Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 39 of 39

Thread: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

  1. #26
    Member Ace E.Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,265

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Randolph_HorseLips View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Agreed.

    Also, I'm not so sure about this argument that younger players definitely develop better with someone like Granger absent. The more weapons that are on a team, the more difficult you become to defend. Everyone benefits from that. A player like PG may get fewer opportunities with someone like Granger on the floor, but he probably gets better quality opportunities. This is evident in stats... Paul George's shot attempts are way up this year, but his FG% is down. He's forced things a bit more than he did last year, and I'm not sure that's great for development.

    I never thought of Danny Granger as a "superstar" or a top 10 player in the NBA. But he is what he is... a 20 PPG type of guy that you have to account for.
    I for one am in the boat that feels that Lance would have broken out regardless of being a starter or not. Many forget the Bobcats game early in the season (2nd game?) when he came off the bench and showcased his ability in much the same way he has as a starter.

    As for Paul George, if he is indeed a star in this league, he would have been able to be a star WITH Granger in the lineup as well.

    Losing a guy who is an annual 18-20ppg scorer from your line up who is also taking up 13+ million dollars in cap-space is NEVER a good thing IMO

  2. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unclebuck View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If Granger comes back better than ever, then sure it helps the franhise long term. if he never can play again obviously not. if he comes back, but is never quite the same player as he was, then no.
    So the answer is no then.

  3. #28
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,613

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There was a rumor about Utah giving up Milsap and other piece for him, anything you could have got for him was/is gravy at that point.

    All the rumors over the years have been shut down by the Pacers declaring Danny pretty much untouchable, that was and would always be ridiculous.
    I thought the rumor was that it was Milsap+Burks for Granger+Lance.

    Assuming that the Pacers have every intention of re-signing Milsap ( which I assume that they would )...I'd have no problem giving up Granger for Milsap....but include Lance while getting back only Alec Burks?

    Pass if it costs us Lance while replacing him with Burks.

    I am trying to understand your position on this. I know that you've been calling for Granger's trade due to your "now validated" concerns and that getting "something" is better than nothing at this point ( cuz 20/20 hindsight is always clear )...but are you implying that the Pacers didn't try to move him at all cuz you think that he's "untouchable"?
    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.

  4. #29
    CA Pacer Fan A-Train's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    All this talk of trading Granger this year assumes that there was another team who was serious about taking on a guy with a bad knee. Seems like a lot to assume.

    We may want to make a trade, but it takes two to tango. We should stop looking at the Pacers' desire (or lack thereof) to trade Granger, but instead look at who out there was willing to trade for him. Was there really anyone? Really?

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to A-Train For This Useful Post:


  6. #30
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,613

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    All this talk of trading Granger this year assumes that there was another team who was serious about taking on a guy with a bad knee. Seems like a lot to assume.

    We may want to make a trade, but it takes two to tango. We should stop looking at the Pacers' desire (or lack thereof) to trade Granger, but instead look at who out there was willing to trade for him. Was there really anyone? Really?
    Just because Granger wasn't traded doesn't mean that the Pacers FO didn't try to move him.

    It's not as much "it takes two to tango", it's more that I think that the Pacers were only a willing partner to dance with..when it came to parting ways with Granger....the problem is that I suspect that the Pacers didn't find a dance partner that they were hoping to find. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers made it known that Granger was available and there were some Teams that were willing to make an offer for Granger.

    The problem is that I suspect that those Teams just didn't make the Pacers an offer that made sense ( maybe taking on too much long-term salary? ) or wasn't getting back assets that fit their needs.
    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.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  8. #31
    CA Pacer Fan A-Train's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Just because Granger wasn't traded doesn't mean that the Pacers FO didn't try to move him.

    It's not as much "it takes two to tango", it's more that I think that the Pacers were only a willing partner to dance with..when it came to parting ways with Granger....the problem is that I suspect that the Pacers didn't find a dance partner that they were hoping to find. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers made it known that Granger was available and there were some Teams that were willing to make an offer for Granger.

    The problem is that I suspect that those Teams just didn't make the Pacers an offer that made sense ( maybe taking on too much long-term salary? ) or wasn't getting back assets that fit their needs.
    Exactly.

  9. #32
    Member Ichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    213

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    There was a rumor about Utah giving up Milsap and other piece for him, anything you could have got for him was/is gravy at that point.

    All the rumors over the years have been shut down by the Pacers declaring Danny pretty much untouchable, that was and would always be ridiculous.
    A Rumor.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Ichi For This Useful Post:


  11. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I thought the rumor was that it was Milsap+Burks for Granger+Lance.

    Assuming that the Pacers have every intention of re-signing Milsap ( which I assume that they would )...I'd have no problem giving up Granger for Milsap....but include Lance while getting back only Alec Burks?

    Pass if it costs us Lance while replacing him with Burks.

    I am trying to understand your position on this. I know that you've been calling for Granger's trade due to your "now validated" concerns and that getting "something" is better than nothing at this point ( cuz 20/20 hindsight is always clear )...but are you implying that the Pacers didn't try to move him at all cuz you think that he's "untouchable"?

    Bird told us many times that Danny was pretty much untouchable, maybe he is not as untouchable with this front office but Pritchard shutting down the rumors that the Pacers were shopping him around doesnt really tell me that they wanted to trade him that much, as they said they wanted to keep "the core together" and "the trade deadline best acquisition was coming back".

  12. #34
    CA Pacer Fan A-Train's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Because FO's never give misleading statements in public. They always tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
    Last edited by A-Train; 03-29-2013 at 09:14 PM.

  13. #35
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,613

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bird told us many times that Danny was pretty much untouchable
    If it was known in the 2011-2012 season that he would have an injury that would get progressively worse and that it would ultimately lead to missing the upcoming season, then I agree that not consider trading Granger is a mistake.

    But up until the end of the 2011-2012 Playoffs and prior to it becoming known that he would miss a big part of the season......when it came to Bird and deciding what to do with Granger....I don't see why the Pacers would consider trading Granger unless some super "no-brainer" offer came along.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    maybe he is not as untouchable with this front office but Pritchard shutting down the rumors that the Pacers were shopping him around doesnt really tell me that they wanted to trade him that much, as they said they wanted to keep "the core together" and "the trade deadline best acquisition was coming back".
    Is it not unreasonable to think that throughout the month of January and February, the Pacers FO were closely monitoring the progress of Granger and that they thought that he could return while playing at a level that would be comprable to any Player that the Pacers could get in a trade for him?

    It really seemed like Granger was ready to return and contribute towards the end of January ( right around the trade deadline ). The FO gambled on Granger ( thus keeping Team chemistry and the core together ....something that the FO and Vogel values ) and ( at best ) not accepting any offers ( assuming that there were any ). Unfortunately, the FO rolled snake eyes on the bet that Granger would be the improvement to the bench that they are looking for and we are where we are right now.

    I have no problem with gambling and losing out.

    Being one of the few PD members that were voicing real concerns about Granger's injury......I can see why you are irritated why the FO ultimately didn't do anything at the trade deadline. I hate that Granger's season turned out this way and it ultimately screwed the Team's chances to improve the roster going into the Playoffs....but ***** happens and there isn't much that we can do other than to live with the cards that we are dealt.
    Last edited by CableKC; 03-29-2013 at 11:56 PM.
    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.

  14. #36
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cactus Jax View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Paul, I think he would've been an all-star possibility still this season.
    Lance, I'm more curious about. He would've been a DNP while Green was around at the beginning of the season, and minimal minutes once GG was benched, and OJ would've never seen the court, so I think in a lot of ways, it helped the depth of the team.
    But how is the team deeper if you swap borderline all-star Danny for "kinda getting it together at times" or "great for a rookie 2nd round pick"?

    See that's what's lost in all this. Everyone is all happy about the Lance and/or OJ development (I won't even get into how Jordan had to be injured for Pippen to become an all-star, ie 33 and 24), but we would NOT HAVE NEEDED THEM this year as much if Danny was healthy. So the team is not deeper this year, not even close.

    This moves us on to next year, but now we have Danny's last year and an unknown recovery that seems less likely to happen than it did before. And even when he returns you have the possibility that he's used as a trade to save lux tax space. So you still don't have more depth. And West might be a priority, but he's not resigned yet. Then you have Paul, Lance, Tyler, DJ, Young. You could even have Green be traded. Some movement might be for the positive, I'm not mad about losing Tyler for example. But the reality is that the roster going forward is not certain to have this group of players and to not suffer some amount of loss.

    So that means that next year they might not get Danny back (or others over the next 2 years).

    And in turn that means that UNLESS LANCE OR OJ BECOME AN ALL-STAR NEXT YEAR then the team ISN'T EVEN AS DEEP as they would have been with Danny.



    Hey, wouldn't it be great if Roy, West and Hill missed the whole year too. Then Ben, Pendy and Miles would become great getting minutes they just can't now. And that would make the team so much deeper because we'd be starting our bench and sure all the starters are out but look how deep we are....except now our starters are bench players and our bench is guys that wouldn't play at all. That's not deeper, that's SHALLOWER.

    OJ and Lance would have been as talented even if Danny was here. That would be depth. Having a guy barely getting minutes that COULD handle big minutes if needed, that's the definition of depth. Having to use your depth up to stay afloat is not depth. That's losing depth. When you lose talented players, you lose depth. Period.



    Portland didn't play JO much. But that didn't turn him into a bad player, it just meant people didn't get to see it. That meant that Portland was deep on frontline guys, which was very true. They had a 13-8 kid that couldn't get off the bench. When he came to Indy he didn't see a huge per36 jump in his numbers, he just got to put up those numbers over more minutes. He got better with the PT, sure, but if Portland had kept him and started giving him minutes it would have been the same there.

    Meaning that not playing doesn't inherently mean you aren't learning, maturing or able to play when called on. It just means that fans and the press don't know what you can or can't do. Lance and OJ would have still been Lance and OJ.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  16. #37
    NaptownSeth is all feel Naptown_Seth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Downtown baby
    Posts
    12,618

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Future View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In the sense of developing Stephenson and George, yes.

    His trade value is at an all time low now following surgery. He will only be valued as an expiring contract next season unless he can be productive again.
    And this is another way in which depth was lost. If you totaled up "value" like it's NBA2K or something, then the Pacers have less total value with Danny hurt like this. You not only lost his production, but his value to swap for different but equal value.

    Really it's a bit like having your car get hail damage and getting insurance for it. "Ha Ha" you think, the joke is on the insurance company. You buy a new TV and leave the dents in the car, you sure got over on them. The only problem is you actually traded car value for the TV, you didn't get it for free. Later when you go to trade it in you'll find out. Your bank account wasn't any deeper than the Pacers are by having to "cash in their insurance" with Lance taking over for Danny, and OJ taking over for Lance.


    The Pacers CAN'T AFFORD to keep "good Granger", and if DG returns at a level that means they can pay for him then it means he's not as good. Their best outcome was to have him this year, a full off-season of prep together and making their run at it all before they have to break up the band a bit, ala OKC/Harden.

    Does anyone view OKC as "deeper" with Harden gone? And he was traded even, not just out with injury.



    I'm not trying to be a d*** and ruin this for people. I'm happy about what Lance and OJ have shown. But people are confusing "silver lining" with "blessing in disguise". This is a silver lining, the one good thing that can be found in something that is definitely a negative overall. It's not secretly a good thing overall. That would be if Danny was hurt for a year, the team stunk, won the lottery and drafted Duncan only to have Danny also return. This ain't that.
    Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 03-30-2013 at 12:32 AM.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Naptown_Seth For This Useful Post:


  18. #38

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    Pacers won't win the first round without him. They NEED him.

  19. #39
    CA Pacer Fan A-Train's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,281

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    This post asks two very different questions:

    Long term, did the Granger injury help the Pacers?

    To this, I would say no, because long term Paul and Lance should have been able to grow into the players they are now. It just would have taken a little longer with Granger there as the leading scorer. But, the team, with a healthy Granger this year, would have been deeper and stronger, IMO.

    Would Paul and Lance have developed into what they are now, if Granger had played a normal healthy season?


    This year? No. Eventually, I'd think so. But, to think George would have been an All-Star this year, if Granger had been healthy, is not reasonable.

    I agree with Seth about this being a silver lining rather than a blessing in disguise. It's a subtle, but valid distinction. While I'm happy to see George progress like he has in Danny's absence, I would have been happy to see George become an All-Star next year while playing alongside Danny this year.

Similar Threads

  1. Hibbert as a long term injury risk?
    By docpaul in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-05-2011, 04:57 PM
  2. Pacers Long-term Trend of 3pt Shooting
    By Putnam in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-07-2010, 01:08 PM
  3. Does Dunleavy have a long term role for this Pacers squad?
    By Trader Joe in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 01-01-2009, 11:10 AM
  4. IndyStar: Pacers' Granger wants long-term deal
    By duke dynamite in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: 07-14-2008, 01:48 PM
  5. Tbird's long term thoughts....the Pacers long term interests
    By thunderbird1245 in forum Indiana Pacers
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 11-27-2006, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

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