We trade Granger for Love, 4, and 16. QUOTE]
I'd do this trade in a heartbeat never looking back while skipping and whistling a tune.
If we can get our Rondo by picking up a late 1st and make at least a decent selection at 10 then maybe we can stay in the top 5 next year and have enough groceries in the cupboard to make a trade for a Garnett and an Allen to go with Danny sooner than you would think.
Not sure how much faith I have in Larry to pull all that off in teh next 2 or 3 years and Indy isnt exactly the #1 destination of choice for most of the leagues All Stars which could be a problem as well.
[QUOTE=Justin Tyme;1000521]I'd do the same thing. The Pacers aren't going to win with Granger. I love the guy too, but he is starting to get older and this team isn't really going anywhere anytime soon. Best to go young and then next year bring in a coach who knows how to develop young guys (whoever that would be).
I do that trade and the person who mentioned trying to trade for Brand and the #2. I want Turner!!!
The entire draft. Love the picks of Turner, Young and trading for Christmas.
Signing Glen Robinson III
Trading for Budinger
Signing Monta Ellis
Signing Jordan Hill (not for the player, but for his deal)
Re-signing Stuckey and Allen
Love's a super-skilled big man capable of putting up 20 points a night and who has shown signs of being a dominant rebounder. Throw in the #4 pick, where a good pick up can easily land you an All-Star, and I think I'd have to do it. There's also the fact that #4 would make it much easier to move up to #2 or 3 and draft Evan Turner,
[QUOTE=Sparhawk;1000546]He's only 27 turning 28 in April next year. Granger will outlast most SF's, since he doesn't attack the basket aggressively, and is pretty much a shooter. Granted, JOB will shorten his longevity, if he keeps playing Granger at the 4, but hopefully the next coach won't do that.
Some of you are putting way too much value in getting "younger" with unknown talent vs. continuing to build around the solid talent that we already have. Indiana is NOT an untalented team. We just have too many holes to plug (due to injuries), and we have a coach who doesn't know how to plug those holes (D. Jones/Granger at the PF, two PGs in the backcourt, benching a rookie PG w/promise, calling a young PF's inspiring play irrelevent, publicly dogging a young SG, relying too much on the 3, etc).
As easily we can get the next Kevin Durant, we could just as easily end up with the next Greg Oden.
I'll admit I have not seen Love play all that often, but I don't understand the love for Love. he doesn't seem very good to me, perhaps a decent smart workman type player, but hardly a difference maker at all
AND neither were either Davis' difference makers. BUT they brought talents that could be used successfully.
Love is a rebounder, excellent passer, and can score. He's not the fleetest of foot but neither were either DD or AD. Love isn't the "D" player/enforcer DD was, but he plays decent "D".
Love has more upside to come, only a 2nd year player, and is 9 mil cheaper than Granger. SF is the easiest position to fill, and there are some nice SF talent in this draft. I'm not going to try and snow you that there is a SF in this draft better than Granger, but having the #4, and 16 picks to use to better this team for the future would be a major plus.
I like Granger, but I'm not a fanatic about him. He's had injuries, he plays less "D" than his 1st 2 seasons, and I'm not sure he will ever be an Allstar again. Then on top of that "IF" Dunleavy gets his game back, he makes it easier to have traded Granger, and his next contract should be 3-5 mil less a year than Granger while developing a player like Paul George, Stanley Robinson, or Gordon Hayward for the future.
I gather your cup of tea is a good PG. Just think with the 4 and 16 picks you could get a Bledsoe, Bradley, or a White for the PG of the future. OR trade the 16 pick and player for Collison who you seem to like. Then with the expirings of Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster, Solo and Tinjury you can even do more.
If I'm going to have to watch a 32-36 win team, I'd rather watch one that is building for a championship run in 3-4 years with youth. JMOAA
I'm not trying to sell you I'm right, just pointing out the possibilities. JMOAA
What makes you believe they won't be used to get better? If there's any way to use them (which there are) I'd have to believe Bird and Co wouldn't be stupid enough to not use them. We've seen heaps of situations in the past where teams give up talent for expirings. The Lakers wouldn't still be in the playoffs if it wasn't for the Grizzlies giving them Gasol. Rasheed Wallace when he went to the Pistons is another example. Jameison to the Cavs is the latest example.
Also, 28 is not old. The Paul Pierce comparison is pretty good I think. Not saying they're the same player, but their situations were pretty similar. If he was 32, sure I'd agree, but not at 28.
We absolutely need more talent, but I think that can be garnered by drafting intelligently as well as making use of those expirings.
Edit: Danny only turned 27 last month.
Last edited by pacerDU; 05-28-2010 at 12:59 PM.
I think either trade option would work. love the 4th pick and 16th pick , or flynn 4th pick and 16th pick. Both love and flynn have tremendous upside.
You have to explore all options. To get out of mediocrity you have to make some dramatic moves. If it means trading Granger than you need to at least explore the options. Getting a young up and coming player and two high first round draft picks would be great, but I'm sure there are other teams willing to trade for him. What about New Orleans, Portland, Philly, or New Jersey. I hope Bird is at least exploring the options.
As for Grangers age, I don't think it is a factor yet. We could turn it around in 2 years and he will only be 29. It is more about him being the top asset that we have. We are rebuilding and need to explore all options.
Really, I am amazed that people think there is even a possibility that a team gives up the equivelant of basically 3 top 15 picks for Danny Granger.
"Cut yourself a slice of life before eternal cold comes down" MRH
It all dries up and blows away
I'd hang around just to see
But they never had much use for me
In Levelland. (James McMurtry)
I normally undervalue Pacer players.
I think we have the 30th best backcourt in the league for instance and that is actually being kind since Phoenix, Boston and probbaly others have better backups at the 1 and 2 than we have starting.
Granger is a top 15 player.
Very few players can average 25 /gm and be solid defenders and rebounders as well.
I think he is an older Kevin Durant. A similiar talent to Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki.
Hes not in the elite class of players but he is in the next tier.
That is my issue with trading him and in getting enough value in return for him.
Kevin Love and DeMarcus Cousins may sound liek a kings ransom to some....but Love is only marginally above average at his position and Cousins could be a complete bust.
At the end of teh day I probably wouldn't make the trad either but I have a strong suspicion that I would regret passing on such a trade if it was available.
I like Granger a lot. But comparing him to Paul Pierce is laughable.
Pierce has played in 94 playoff games and led or helped lead the
Celtics to 3 EC Finals and 2 NBA Finals. As a result, he may well
end up being an NBA, Hall of Fame inductee.
What has DG done thus far that is even remotely comparable ?
How good were teh Celtics before Garnett and Allen arrived ??
The playoff comparison implies that Pierce alone is capable of winning playoff gms ..........which isnt true.
Joe Johnson, Kevin Durant and Chris Bosh havent won meaningful playoff games. LeBron doesnt have a ring................neither does Howard or Dirk . Amare never made teh Finals.
Granger and Pierce are different players but they are comparable in their staus as All Star level players.
Give us Garnett or even Gasol and you would be surprised how quickly teh Pacers would start winning playoff games.
A bunch of those playoff games and 1 of the EC Finals appearances
were prior to KG and Allen arriving in Boston. And aside from Antoine
"I never met a bad shot I won't chuck up" Walker, those Celts teams
were a bunch of role players and Pierce.
I'm not trying to overly inflate Pierce or needlessly denigrate Granger.
But they simply aren't on the same level as NBA players.
Pierce has been a perrenial All-Star and hit more big, clutch shots in
huge playoff games than can be counted. Granger has been an All-Star
once, may or may not ever be again and hasn't played a meaningful
role in even a single, playoff game.
Note: Given that Pierece is 33 and DG is only 27, if forced to choose
between them, while Pierce has certainly been and still is
the superior player, going forward, I'd take Granger.
Last edited by Hillman's 'Fro'; 06-02-2010 at 08:28 AM. Reason: adding to post
I put DG in the mid-20's or so. Therein lies our difference of opinion
on him. Nice to have a place like PD to hash it all out...