That's true, but this isn't people wanting to trade just to trade. Rather, people seem to have insanely different perceptions of the players in question.Anyone is available for the right price. But player hate is not a good reason to change a player unless all your fans hate him, ie Jamaal. Pacers are not in need of different players, they are in need of players that make a difference. In other words, not players that may or may not be better. Not a bunch of not quite as good player for Danny, but players that are a lot better. Players that make the Pacers a much better team, not players that make it a different team.
Most times making a trade just to make a trade is a bad idea. This is one of those times.
I mean, between Danny being a proven winner, a tough guy and a good defender to him basically being a Barbosa level player in decline. I seem to have missed both of those trains.
And on the other hand, the David Lee = Troy Murphy comparison. It just seems like "hmm, double double guy with bad defense from GSW... hey, that reminds me of Troy Murphy!" comparison.
IMO, Lee is so much better and more efficient offensively (post moves, passing, shot selection), and plays with so much more effort/hustle.
If he was a good defender on top of it, he'd be a perennial All Star.
To me, Danny and David Lee are in the same tier of players.
Imperfect, in their prime, but right outside of the All Star level.
If contracts were identical, you'd choose one or another based on your needs. If Lee comes with a high lotto pick (won't happen, but lets say), you'd have to think hard.
To me, it's an obvious asset upgrade, so it's not "a trade just to trade". It doesn't mean it's a nobrainer --- if you believe it kills your chemistry, identity, playing style, you can still pass. It's not that rare to pass on a talent upgrade because it makes no sense. But neither doing that trade, nor passing on it seems like a nobrainer to me.
(but it does seem like a nobrainer for GSW to hang up, since they quite obviously lose on talent and open up a huge gap in their rotation)
Lateral moves are still worth doing if it means the talent going out was not as good of a fit with the rest of your roster as the talent coming in.
I agree with some of this, but the thing is this as a pacer forum where people should throw out whatever idea they have, at the least it sparks conversation, whether they think they are better than bird or not. Every move our management makes or does not make will be criticized for one reason or another and that is fine.
Also there is nothing wrong with putting out their grand ideas, if you are not invested in what you are saying and don't feel like it will be helpful then what is the use in putting it. I can honestly say that I have no clue at what Birds full plan is, or if it will work, but I will say what I think should happen and what I feel the pacers need to do to get a championship, whether it happens or not does not really matter, but being free to voice my opinion and back it up with reasoning is all I care about.
If everyone just followed Bird's plan(whether it is the best or not) and did not think of anything else, a big portion of this website would be wiped out. I feel this website allows for learning and teaching and I really appreciate that.
Why so SERIOUS
"What you do is so loud, I can't hear what you say" -Andrew LuckFreshman at the University of Louisville
"If you turn the other cheek, I'm gonna hit you in the other cheek, too" -Charles Barkley
"Ego is edging greatness out" -Rick Pitino
Greenfield-Central High School Alum '14
Follow me on Twitter @jwy49
1000th post - 4/16/12 2000th post - 6/24/12 3000th post - 3/8/13
Golden State has said they won't be keeping all 4 picks this year and are looking for veteran help. Instead of looking at Granger, maybe we could offer Jones for one of their 2cd. round picks. We could use the extra cap space to take a bigger swing in free agency.
As far as lateral moves, is it lateral for now, is it lateral for the future, are you trading a vet for potential, who will you be able to get with the 7th pick, how will they fit the scheme and the chemistry of the team, I think there is so much to go into saying if a move is lateral or not, and I really think that can not be determined right away, it has to be something that is determined over time, especially when you are dealing with the big P word, POTENTIAL.
Why so SERIOUS
He would have signed with us because the Spurs don't need him AND don't have the cash to commit long term to him. Either way he would have ended up with another team and the Pacers would have been a playoff team regardless.
The funny part in all this is that we don't set Hills value and neither did/does SA. The market regardless will telll us if Hill will get overpaid and IMO that is 7 million or more.
With the #7, we could get Perry Jones, who can play 3-4-5, which would allow him to backup Paul George at the 3, as well as West and Hibbert at the 4/5. I don't know if I would necessarily give Granger away for just the #7, though.
"Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
- Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh
He has a better chance guarding the nba 2 than the 5, I think he will be best at guarding the 3 and the stretch 4, if he can get a little stronger I would say 3 and 4, he has a ton of potential but again the question comes up, how much do you really feel like gambling, chemistry, potential, vet leadership, role, very tricky...
Why so SERIOUS
Really I don't have any problem with people disagreeing with the majority, but some do so nearly all the time which makes me think they are either dumb or just like to argue.
Why so SERIOUS
Greg Monroe is the guy who I thought the Warriors should have drafted in 2010 (and I still think this way), but I think he's overrated by a lot of people. He skilled, but for a bigman, he's a little more Troy Murphy-esque than people realize.