
    Mr. Clutch granger33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Australia, Adelaide
    Posts
    693

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    If you haven't read what O'Brien and Bird have said..they wouldnt give up Granger for anyone.

    AUSTRALIA'S NO.1 PACER FAN

  10. #10
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,369

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Quote Originally Posted by rexnom View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'd like to see a perimeter defender at either guard spot and Danny at SF. If we get a defender at the two then Mike could go to bench and be a great sixth man.
    This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.
    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.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The consensus on the board seems to be that we are overloaded on the wings, Dun and Granger basically play the same position, and if one had to go, it certainly should be Dunleavey, not Granger.

    I lean toward keeping Dunleavey.

    Now, mind you, I think I'd just prefer to keep both and see if adding strong defenders at the one and five will help our defensive woes. But I can understand the arguments that either Dun or Granger need to be traded. That being the case, here are my reasons for leaning toward keeping Mike, not Danny.

    1. I like Mike's outside shot better.

    Danny has become a good shooter, but something about his form I'm not real crazy about. Maybe it's just me, but I get the sense that Danny's stroke is more streaky and Dun's is more pure. I've just always felt better about Mike's shot.

    2. I like Mike's ability to create better.

    Neither Danny or Mike are great at creating, but Mike has a mid-range game that Danny does not have. Danny has added a nice driving move to the bucket which as helped, but overall I feel more confident with Dunleavey's overall offensive package.

    3. Both are good character guys, so that's a wash.

    4. Granger can bring us much, much more in a trade.

    I agree with those who say Danny could be a superb number two franchise player but not the first. I just don't see him growing into the role of key offensive guy. He just doesn't seem to have the skills. But his value could land that guy for us. Dun would also be an excellent second guy for the franchise, just not nearly as good a defender.

    5. If we keep him, Granger is probably going to cost us a bunch more than Dunleavey.


    Again, I would like to keep both players, but since it seemed like nearly everyone who addressed this topic expressed that we must keep Danny over Dun, I thought it would be good to post a differing opinion.
    I say keep both as long as we can now. Upgrade our 1 and 5 like Ive been screaming all along, and we are set for another run. Im even for signing Granger to a shorter deal if he skyrockets, if possible. Then he is still very movable if we dont feel we could pay him that much.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This is what I am thinking. Get a perimeter defender that can defend SGs while playing with either Granger or Dunleavy ( mostly Granger ) for about 15mpg. I would then shift Shawne to play play some backup SF/PF minutes for the next season to see how things go.

    I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

    I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

    We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

    Order of importance.

    #1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

    I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

    Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.

  13. #13
    Member Dr. Goldfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    37
    Posts
    1,428

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Is Granger even going to want to re-sign with the Pacers? If I was in charge the majority of you would be calling for my head 'cause I'd package them together and go after a a real star player.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Yeah, I've been thinking about it, and now is the time to trade Mike, he is never gonna have this much value again.

    I'm amazed anyone would want to keep Mike over Danny... In pretty much all aspects, potential talent, shooting and defense, Danny is better. Mike might have an edge in craftiness, but that doesn't make up for his horrible defense...

    Maybe we can keep both, but I would rather have a better defender out there than Mike.

    You don't trade Danny, ever... He is as close to Reggie Miller as we are ever gonna get again.

  15. #15
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,369

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Midcoasted View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I almost think that Granger can gaurd the SGs, and you will see him take his perimeter defense to another notch still. I like Dunleavy as gaurding SFs more. I think if we had a PG who could really attck the ball and a couple dominate post threats, a starting C while Foster keeps the PF role, and we have our 6th man as a dominate post guy then our team could be great.

    I just dont see a defensive SG type as a bigger necessity than any of the ones mentioned above, because I like Granger gaurding them and Mike gaurding PFs, Im convinced our problems lie elsewhere. While I still generally agree that we pick up a defensieve SG, I dont think he should instanly be given Mikes starting spot considering the year Mike came off of. Think about it, there are at least 15 other teams out there Mike could start on, and we are the pacers.

    We have three starters already. Foster PF, Dunlevy, Granger. We need the others, and we have a lineup I feel good about.

    Order of importance.

    #1 Tied between PG and C. If we moved up to get a pick through a Jo and Tinsley trade, unless his name is Rose, we draft the best C available. Then we use our second round to go after the best all around PG left. But his strength should be defense and distribution, and he should also be quick.

    I see our backup positions being filled through trades. Maybe we could pick up another second round pick for some1 and we could go after a defensive guy at SG. And maybe Ike or some1 we trade Ike/Quis for, could be our packup defensive post guy, whil;e Purphy should retain his backup job.

    Diener stays, Rush if we can keep him. Williams let him play the backup SF role. We are pretty set if we get all we need with what we have.
    TBird's Perimeter Defender thread is much better at explaining why I think we need a perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot.

    I agree that getting a better PG and Center is as important....but realistically.....getting a perimeter defender at the SG spot is much easier then acquiring the type of PG or Center that I think we would need to make a difference on this team. Getting a defensive minded perimeter defender to help limit the sheer # of 3pt shots made against us ( that ends up making scrubs put up All-Star #s against us ) would go a LONG way to improving the defense of this team. Getting a stronger perimeter defender at the SG/SF spot isn't going to transform us into a top-notch Defensive team but it's a cheap and simple way to make a decent impact to this team with the paper-thin perimeter defense that we have.
    Last edited by CableKC; 04-21-2008 at 02:02 AM.
    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.

  16. #16
    Pacers 4 Life.31 and only Pacers4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Age
    25
    Posts
    611

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    points 1 and 2, i don't think i could possibly disagree more. while im not one to judge someones jump shot per se (they're in the NBA for a reason, it obviously works) but maybe you haven't noticed Mike pretty much makes a V with his legs during his follow through. I love him and he's good as hell, but its a gross shot.
    and as for point 2, while i think neither of them are great at it, i think that simply because Danny is more athletic that hes better at it. He's just going to continue to get better and better at it whereas what Mike does currently is exactly what we will continue to get. (again not complaining, i love mikes drives)
    my $0.2
    Reggie Miller is a God. Period.

    Passion. Pride. Pacers.

    It's ALWAYS Miller Time.
    #31 & Only


  17. #17
    Member skyfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Age
    32
    Posts
    1,558

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I think Granger is pretty close to untouchable unless you get a deal that you just cant refuse. I think Mike is pretty close to his peak, where as Granger will likely improve for the next 2-3 seasons before his peak even starts.

    I would listen to offers for Mike, but unless you are going to get an above average starting PG or C you'd probably start the new season with those two at the swing positions.

  18. #18
    Member andreialta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pleasanton
    Age
    25
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    i still think Mike isn't done improving yet at all. neither is Danny. both of them go well with each other. i think other positions are what we need to fill. Mike is such a late bloomer but Danny isn't.

    we need a off the bench defensive stopper.
    [SIGPIC]Dun Dun shooting form![/SIGPIC]

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Let's take a poll....



    Oops..wrong chart.

  20. #20
    Denim Chicken duke dynamite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Bloomington
    Posts
    13,373
    Mood

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I would keep both of them. They can only get better. That's the bottom line. Sorry I'm not going into detail...

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,089

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Our perimeter defense says Dunleavy is the one to go.

  22. #22
    Member Evan_The_Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Indianapolis, In. via Oakland, Ca.
    Age
    33
    Posts
    3,406

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Call Danny's 40% beyond the arc streaky, say we don't want to pay him, overlook the fact that he's one of the only defenders we have, but I just have one question.

    In the three most important games of this season, who stepped up the most?

    Danny.

    Dunleavy played a part but when it came down to it, Danny took over. He did something that Jermaine has been talking about doing since Reggie said it was Jermaine's team. The only thing is that Danny never talked about it, he just went out and did it. Next season Danny is our leader. Bird knows it, O'Brien knows it, Jermaine knows it, and Danny knows it.

    I'd like to keep both Danny and Mike around, but if I had to choose, we'd be flat out stupid to let Danny go unless it gives us a ridiculously sweet deal in return.

  23. #23
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,063

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan_The_Dude View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Call Danny's 40% beyond the arc streaky, say we don't want to pay him, overlook the fact that he's one of the only defenders we have, but I just have one question.

    In the three most important games of this season, who stepped up the most?

    Danny.

    Dunleavy played a part but when it came down to it, Danny took over. He did something that Jermaine has been talking about doing since Reggie said it was Jermaine's team.
    I agree there. Danny does have the potential to be clutch down the stretch. I can see him being a better go-to guy than Dunleavey. However, he doesn't have the skills yet to really pull it off. But he's a hard worker and could possibly get there.

    Another factor in this overall question: I think Dun's game may be more enduring. Danny depends more on athleticism, Dun more on finesse. I can see Dun being effective when he's 38. That being the case, the age issue may be a wash between the two players.

    Like I said at the beginning, I want to keep both. I just wanted to give Dun some love.

    Actually, I'm intrigued by the idea of two very unselfish players like Danny and Dun working together and building a true team. It sure provides an interesting contrast to the days of JO and Ron.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  24. #24

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    The bottom line is that neither Granger or Duns are capable of being
    THE go-to guy on an elite team. Duns has the higher Bball-IQ and
    feel for the game while DG is a superior (though only average for
    an NBA wing, which will ultimately limit his upside no matter how
    much he works on his skill-set) athlete. But neither will ever be
    the guy to fill that marquee role.

  25. #25
    How are you here? Kegboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northside Bias
    Posts
    12,951

    Default Re: Between Granger and Dunleavey, I'd take Mike.

    I have no problem getting rid of either one. However, we must remember that Danny is up for his extension, so we're talking $50-60M easy. That's another $10M a year, which means $20M for two guys who play the same position.

    However, that extension doesn't kick in until next year and Danny is still under his rookie contract. So I'd look at it this way. If Player X makes $10-12M a year, we could trade Mike for him. Or, we could trade Danny+Troy for him. Yes, Danny has the bigger upside, but dropping that much salary is sure enticing.
    Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

Posting Permissions

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