# Chad Ford - What's still to come before the trade deadline?



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeTalk-080218



> Portland Trail Blazers
> 
> The Blazers could probably leave well enough alone. The team is playing ahead of expectations, and it has a great young core. Next season, with a healthy Greg Oden, the Blazers could be a real threat in the West. But GM Kevin Pritchard has one of the itchiest fingers in the West as well as looming roster issues, and I'm told he's been among the most active GMs on the phones, trying to make something happen.
> 
> His goal is to take a number of smaller assets and turn them into core players at point guard and small forward. He made a determined effort to nab Devin Harris from Dallas and also has been in hot pursuit of the Pacers' Danny Granger. He may land neither, but he is ready to give up players like Travis Outlaw, Sergio Rodriguez, Jarrett Jack and Martell Webster if the right opportunity comes up.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

B_&_B said:


> http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=TradeTalk-080218


There is also mention of Portland in the Miami write-up. 

I can't imagine what it would be though


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> There is also mention of Portland in the Miami write-up.
> 
> I can't imagine what it would be though


Haslem maybe? That's all I could think of.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Good grief. I had no idea Pritchard was so eager to make a trade. He'd better be careful, because the wrong trade could undermine all the progress we've been making--not to mention destroy the good will he has created by putting this young team together.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> There is also mention of Portland in the Miami write-up.
> 
> I can't imagine what it would be though


...


> Miami Heat
> 
> The Shawn Marion trade may just be the tip of the iceberg for Miami. Pat Riley won't ever move into true rebuilding mode.
> 
> He's trying to use the expiring contracts of Jason Williams and Ricky Davis to add a couple of more pieces to the Heat's core. He's been eyeing Mike Miller and Kyle Lowry from Memphis as well as some of the Blazers.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> Good grief. I had no idea Pritchard was so eager to make a trade. He'd better be careful, because the wrong trade could undermine all the progress we've been making--not to mention destroy the good will he has created by putting this young team together.


Just because Chad Ford writes it, doesnt mean its true.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

J-Dub and/or the Cockroach? No thanks! 

I don't think of KP as having an "itchy finger." That was Trader Bob. Pritchard is single-minded about what he wants, and he's willing to negotiate incessantly to get it. He's doing the right thing by trying to shore up the starting positions not currently manned by Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I have a feeling Chad Ford has mostly rumor and innuendo at his disposal ... likely GM's who covet Travis and/or other guys on the team as his primary sources.

That being said KP has to make moves either now or in the offseason (probably draft day) to create roster space, and I just don't foresee this team continuing to go with the 10 man rotation we've grown accustomed to watching this year.

If I were KP I'd be loathe to surrender Travis in any deal, but the fact remains that this team is still fairly unsettled at the PG and SF position going forward; and while I don't really want to see anyone traded from this team (okay maybe Sergio, Raef, and Darius) it's going to happen probably sooner rather than later.

_BTW, since when did KP become an "itchy trigger finger" kind of GM? That's news to me._


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> J-Dub and/or the Cockroach? No thanks!
> 
> I don't think of KP as having an "itchy finger." That was Trader Bob. Pritchard is single-minded about what he wants, and he's willing to negotiate incessantly to get it. He's doing the right thing by trying to shore up the starting positions not currently manned by Roy, Aldridge, and Oden.


I'm sure if one of those men came to Portland it would be with another player like Cook or Haslem. For example, 

Jack, Miles and Joel

for

Williams, Davis and Cook 
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...196~193~933&teams=14~14~14~22~22~22&te=&cash=

That works. Anyone looking at the big picture for Portland would jump all over that deal. Both Williams and Davis could simply be bought out, or just wait until they expire this summer. It clear all kinds of cap space, and adds a very good shooter.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

LameR said:


> Haslem maybe? That's all I could think of.




Haslem does like young'ns, but I don't think that means teammates.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Good grief. I had no idea Pritchard was so eager to make a trade. He'd better be careful, because the wrong trade could undermine all the progress we've been making--not to mention destroy the good will he has created by putting this young team together.


Needless to say, I completely disagree.

Doing nothing is virtually guaranteed to "destroy the good will..."

The roster demands consolidation and rationalization. I knew this last summer. It is about as obvious as obvious could be. The only thing that would have changed the dynamic would have been the emergence of a clear cut starting caliber core level player existing on the roster and/or a couple of career ending injuries. Didn't happen, thus what was known long ago still stands.

I am not sure why you find these unchanging (so far) facts so hard to digest.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

outlaw > granger


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I suspect the "itchy trigger finger" business was just a short-hand way of saying Pritchard has a history of making aggressive roster changes. It's not _quite_ the same thing but given how the roster has turned over since Pritchard stepped into office, he clearly _has_ been making moves. He hasn't made many mid-season trades (though there was the Dixon for Jones trade), which, to me, would more reflect an "itchy finger", but he's also not been on the job so very long yet. 

I'd cut writers like Chad Ford more slack in a case like this and, as B&B says, go on to take it all with a grain or two of salt.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> I'm sure if one of those men came to Portland it would be with another player like Cook or Haslem. For example,
> 
> Jack, Miles and Joel
> 
> ...


But why get rid of Joel? That is stupid. We already get beat up enough in the middle. Oden isn't going to make Joel obsolete either. We need both. Terrible trade idea. Trading for Granger would be a better idea since Harris is now gone. But I am not sure how much better Granger is then Outlaw.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

jack for juan dixon? :biggrin: 

i'm sure he'd love to reunite with blakey


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Needless to say, I completely disagree.
> 
> Doing nothing is virtually guaranteed to "destroy the good will..."
> 
> ...


This I agree with, too. I'm still holding out a slim hope that, with the current snags regarding KVH, that Pritchard will be able to re-enter the conversation from a position of greater strength and snatch Harris. I like having depth on the team, but for the overall health and success of the team I think they'll eventaully need clear starters, clear rotation guys, and a handful of guys like LaFrentz, Green, and McRoberts (that is, aging vets and rookies) at the end of the bench. Pritchard and his staff seem to be Very Good at finding "diamonds in the rough" so I'm not too concerned about there always being some degree of quality in seats 13, 14, and 15.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger




This is the single most homerish post I have ever seen. Granger is twice the player Travis is.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger


Well what do you want: a starting SF or a 6th man of the bench SF? I don't think Outlaw will ever be a starter on this team. He needs the ball to be effective and that's why he's in the 2nd unit. Granger's has a better basketball IQ and is a nice 3 point shooter. He plays pretty good defense too.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> This is the single most homerish post I have ever seen. Granger is twice the player Travis is.


Taurean Green >> Chris Paul.

There, now you have a new champion!

barfo


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would be very interested in getting Granger, but don't really know what type of trade the Pacers would do. I know the Pacers are looking at trading O'neal, and my guess is that they would not trade granger until the O'neal trade happened and they knew what they were looking to acquire.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> This is the single most homerish post I have ever seen. Granger is twice the player Travis is.



not at all. granger is a little more polished offensive player than outlaw, but from what i've seen of him he is relatively soft on defense and the boards and turns the ball over a lot for a SF. in fact outlaw actually has a higher PER mainly because he's a better rebounder.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> But why get rid of Joel? That is stupid. We already get beat up enough in the middle. Oden isn't going to make Joel obsolete either. We need both. Terrible trade idea. Trading for Granger would be a better idea since Harris is now gone. But I am not sure how much better Granger is then Outlaw.


You make a great point for this season. Losing Joel would kill us in the middle. I was simply thinking more long term. The loss of Joel, Miles, Raef and Francis in 09' opens up enough cap money to make a run at any player we wanted, or several key players that would make us an overall better team. We will have 1 good pick in the first round, and 2 great picks in the second round this upcoming draft. I think size can be addressed with players at the top of the second round like Jawai, or signing an unrestricted FA like Diop, O'Bryant, Kwame, Doleac or someone else would be good. 


I don't want to lose Joel, but if it meant getting Miles out of here and adding a player like Cook I'd be all for it


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

nikolokolus said:


> _BTW, since when did KP become an "itchy trigger finger" kind of GM? That's news to me._


Maybe when he set the draft-day record for trades? But I agree, I don't think that's a good description of him, although when he knows what he wants he's shown that he'll go after it.



crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger


Woah, I disagree. All the love I have for Outlaw doesn't make him a better player. Granger is starter material, still young, and like Outlaw plays both ends of the court. He's had 5 blocks in two separate games this month. And he's scored 29 points in two separate games this month. 

I think both Harris and Granger are clear upgrades compared to Outlaw, Webster, Jack, & Sergio, but my worry is that we'll have to part with 3, maybe 4, of them to get a decent upgrade, and in my opinion that's just too much at this point, even though their stocks could drop just easily as rise.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> You make a great point for this season. Losing Joel would kill us in the middle. I was simply thinking more long term. The loss of Joel, Miles, Raef and Francis in 09' opens up enough cap money to make a run at any player we wanted, or several key players that would make us an overall better team. We will have 1 good pick in the first round, and 2 great picks in the second round this upcoming draft. I think size can be addressed with players at the top of the second round like Jawai, or signing an unrestricted FA like Diop, O'Bryant, Kwame, Doleac or someone else would be good.
> 
> 
> I don't want to lose Joel, *but if it meant getting Miles out of here and adding a player like Cook* I'd be all for it


Yeah that would be a hard pill to swallow. But I think I would do it too. There are a lot of decent big men coming in the league next year.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger


Dead wrong.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Sorry but I'd rather keep Miles around for another two years doing nothing, and have Joel (a proven defensive minded center) backing up Greg for 18-22 minutes a night as GO adjusts to the league.

Far easier to go out and find an upgrade at the 3 and/or trade for a slight upgrade at the 1 than to try and find a serviceable back-up center in the draft.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Dead wrong.


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/holl...istics?sort=per&qual=true&pos=sf&seasonType=2


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

jack miles

for

battier snyder

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=976~2445~2768~550&teams=22~22~10~10&te=&cash=


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Granger is a much better player than Outlaw. Although, any Granger deal would likley be similar to the proposed Devin Harris deal, and I am not sure if he is that much better. Yes, we need to consolidate talent, but IDK if Its worth it.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> jack miles
> 
> for
> 
> ...


Houston would have to be certifiably insane to go for something like that.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

houston needs a PG and miles still has enough upside left in him that they may take a chance


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

I don't mind giving up any of those players mentioned for (Travis Outlaw, Sergio Rodriguez, Jarrett Jack and Martell Webster) for Danny Granger. I'd love to see us keep Outlaw as the 6th man, but if we could get Granger it'd be awesome. He's a stud. So he probably isn't going anywhere. 

We need stud PG/SF and 3-4 decent players off the bench (Fernandez, Pryzbilla, Jones/Webster, Outlaw). That's the rotation alongside PG/Roy/SF/Aldridge/Oden.

Championship stuff.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> houston needs a PG and miles still has enough upside left in him that they may take a chance


HOW? They have Alston, Francis, Mike James and Aaron Brooks.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> houston needs a PG and *miles still has enough upside left* in him that they may take a chance


:lol::rofl2::rofl:

Wow, that was a good one.

Can I use that? It's gonna kill at parties.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Good grief. I had no idea Pritchard was so eager to make a trade. He'd better be careful, because the wrong trade could undermine all the progress we've been making--not to mention destroy the good will he has created by putting this young team together.


95% of the progress we've made has been because of Kevin Pritchard. The other 5%, I give props to the ping pong ball. He's earned the right to trade anyone he sees fit.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i don't understand all this granger worship. it's not like he's meant a lot of wins to the pacers. yeah he's a great young player, but so is outlaw. everyone is making it sound like the comparison is a no-brainer. 


/48

granger 24.4/7.9 assist/TO 0.85
outlaw 23.3/8.8 assist/TO 1.03

FG% granger .442 outlaw .443
3P granger .393 outlaw .397
(granger much better from FT, so has a better TS%)

outlaw is ~1.5 years younger and improving rapidly.

i think the grass is looking much greener than it really is. maybe someone can explain why granger is supposedly so much better.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Granger is a much better player than Outlaw. Although, any Granger deal would likley be similar to the proposed Devin Harris deal, and I am not sure if he is that much better. Yes, we need to consolidate talent, but IDK if Its worth it.


I think that the Devin Harris rumors just sounded like to much coming from Portland, but I've been throwing things against the wall since I have the day off and I thought this might work.

Would this work for you?


Remember, Indiana is looking to make a deal with Memphis for Miller, Memphis is looking to get salary dump to start the rebuild process. I don't see them moving Gay or Conley. Indiana is looking for talent up grades, as is Portland. I'm sure that Portland can sprinkle cash and picks to help with this move, but everyone gets what they want.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> houston needs a PG and miles still has enough upside left in him that they may take a chance


Yeah this is the type of post that should be quoted in someones sig lol WoW terrible absolutely terrible post!!!


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

crowTrobot said:


> i don't understand all this granger worship. it's not like he's meant a lot of wins to the pacers. yeah he's a great young player, but so is outlaw. everyone is making it sound like the comparison is a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> /48
> ...


After reading this, I cannot explain why Granger is better!



HOWIE said:


> I think that the Devin Harris rumors just sounded like to much coming from Portland, but I've been throwing things against the wall since I have the day off and I thought this might work.
> 
> Would this work for you?
> 
> ...


So pretty much we trade Webster for Granger? I LOVE this trade. The only thing is I don't think Memphis would do it. But I would without 2nd guessing.

Blake
Roy
Granger
LMA
Joel

I could live with that for the rest of the year until we get Oden!!!


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Perfection said:


> I don't mind giving up any of those players mentioned for (Travis Outlaw, Sergio Rodriguez, Jarrett Jack and Martell Webster) for Danny Granger. I'd love to see us keep Outlaw as the 6th man, but if we could get Granger it'd be awesome. He's a stud. So he probably isn't going anywhere.
> 
> We need stud PG/SF and 3-4 decent players off the bench (Fernandez, Pryzbilla, Jones/Webster, Outlaw). That's the rotation alongside PG/Roy/SF/Aldridge/Oden.
> 
> Championship stuff.


I was initially opposed to this, but now the more I think about it, Granger is probably exactly the kind of guy we need at SF. True, he's not a huge upgrade when you compare him straight up with Travis, but you have to remember he is a frontline player getting his minutes and stats against other starters, and he fills a couple of other niches such as being a dead-eye from the foul line and a superb 3 pt shooter (again Travis is very good 3pt shooter but he's taken 58 attempts vs. granger's 247 while the two have an almost identical %).

_(I can't believe I'm stooping to this level, using the trade machine gah!!)_
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...8~2015~3025&teams=22~22~11~11~11~11&te=&cash=

Alternatively I guess you could mix/match guys like Martell into the deal depending on what Indiana would demand?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Here it is. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...768~2795&teams=14~22~29~11~29~11~11&te=&cash=


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

yuyuza1 said:


> Here it is. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...768~2795&teams=14~22~29~11~29~11~11&te=&cash=


Get on the phone with KP! Talk about a win-win for all sides concerned.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Indiana would never deal Granger for Webster. Its a large talent downgrade for them, even taking age/potential into consideration. 

They might do Webster/Rodriguez/future 1st for Granger. Even then, not sure if they go for it. 

Granger would be amazing at SF. He is basically a younger, more talented Battier.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

wow never thought i would get that much grief about my miles comment

i live outside of portland so i guess that factors into alot of your opinions, or maybe it is that d miles is my roommates favorite player (haha dont hate too much he like him from the clipper days)


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> i don't understand all this granger worship. it's not like he's meant a lot of wins to the pacers. yeah he's a great young player, but so is outlaw. everyone is making it sound like the comparison is a no-brainer.
> 
> 
> /48
> ...


Personally, I don't put much weight into per 48 minute stats. Granger is percieved as better (and is better) becasue he has been a productive starter in the league. The dude is averaging 35 mins a game, playing both ends, plays physical and improves each year (he is averaging about 17 points a game and six rebounds).

It's great and all what Travis has done in the first half of the season, but he doesn't deserve to be playing 35 minutes a game for any team right now. To compare a bench player averaging 26 mins a game to a starter averaging 35 mins a game on a per 48 type stat, doesn't give a complete picture of the two being compared, IMO.

I do wonder how many assists Sergio has per 48 mins . . . and how does he rank with the top PGs in the league . . .


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Indiana would never deal Granger for Webster. Its a large talent downgrade for them, even taking age/potential into consideration.
> 
> They might do Webster/Rodriguez/future 1st for Granger. Even then, not sure if they go for it.
> 
> Granger would be amazing at SF. He is basically a younger, more talented Battier.



Please read my post again......the whole thing. Not only would they be getting Webster, they'd be getting Mike Miller along with picks and cash. No where did I say Webster for Granger straight up. I'm sure that there would be more to it, that was the most attractive from a Portland stand point.

I'm sure that Portland would have to take back Troy Murphy's contract. Might mean that Raef's contract isn't going to help us in 2009. Just a thought.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Personally, I don't put much weight into per 48 minute stats. Granger is percieved as better (and is better) becasue he has been a productive starter in the league. The dude is averaging 35 mins a game, playing both ends, plays physical and improves each year (he is averaging about 17 points a game and six rebounds).


outlaw does everything he does including being a productive player at crunch time, except start.



> It's great and all what Travis has done in the first half of the season, but he doesn't deserve to be playing 35 minutes a game for any team right now.


outlaw would be starting for half the teams in the league. he should be starting here.



> To compare a bench player averaging 26 mins a game to a starter averaging 35 mins a game on a per 48 type stat, doesn't give a complete picture of the two being compared, IMO.


often it doesn't, but outlaw isn't your typical "bench" player. he's more like ginobili in that he doesn't start but IS one of the team's top 3 offensive options when it matters.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

ROYisR.O.Y. said:


> wow never thought i would get that much grief about my miles comment
> 
> i live outside of portland so i guess that factors into alot of your opinions, or maybe it is that d miles is my roommates favorite player (haha dont hate too much he like him from the clipper days)


It was more of a result of none of your post making any sense. They're overloaded at PG, more than any other position, and you said they need one. You also assume they're willing to trade Battier, someone who was considered very highly at least before this year, and take on a player who hasn't even proven he can play 5 minutes efficiently with a surgically repaired knee.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw would be starting for half the teams in the league. he should be starting here.


Not to nit pick, but even though travis could start in a lot of different places, the fact remains that he is not really much of a "natural" three. Yes his jumper has made great strides from last season to this, but the fact remains that on this team he's better off playing at the backup four.



> often it doesn't, but outlaw isn't your typical "bench" player. he's more like ginobili in that he doesn't start but IS one of the team's top 3 offensive options when it matters.


I don't want to denigrate what Travis means to this team, because I love his game, and the way he has improved, but the fact that he's our third option has as much to do with Martell being so wildly inconsistent and the fact that Joel is zero offensive threat.

Don't get me wrong Travis is probably the ideal sixth man and his clutch shooting and his performances in the fourth quarters of a lot of games are absolutely great, but if getting Danny Granger means having to give up an asset like Travis then that is a trade worth making.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

nikolokolus said:


> Not to nit pick, but even though travis could start in a lot of different places, the fact remains that he is not really much of a "natural" three. Yes his jumper has made great strides from last season to this, but the fact remains that on this team he's better off playing at the backup four.


totally disagree. he's well suited at 3 and has done very well in the few minutes he gets there. conversely when we try to go with outlaw/frye at 4/5 playing with 3 guards it has for the most part been a matchup disaster.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

I absolutely love the idea of getting granger without losing outlaw. Its like having a second travis to use...which is great.

And we mine as well start trying to dump off Jack, Webster, Sergio, Frye, or whoever else we can, because its going to happen at some point.

Granger is on the verge of becoming a great player. I would welcome Granger just as much as I would Harris.

It's clearly an upgrade at SF and doesnt jeopardize our future at all.

how about this?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

crowTrobot said:


> totally disagree. he's well suited at 3 and has done very well in the few minutes he gets there. conversely when we try to go with outlaw/frye at 4/5 playing with 3 guards it has for the most part been a matchup disaster.


Lately that's true, but the opposite was the case during that magical run in December.

Once again I don't want you to think I'm eager to "give up" a guy like Travis, I'm not, but in this one case *this* trade has merit and would be a clear upgrade. In contrast I thought the Devin Harris for Outlaw and 2 others was a bad idea.

I'd much rather hear that the team is shipping out a combination of guys like Martell, Jack, Frye + draft picks in order to get the deal done, but I have a feeling there would have to be more in it for Indiana (aside from trying to dump bad contracts on us).


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Five5even said:


> I absolutely love the idea of getting granger without losing outlaw. Its like having a second travis to use...which is great.
> 
> And we mine as well start trying to dump off Jack, Webster, Sergio, Frye, or whoever else we can, because its going to happen at some point.
> 
> ...


I think the Heat would be getting short shrift in that deal, and wouldn't go for it.


----------



## ROYisR.O.Y. (Apr 1, 2007)

LameR said:


> It was more of a result of none of your post making any sense. They're overloaded at PG, more than any other position, and you said they need one. You also assume they're willing to trade Battier, someone who was considered very highly at least before this year, and take on a player who hasn't even proven he can play 5 minutes efficiently with a surgically repaired knee.


i got the PG thing from ford's article that said they were looking for one

and snyder is expiring so thats why he is there

ford also said they need athleticism which was miles specialty before surgery


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Take it as a grain of salt, but someone on the O-Live board, who is apparently friends with KP's son, is saying a deal is close. Apparently, the guy has been decently reliable in the past when it came to trades. Again, this is probably(If not certainly) BS. Anyways, supposedly the deal is...

Martell Webster/Jarrett Jack/Channing Frye/2 2008 picks(Unspecified if 1st round) for Danny Granger


I can only hope that deal is true. Because I absolutley love it.

Remember, this is O-Live we are talking about so its about as convincing as a UFO sighting.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Apparently, the guy has been decently reliable in the past when it came to trades.


No, he hasn't. The poster you're referring to just recently joined Olive.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Yeah I saw that O-live post too and I'd rather start getting financial advice from a tarot reader than start taking rumors from that cesspool seriously.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Take it as a grain of salt, but someone on the O-Live board, who is apparently friends with KP's son, is saying a deal is close. Apparently, the guy has been decently reliable in the past when it came to trades. Again, this is probably(If not certainly) BS. Anyways, supposedly the deal is...
> 
> Martell Webster/Jarrett Jack/Channing Frye/2 2008 picks(Unspecified if 1st round) for Danny Granger
> 
> ...


I would love to see something along those lines, but yah, I think its a total BS Source.

Besides, it doesnt even work in Trade Machine. Indy needs to shave off 4.5M of cap space. So if it is true, then there is either another few players involved, or its a multi team deal.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Anyways, supposedly the deal is...
> 
> Martell Webster/Jarrett Jack/Channing Frye/2 2008 picks(Unspecified if 1st round) for Danny Granger
> 
> ...


You must be a Pacers fan.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Take it as a grain of salt, but someone on the O-Live board, who is apparently friends with KP's son, is saying a deal is close. Apparently, the guy has been decently reliable in the past when it came to trades. Again, this is probably(If not certainly) BS. Anyways, supposedly the deal is...
> 
> Martell Webster/Jarrett Jack/Channing Frye/2 2008 picks(Unspecified if 1st round) for Danny Granger
> 
> ...





mmmmmm salt.

obviously that doesn't work without someone else coming back. maybe murphy since his contract sux.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw does everything he does including being a productive player at crunch time, except start.
> 
> 
> 
> outlaw would be starting for half the teams in the league. he should be starting here.


No. Outlaw does not do everything Granger does, Granger give you 35 minutes a night at the SF position . . . that is what are missing and that is why those stats don't tell the whole picture. 

If Outlaw should be starting here . . . why isn't he? Because you know more than Nate? (And if he wasn't starting for these so called half the other teams in the league, then I'm guessing you would say he should be.)

You sit there and wonder why everybody sees it so different than you . . . I think it is either because you are so far advanced in your thinking that you see it clearer than Nate and other coachers and GMs in the league (better than Granger) or you are over reading one half of a season.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

> You must be a Pacers fan.


Well, if one of the picks is our 1st rounder, than I think it sucks. But if both are 2nd rounder, I think it rocks. Imagine this lineup next season....

PG- Steve Blake/2008 1st round pick/Sergio Rodriguez
SG- Brandon Roy/Rudy Fernandez
SF- Danny Granger/James Jones
PF- LaMarcus Aldridge/Travis Outlaw/Josh McRoberts
C- Greg Oden/Joel Pryzbilla

Thats exactly what we need. A deal that shaves down the quantity and brings in quality.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Well, if one of the picks is our 1st rounder, than I think it sucks. But if both are 2nd rounder, I think it rocks. Imagine this lineup next season....
> 
> PG- Steve Blake/2008 1st round pick/Sergio Rodriguez
> SG- Brandon Roy/Rudy Fernandez
> ...


If that's the case why did you include Sergio in your lineup?

:thinking2:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> If Outlaw should be starting here . . . why isn't he?


presumably because martell is a head case with a fragile psyche and/or we want to see as quickly as possible how he is going to develop.



> You sit there and wonder why everybody sees it so different than you . . .


i'm not sure "everybody" necessarily does. agreed that granger as the more proven commodity would be the desired choice by most between the two, but that doesn't mean many GM's wouldn't value outlaw nearly as much or consider outlaw to have an as high or possibly higher ceiling (which is all i'm saying).


----------



## YugoslavianMtnHound (Nov 6, 2007)

How about this one:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2795~250~2760&teams=11~11~11~22~22&te=&cash=


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger


Of the 30 coaches in the NBA, I'm betting at least 20 would disagree with that. Granger's numbers are equal or better, pretty much across the board.

Having a 6th man like Travis is nice, but Granger has the chance to be a well above average starter.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

YugoslavianMtnHound said:


> How about this one:
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2795~250~2760&teams=11~11~11~22~22&te=&cash=


Probably would have to be closer to this:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...8~2015~2795&teams=22~22~11~11~11~11&te=&cash=

that is unless a third team was brought in.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

YugoslavianMtnHound said:


> How about this one:
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...~2795~250~2760&teams=11~11~11~22~22&te=&cash=


I thought about this because Foster is a great banger inside. The only issue is that We would probably have to give up way more than three players. But i dont know how that would work...

probably involves another team or two.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> outlaw > granger


Yeah RIGHT.


----------



## YugoslavianMtnHound (Nov 6, 2007)

Five5even said:


> I thought about this because Foster is a great banger inside. The only issue is that We would probably have to give up way more than three players. But i dont know how that would work...
> 
> probably involves another team or two.


I was meaning to include the 1st round pick from this year 2008. I think that might do it. Foster has a fairly high value not just because he's productive defensively but he's only signed through 2009. I doubt PDX would deal for a long term contract, even to get Granger.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Granger's numbers are equal or better, pretty much across the board.


which is why outlaw has a higher PER : )

granger's rebounding numbers seem pretty weak for a 6'9 player on a team who's best rebounder is jeff foster.



> Having a 6th man like Travis is nice, but Granger has the chance to be a well above average starter.


they are both above average "starters" right now. outlaw just doesn't happen to start even though he's earned it and typically plays starter's minutes in the second half.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

YugoslavianMtnHound said:


> I was meaning to include the 1st round pick from this year 2008. I think that might do it. Foster has a fairly high value not just because he's productive defensively but he's only signed through 2009. I doubt PDX would deal for a long term contract, even to get Granger.


I just noticed that the Indy board has a thread about Mike Miller for Ike and Marquis...

If that was the case then you could have something like this...

oddly enough, it works perfectly in the trade machine....

throw in some draft picks and that might be a potential scenario.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

yuyuza1 said:


> Here it is. http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...768~2795&teams=14~22~29~11~29~11~11&te=&cash=


Holy cow. That's one of the best trades I've ever seen on here.

Props.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Holy cow. That's one of the best trades I've ever seen on here.
> 
> Props.


Thanks, man.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think Miami would want pick(s), too, as they'd have to eat Dunleavy's deal.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Holy cow. That's one of the best trades I've ever seen on here.
> 
> Props.


It matters if Miami wants to take on Dunleyvy's contract. They want to sign Brand when he is a FA.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

If we can get Granger for Martell/Jack/Frye/2008 first rounder I'm absolutely on board. If they really want Outlaw, well then I'd do it if we get to keep our '08 pick. To match salaries we probably would take back Marquis Daniels as I think they'd want to keep Foster and we have little use for him. Granger would be a great addition before Thursday, or anytime really, but in the end I think we probably stand pat until the draft.

Whats with Indiana trading Granger and getting Mike Miller, Bird must want to assemble an all white lineup. They already play Foster/Murphy/Dunleavy, all thats left after trading Granger is dumping Tinsley and Jermaine.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

jack webster and miller all kinda do the same thing (one more efficiently than the other two). i'm sure if indiana were getting back miller they would be more likely to demand outlaw/frye than settle for jack/webs.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

im leaning towards agreeing with crowTrobot here. everyone just assumes granger is better, but the PER number speak for themselves. basically the only things PER doesnt account for are: lock down defense that doesnt result in many steals or blocks(ala bruce bowen, who ritually has a low PER), and intangibles, such as being clutch, or a leader.

i think outlaw is clutch AND a leader. And if he was getting 36 mpg on a team like the pacers, would be getting at least 20 ppg. He is also a better rebounder.

Lots of people want to say that Outlaw is "dumb", or that granger is "smart", but we dont need a team full of Einsteins, we already have a few. we need people who can score and defend.

outlaw for granger, plus adding valuable assets such as sergio, frye, jack, #1's, and #2's? no thanks.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Cool. Good to hear that Pritchard is trying to adress our problem of having too many players for next season. And he understands that we will needa young solid Pg for the future. Harris did slip away, sadly, i wish we could have goten him, would have been perfect. 

Oh well, imo, KP should not make a move now. Wait until the draft and see what happens. Maybe move up and try and snatch Rose or Bayless for our PG of the future.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> presumably because martell is a head case with a fragile psyche and/or we want to see as quickly as possible how he is going to develop.


Ouch . . . Travis is top starting SF on 20 teams but Martell is a head case with a fragile psyche.

Anyways, your thoughts are different than Nate's (maybe your right) since he recently benched fragile psyche Webster and started Jack (not Travis).

But I get what you are saying . . . you basically think Travis is better than Granger. I don't think there is a GM in the league that would agree, but this is a message board and it's all about different opinions . . . and I do hope your right about Travis.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Doing nothing is virtually guaranteed to "destroy the good will..."


You think? Try on this scenario: We trade Outlaw and/or Webster and both of them turn into top-notch NBA players who average 20 pts. a game (which is highly possible). Which means we watched them grow and mature over 3 to 5 years only to let them slip away to another team (a la Jermaine O'Neal), where they finally realized their true potential. Even worse, what if the player we get in return (i.e., Granger) proves to be a poor fit in our system, unlike Outlaw, who is a very popular teammate and a guy who has accepted his role?

In short, there is a considerable amount of risk to trading away some of our young players who still have a great deal of potential in order to find a "quick fix."


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> im leaning towards agreeing with crowTrobot here. everyone just assumes granger is better, but the PER number speak for themselves. basically the only things PER doesnt account for are: lock down defense that doesnt result in many steals or blocks(ala bruce bowen, who ritually has a low PER), and intangibles, such as being clutch, or a leader.


Well then we should keep Outlaw . . . according to PERS he is better than Ray Allen, Jason Kidd, Paul Millsap, Rashard Lewis, JO, Stephen Jackson, Joe Johnson, Tayshaun Prince, Mike Bibby . . . the list goes on. :biggrin:


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Come on man those guys are all having down years or else they wouldnt be putting up AVERAGE or BELOW AVERAGE PER numbers. and he IS better than Paul Millsap.  is Granger better than any of those players??

Has anyone put up a good argument WHY Granger is so much better than Outlaw?

Outlaw is younger by more than a year.
Outlaw is signed for two more years after this one at 4 million a year. Granger is due his extension THIS OFFSEASON. which kills any cap flexibility, especially if raef is involved.

I dont watch enough PACERS basketball to pretend i know Granger in and out, so maybe someone could enlighten me. I never said outlaw was a better player, only that the stats suggest that Granger is not running away with it.


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

How good is Granger anyway? I don't see what people see in him. His numbers this year are just OK. He does shoots well from the field factoring in his three pointers. But his team is struggling in the leastern conference and a quick look at the 82games website shows:

His team performs better when he's off the court than when he's on (-39 on, +175 off)
Defensive field goal percentage is also worse (50.1% on, 47.8% off)
He plays 40% of his time at power forward and is more productive at the 4 than the 3 (PER 19.0 at PF, 16.4 at SF)
Plus he's shooting numbers in the clutch are terrible. (28% FG%, 36% eFG% factoring in 3 pointers) (overall 44% FG%, 51% eFG%)

So perhaps that some of the numbers could be misleading but given that his team has struggled, you can't ignore all of them. 

Just as a comparison here's Outlaw's numbers at 82 games:

On court -1, off court -7
Defensive field goal percentage is better (46.9% on, 49.4% off)
They show he plays almost all his time at PF and their calculation of his PER at PF is 18.6
Shooting percentage in clutch are impressive (55% FG%, 57% eFG%) (Overall 44% FG%, 46% eFG%)


I don't see how we would be much better off with Granger than Outlaw. He's an upgrade from Webster and probably has a higher "upside" but not enough to get me excited to have him on this team. If anything I think Webster will be the better three point shooter and help spread the defenses more than Granger.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

crowTrobot said:


> granger's rebounding numbers seem pretty weak for a 6'9 player on a team who's best rebounder is jeff foster.


I have no idea about Granger's rebounding, but you seem to be implying that Foster is not a good rebounder. He's actually the 9th best rebounder in the league by rebound rate (which is simply a rebounding statistic that adjusts for team pace and minutes played). 

Also, just as a random note because I didn't realize this myself, Joel is at #5.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I hate to become the Granger Defender . . . but it is almost like some other fans looking at Aldridge and saying what is the big deal. The big deal to Blazer fans is the player he is likely to be in a couple of years.

Granger is that player to the Pacers. He leads their team in scoring, free throw percentage and steals. He is an energy player who contributes in all facets of the game and I think more than anything is he is still on the up swing of his career. 

Granger and Outlaw both have potential . . . but Granger has shown more of reaching that potential v. Outlaw, IMO.

That said . . . I love Outlaw and hopes he tears it up this second half of the season.


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I hate to become the Granger Defender . . . but it is almost like some other fans looking at Aldridge and saying what is the big deal. The big deal to Blazer fans is the player he is likely to be in a couple of years.
> 
> Granger is that player to the Pacers. He leads their team in scoring, free throw percentage and steals. He is an energy player who contributes in all facets of the game and I think more than anything is he is still on the up swing of his career.
> 
> ...


OK, I get that he has upside but how much is he worth to us given what we already have? Is he worth sacrificing our potential cap space for? He'll probably command an extension this year that's bigger than what Outlaw makes. 

I could understand how Devin Harris could make a positive net improvement on this team with his defense, slashing and up-tempo skills and experience on a winning team. Granger, I don't get. I'd rather have Outlaw and Webster. He's a nice young player to have on a team for sure, but I think his asking price is going to way too high. I don't think Jack, Frye, and picks will get it done.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

drexlersdad said:


> im leaning towards agreeing with crowTrobot here. everyone just assumes granger is better, but the PER number speak for themselves. basically the only things PER doesnt account for are: lock down defense that doesnt result in many steals or blocks(ala bruce bowen, who ritually has a low PER), and intangibles, such as being clutch, or a leader.
> 
> i think outlaw is clutch AND a leader. And if he was getting 36 mpg on a team like the pacers, would be getting at least 20 ppg. He is also a better rebounder.
> 
> ...


I so completely disagree. I suggest you go watch Granger. Then you would realize, when Travis Outlaw grows up, if we are lucky, he turns into Danny Granger. :eek8:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I agree with Hasoos. If we somehow landed Granger (which I don't think is happening)(smartass comment by someone coming soon) he would become our second best player right behind Roy immediately.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Ouch . . . Travis is top starting SF on 20 teams but Martell is a head case with a fragile psyche.


outlaw is very humble and has said he doesn't mind coming off the bench. based on past reports about ego issues i'd guess martell probably minds and would be affected if demoted.



> Anyways, your thoughts are different than Nate's (maybe your right) since he recently benched fragile psyche Webster and started Jack (not Travis).


given jack's prior play and the team's recent total lack of success with a dinky lineup that was baffling by anyone's standards. can only hope it was for showcasing purposes.



> But I get what you are saying . . . you basically think Travis is better than Granger. I don't think there is a GM in the league that would agree, but this is a message board and it's all about different opinions . . . and I do hope your right about Travis.


i think they are very close to the same player with outlaw potentially having a slightly higher upside. i also think outlaw's game would be a slightly better fit for us (valuing rebounding and taking care of the ball over offense), not to mention outlaw would likely be 1/2 the price of granger to retain.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> I have no idea about Granger's rebounding, but you seem to be implying that Foster is not a good rebounder.




not at all. i was just saying it's not like the pacers have a dominant center claiming most of the rebound opportunities.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> You think? Try on this scenario: We trade Outlaw and/or Webster and both of them turn into top-notch NBA players who average 20 pts. a game (which is highly possible). Which means we watched them grow and mature over 3 to 5 years only to let them slip away to another team (a la Jermaine O'Neal), where they finally realized their true potential. Even worse, what if the player we get in return (i.e., Granger) proves to be a poor fit in our system, unlike Outlaw, who is a very popular teammate and a guy who has accepted his role?
> 
> In short, there is a considerable amount of risk to trading away some of our young players who still have a great deal of potential in order to find a "quick fix."


I haven't advocated any quick fix trades for players such as Jason Kidd or Shaq. I have advocated making consolidation trades for still young prospects better than the ones we have. Like the idea of multiple pieces for Devin Harris. Thus I haven't advocated any "quick fix" deals, thus you are inserting a strawman.

You want to keep all our young guys. If we do this is what will happen:

1) Players will start to gripe about playing time and starting slots, as their agents, friends and family get into their ear that lack of playing time and low scoring will ruin their career and cost them millions. Since this can be a true statement, there is no refuting it, calming it or fixing it - short of - wait for it.......... trading out those players before this happens. Your vaunted chemistry will fall apart - and right quick. (See: Bulls, Chicago).

2) Some young players will pan out and demand to be paid. They can't all be paid, thus in the future some will be allowed to walk.

3) Some will not pan out and thus lose most of their trade value, and the opportunity the team had to package them in a trade diminishes. If the team wants to retain this low productive player for their bench or deep bench, that player will demand more money than they are worth, claiming they sacrificed by being on a stacked team.

Good franchises lose good young players at times:

San Antonio let Stephen Jackson go when he was a young player. Pop even bemoaned the loss. This season, a few years on, Jackson was considered one of the all-star snubs.

Phoenix let Joe Johnson go. Traded away a high lotto pick (Luol Deng).

Detroit let Mehmet Okur go.

There are other examples.

You could say they should have kept them all. Problem is - they can't. You have to pick and choose which good players to keep if you have too many. That is a better problem to have then too few. And if one breaks out after they leave, is that any different than making a mistake on a free agent signing or a draft pick (like say, choosing Webster over Chris Paul)?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

hasoos said:


> I suggest you go watch Granger. Then you would realize, when Travis Outlaw grows up, if we are lucky, he turns into Danny Granger. :eek8:



I already admitted that i dont get to watch much PACERS basketball. who does?

All i ever see of Granger on ESPN is him making a three or two. For all I know the guy is a lock down defender, and has vision like Magic Johnson. So please, enlighten me if that is the case. 

I understand that Granger is perceived as the superior talent, but I am still waiting for someone to make an argument WHY Granger is better than Outlaw, Martell, Frye, and Jack put together. 

Upside?? Outlaw is younger than Granger people.

Like i said before, maybe someone can explain to me why Granger is soooooo much better than Outlaw. I truly would like someone to tell me. is it some intangible that doesnt show up on the stat sheet?

im not against trading outlaw, but i think it needs to address the pg position.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

nice post, Masbee. Chicago should be our model of what not to do. had they traded in some of their assets, they could have a pretty good, balanced team featuring Deng and Randolph or Deng and Pau. 

or there was a time they probably could have traded Curry and Chandler for Kevin Garnett. 

we are *going *to make mistakes with these young guys. somebody *will *get away from us who we'll look back on and say, "if only we hadn't traded him..."

it's the NBA. it happens to everybody. but you can't let the fear of that happening freeze you into making the even worse decision of doing nothing at all.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

drexlersdad said:


> I already admitted that i dont get to watch much PACERS basketball. who does?
> 
> All i ever see of Granger on ESPN is him making a three or two. For all I know the guy is a lock down defender, and has vision like Magic Johnson. So please, enlighten me if that is the case.
> 
> ...


I'll tell you why. Just like Brandon Roy, Danny Granger was ready to play NBA ball in all facets of the game when he entered the league. His all around game is strong, he can create his own shot, and he is a better finisher. As he doesn't have the issue with small hands and being able to dunk that Outlaw does, and always will, have. Lastly, Granger plays all 4 quarters, and doesn't take a quarter or two off, which is more than I can say for any of the small forwards on the Blazers right now.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I can't say I've seen tons of Pacers games with Granger, but I've seen enough to at least form a partially informed opinion -- The guy can flat out play.

I think there's been a tendency in this discussion to focus too much on stats like PER and +/- _(in the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.")_, it's far too easy to zero in on one or two figures and then interpolate some conclusion "between the lines" that doesn't tell the real story. I guess I'm not so interested in Granger because he is gigantic leap over Travis or Martell, but instead he would fill a role on the team where we are deficient -- getting reliable outside shooting from the 3 position combined with an ability to take it inside (Jones frequntly hurt, and Martell too streaky) and if that means giving up a great sixth man to get a proven starting quality 3, with youth and tremendous upside, who would be able to stretch opposing defenses, and open up lanes for Brandon, then I would be hard pressed to fault KP for making such a trade

Whatever the case I think it is highly unlikely that Larry Bird is going to let this guy get away, even if KP did include Travis, Jack, Frye and draft picks in some kind of deal.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm pretty ignorant about Granger too. that said, I think it'd be strange to trade Outlaw for an upgrade at SF when we don't even really know if Outlaw could be our upgrade at SF. 

it's like we are thinking about selling our Ford to buy a Hummer so we can go off roading, but we've never even tried the four wheel drive in the Ford. 

wouldn't it make a little sense to see what Outlaw would look like as a starting small forward before we liquidate a bunch of assets for Granger? 

Webster and others may get their noses a little bent out of shape with such an experiment, but it's not nearly the level of disruption a trade for Granger would entail. 

it seems so strange to me that we can see Outlaw grow in so many different ways in one year, but we still assume that a failed experiment of 11 starts three years ago proves he'll never be a starting SF.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Just from the stats, i don't see how Granger can be considered much better that outlaw.

The Stats
Position
Outlaw:SF/PF
Granger:SF/PF

Height
Outlaw:6'9"
Granger:6'9"

Age
Outlaw:23
Granger:24

MPG
Outlaw:26.3
*Granger:35.0*

FG%
Outlaw:.443
Granger:.442

3pt%
Outlaw:.397
Granger:.393

FT%
Outlaw:.701
*Granger:.855*

Since Granger plays 9 more minutes, the following stats are per 48
pp48
Outlaw:23.3
Granger:24.4

ap48
Outlaw:8.8
Granger:7.9

rp48
Outlaw:8.8
Granger:8.0

TO/48
Outlaw:2.3
Granger:3.0

BPG/48
Outlaw:1.46
Granger:1.51

Aside from being a better free throw shooter, i don't see much difference. Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, but I don't watch the Pacers much so I don't have much else aside from the stats to base my judgment on. One thing to note is that, like Outlaw, Granger is known as a character guy.

My personal theory is that Indiana is going to be looking for several things in the trade, and that might not include Outlaw. Granger, like Outlaw, is a tweener, and that is not bringing them wins. My guess is that they want a PF and a SF, so Webster and Frye, may be the players they would prefer over Outlaw. Also, they will want to send out a bad contract and receive picks. 

I think a trade like this might work:
trade idea

Blazers send out 
Webster (a true SF prospect for the future)
Frye (A good PF back up with potential to be more)
Green (needed for salary to make the trade work)
Jones (Money coming off their books this offseason - could resign and use till Webster is ready)
2 second round picks (or perhaps a future 1st (2009 or 2010 - restricted)

Blazers receive 
Danny Granger (Best player in the trade)
Troy Murphy (The cost of getting Granger, he has a big and long salary, but is a decent player)

Why the Blazers do it. They get the best player in Granger and Murphy will make a very good, although expensive bu and provide more rebounding and toughness than Frye and more scoring than Przybilla.

Why for the Pacers. They save 14 million in this trade, get decent young prospects and get some picks. If they really are going to blow up their team, this could be a very good deal for them. Then they would trade O'Neil for even more pieces. They could have a lot of picks, young players and money to spend.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I'll give you one stat that doesn't tell the real story when comparing Outlaw and Granger
*3PT%*
Danny has taken ~250 attempts
Travis has taken ~50 attempts

and when you factor in attempts per minute Granger attempts 3pt shots at about a rate of 4:1 compared to Travis, their respective % is almost identical, but the real difference is that Granger makes his living as a 40% 3pt shooter and Travis tends to cherry pick his 3pt shots (albeit very reliably from the baseline).


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

nikolokolus said:


> I'll give you one stat that doesn't tell the real story when comparing Outlaw and Granger
> *3PT%*
> Danny has taken ~250 attempts
> Travis has taken ~50 attempts
> ...


 i like granger to shoot the 3, i just dont know how much of a savior he would be. if we give away all of our assetts, thats it, they are gone.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

drexlersdad said:


> i like granger to shoot the 3, i just dont know how much of a savior he would be. if we give away all of our assetts, thats it, they are gone.


I don't think anyone is expecting a "savior" out of this proposed trade, just a reliable and dependable 3 who can take some of the pressure off of our the team's real savior, Brandon.

Danny Granger would fill the role that James Jones does for this team; stretching the defense and keeping other teams honest when it comes to double teaming Roy and/or keeping them from packing the paint.

But like I said, I don't see this deal going down, Indiana would be loathe to give him up -- this would be the equivalent of us shipping out Aldridge for Chris Duhon and Ben Gordon (yuck).


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

When you think about the Blazers and what they need, I believe most people would agree, they need consistency. What kills the Blazers from night to night? Consistency. You never know who is going to score besides Brandon. Sometimes Aldridge shows up, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes Martell shows up for a 20 point quarter, and then disappears for a game or two. Outlaw dissappears for 3/4 of the game, and then plays good in the 4th, but often that is too late. 

What they need is a guy who they know what they are going to get from him, every quarter, every game. 

Now go and look at the game logs, and I think it becomes quite apparent why you would go for Granger. He is more consistent from night to night. That along with a superior ability to finish, make him a superior player.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Ganger >>>> Outlaw

http://www.nba.com/games/20080209/PORIND/boxscore.html


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

ebott said:


> Ganger >>>> Outlaw
> 
> http://www.nba.com/games/20080209/PORIND/boxscore.html


Even if I tend to agree with the assertion (granger better than outlaw), way to prove my earlier post about making stats lie.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Gee, on April 18 of last season, Travis scored 36 points while Granger only managed a puny 14 points. I guess that proves Travis is the better player.


True, the Blazers weren't playing the Pacers that night, but stats are stats.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Another point I would like to bring up. Folks say "If they were starting, or getting 40 minutes a game they would be equal". Well if certain players played well enough and not sketchy, they would win the starting job and the bulk of the minutes easily. Unfortunately, none of the players have made Nate's job easy, and he has to spend a lot of each night trying to figure out which player is going to show up ready for work that night, and thus their stats and minutes remain erratic.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> Even if I tend to agree with the assertion (granger better than outlaw), way to prove my earlier post about making stats lie.


I don't know. I'd say that stat line sums up the differences in Outlaw and Granger quite nicely.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Another point I would like to bring up. Folks say "If they were starting, or getting 40 minutes a game they would be equal". Well if certain players played well enough and not sketchy, they would win the starting job and the bulk of the minutes easily. Unfortunately, none of the players have made Nate's job easy, and he has to spend a lot of each night trying to figure out which player is going to show up ready for work that night, and thus their stats and minutes remain erratic.


I thought we'd heard Nate say it often enough for us to understand that he places an emphasis on having two units that can play well when they're on the court. Travis is on the "white" unit because he provides scoring punch. The fact that he plays in the 4th quarter at crunch time indicates that Nate values his contributions and trusts him to help win the game...which he has done for us several times this season.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed to trading Travis in the right deal, but I do think it's important to be accurate about what his status on the second unit means.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> I thought we'd heard Nate say it often enough for us to understand that he places an emphasis on having two units that can play well when they're on the court. Travis is on the "white" unit because he provides scoring punch. The fact that he plays in the 4th quarter at crunch time indicates that Nate values his contributions and trusts him to help win the game...which he has done for us several times this season.
> 
> I'm not saying that I'm necessarily opposed to trading Travis in the right deal, but I do think it's important to be accurate about what his status on the second unit means.


You can listen to the coach banter all you want. You watch the games, correct? If so, then I ask you this. How much of many of the games this season, have you watched as Nate shuttles guys in and out trying to find a combination or player that is working. The answer is a lot. Just remember, what guys say to keep their team motivated or say to the newspaper, may not really be what the true story is. It is what they say to keep folks happy.


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

Step away from the stats sheets:raised_ey

Can Granger help the Blazers win more games than Outlaw plus whatever else we have to give up to get him?

It's difficult to say since as one of Indiana's top player the past two years they have struggled. You can make a case that he hasn't contributed much to a successful team.

Does he have qualities in his game that are more desirable to have on this team than what we may give up. Yes, he makes free throws and is a good three point shooter. Some have mentioned he has nice all around game, which unfortunately doesn't show in stat sheet. 

Players that play for losing teams are routinely discounted when it comes to their trade value. Look at Zach, he put up nice numbers but his teams struggled he has a reduced no value (his contract and off-court issues also affect this). SAR was the same way. Point is, it common practice to pay less for talent on losing teams. Fair or not. The reason our young guys are starting to have some trade value is by virtue of the limited success we've had this year. If our record was closer to Miami's, none of our young guys would get much interest.

Outlaw may not be as good as Granger but he's had some success this year on a winning team as a key part of it. That makes him more valuable in my book. The fact that the some of the numbers favor Outlaw (as do some favor Granger)and he is a younger player makes him more valuable. It is debatable which one has a higher upside. Granger is more skilled, but Outlaw started out very raw is developing his skills. They are both young enough to show dramatic improvements from their current level.

Having said all that perhaps Outlaw isn't what Indiana would looking for in a trade anyway. So are we willing give up on our other young talent (Webster, Sergio, Jack, Frye, Kopponen, Freeland)and picks to get him? 


I do trust KP's judgment, so if he thinks the Granger is worth trading multiple young players (Outlaw may or may not be among them) and using up our cap space taking on a bad contract, then I'll support the decision. Personally, I would like to give Webster one more year to develop before including him in any deals, but the reality is that may not be possible if the right deal comes along.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

hasoos said:


> You can listen to the coach banter all you want. You watch the games, correct? If so, then I ask you this. How much of many of the games this season, have you watched as Nate shuttles guys in and out trying to find a combination or player that is working. The answer is a lot. Just remember, what guys say to keep their team motivated or say to the newspaper, may not really be what the true story is. It is what they say to keep folks happy.


Sorry, but I think your argument makes my point. On most nights Nate doesn't pay much, if any, attention to position as a starter or second unit player. He has a general rotation plan, but he tinkers with it constantly to try to get the right combination of players on the court at critical times. Your original argument was that Travis should be discounted as a player since he can't crack the starting rotation. Do you honestly think that Nate values Martell's contributions to the team more than Travis's? The fact that Travis is on the court at crunch time says otherwise.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Sorry, but I think your argument makes my point. On most nights Nate doesn't pay much, if any, attention to position as a starter or second unit player. He has a general rotation plan, but he tinkers with it constantly to try to get the right combination of players on the court at critical times. Your original argument was that Travis should be discounted as a player since he can't crack the starting rotation. Do you honestly think that Nate values Martell's contributions to the team more than Travis's? The fact that Travis is on the court at crunch time says otherwise.


Just because he is on the court at crunch time doesn't make him superior. Nate has to make a choice who to play, or to play both. Outlaw has a record of playing well at the end of games, so he is in a lot. At the same time, he Outlaw has a track record of not playing well until the 4th quarter of a lot of games. So that is why Martell is in early, he plays better at the beginning of the game. But if either was truly a better player, wouldn't he just flat out win the bulk of the minutes? That is what I am saying. Neither of the small forwards has played well enough to win it out right. Both are streaky, inconsistent. Both have improved a lot, but IMO neither is worthy of a starting SF spot on most NBA teams.


----------

