# Granger Looks Lonely on Pacers Squad



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Link*



> ORLANDO -- Danny Granger has all the makings of a great player who may get lost for many years.
> 
> Playing for the Indiana Pacers already makes him look like he's standing alone on an island -- waiting to get rescued.
> 
> ...


The team isn't horrible per se. Some good young talent and Roy's finally looking like he could be a good center, but I still think they have some work to do talent-wise. Its one thing to have a team with a good image its another to have a team that can win games.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Fire Bird and they can actually start to get back where they were.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> Fire Bird and they can actually start to get back where they were.


It's not a popular opinion, but I think Bird's done a fine job since he took over.

He weeded out the players with bad images. All of them.

He ditched all the injury-prone players.

When you think about it, we have 4 positions that could possibly be locked up for the next 5-6 years if not longer with Hibbert, Granger, Rush, and Ford. Rush and Hibbert of course depend on improvement and Ford might not stick around that long, but we have a solid core and I don't think we have that much more to add besides sitting around and waiting for our guys to develop.

I don't think we have any work to do talent-wise. Anyone in our starting lineup + Mike Dunleavy can drop 20 on any given night. This team just needs time, development, and chemistry. After all, 3/5 of our starting lineup had their first season as a Pacer last year and Dunleavy/Murphy have only been here 2 1/2 years. I mean, sure, we can add some talent, but we have a solid core and the flexibility to make a few moves. I think we'll be fine.


----------



## Jesukki (Mar 3, 2009)

I think that Pacers are good offensively but their defense kind of sucks. If they can improve that they are going to the playoffs.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

We've already proven we can beat any team at any given night, but of course we've also proofed that we can lose to any team as well. I don't know I mean we're not a horrible team, but I doubt that we'll make the playoffs this season. Thanks to Bird we're stuck in mediocrity, and nothing will change until he's gone.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

He screwed up not trading JO when there was still real value to be got...and for trading Artest for nothing. And he's taking too long to get this team even to a level where you know they'll be in the POs. That's not asking much at all in the East.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dre™;6087727 said:


> He screwed up not trading JO when there was still real value to be got...


So TJ Ford and Roy Hibbert aren't real value for a broken-down, one-legged Center? Bird tried to make things work with JO, and they very well could've if he'd stayed on the court and kept his production the same as it had been. Of course, that didn't happen, and we still came away with a young-ish starting PG and a very talented young Center who's going to start all year.



> and for trading Artest for nothing.


Artest had zero value. The majority of fans didn't want him back and he didn't want to come back. Bird had to trade him somewhere, and no one offered more than Peja Stojakovic. I don't see how that's a ****-up by Bird at all. He had no option but to trade him for Stojakovic, and then Peja darted to N'awlins. However, to say we got nothing is incorrect, because the trade exception we received from the Hornets we used to re-acquire Al Harrington, who was then a key part of the Golden State trade which netted us Troy Murphy (coming off a career year) and Mike Dunleavy (with whom last year we may have made the playoffs).



> And he's taking too long to get this team even to a level where you know they'll be in the POs. That's not asking much at all in the East.


We've been the 9th seed and hit by random injuries two years in a row. I won't guarantee the playoffs this year, but I consider it a good possibility. We're a young team, though, and it's going to be a tough road ahead. Our starters are aged 26, 24, 26, 29, and 22, and the oldest guy on the team, Jeff Foster, is 32. I'm sure we could trade Hibbert, Rush, and Hansbrough for better pieces and we'd probably be a top 5 team in the east with the elderly vets we could get for them, but in the long term it wouldn't be a good move. Watch out for this team in 2-3 years.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

GTFOH. You don't trade Artest and two years later not have *one* thing to show for it. If the Kings gave up Peja, someone else would've given something up that actually would've stuck around.

And like I said, if they had traded JO when he was still looked at at the very least like an All-Star they could've got back substantially more.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

They will be in the running for the playoffs this year. The problem is that Dunleavy is giving them nothing. If he was healthy, the Pacers would literally be one of the top 6 teams in the East because he could be a terrific 6th man (that's where he is in his career now IMO)


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm so sick about hearing about GM's trading for "character" guys and getting rid of players with bad images. Who cares. Just build a successful basketball team. This isn't a non-profit organization or a charity organization. It's just basketball.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> GTFOH. You don't trade Artest and two years later not have *one* thing to show for it. If the Kings gave up Peja, someone else would've given something up that actually would've stuck around.
> 
> And like I said, if they had traded JO when he was still looked at at the very least like an All-Star they could've got back substantially more.


You can get the **** out of here, for coming in having no idea what you're talking about. Artest forced the Pacers hand, asking for a trade after having multiple meltdowns and destroying his trade value. Peja was the best we could get, and we made the trade assuming we'd either resign Peja, or free up cap space.
JO was our franchise, and he was kept around until he himself started whinning and complaining so we looked to trade him. Would we be better with Bynum? I sure as hell don't think so.

Have some idea what you're talking about before you try to call out other posters please.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> I'm so sick about hearing about GM's trading for "character" guys and getting rid of players with bad images. Who cares. Just build a successful basketball team. This isn't a non-profit organization or a charity organization. It's just basketball.


Ask the Blazers how well that works. 

Why is it Isiah Rider wasn't a superstar? How many rings did Shawn Kemp win? Where is Vin Baker right now?



Yea...... Assembling a bunch of me first scoring threats doesn't work out so well. Not sure how you think "non profit charity organization" fits in there.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't see an excuse for not having anything to show for letting go a Ron Artest, but I'll concede that.

But this other thing...JO was your franchise and that's why you decided to keep him. Fine. But after the big incident it was on the way down and Bird and Walsh should've had the intuitiveness to start the rebuilding process before it got painfully obvious (once his knees wore down) that nothing was going to be won around JO.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I see what he's saying. There's no such thing as addition by subtraction, unless you get back real value for a guy you don't get to parade around "we got rid of the *******" and expect that to be good enough. There's wins and there's losses, nothing else to be measured by.

Artest may have torpedoed his value for the moment, but he had just lost 6M the previous year, do you really think he was going to sit out and chance missing out on another batch of money? If you had played hardball he would've had no choice but to suit back up eventually.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> I don't see an excuse for not having anything to show for letting go a Ron Artest, but I'll concede that.
> 
> But this other thing...JO was your franchise and that's why you decided to keep him. Fine. But after the big incident it was on the way down and Bird and Walsh should've had the intuitiveness to start the rebuilding process before it got painfully obvious (once his knees wore down) that nothing was going to be won around JO.


JO was playing well for us, and then fell off the face of the planet as soon as he started hinting at wanting a trade. He then tried to play it off that he didn't want to "try" for the Pacers organization anymore, which plummeted his stock even further.

We're lucky we were even able to unload him at all. It would have been nice to get rid of him at peak value, but it just wasn't in the cards. We needed a face to our franchise, he let us down. I don't blame Bird at all for that.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> I see what he's saying. There's no such thing as addition by subtraction, unless you get back real value for a guy you don't get to parade around "we got rid of the *******" and expect that to be good enough. There's wins and there's losses, nothing else to be measured by.
> 
> Artest may have torpedoed his value for the moment, but he had just lost 6M the previous year, do you really think he was going to sit out and chance missing out on another batch of money? If you had played hardball he would've had no choice but to suit back up eventually.


In the mean time the Pacers are stuck waiting with their 1b star sitting on the sidelines, destroying team moral. After the brawl, Artest, Tinsley and Jackson were tearing the team apart with their antics. The team needed to move on, plain and simple.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Ask the Blazers how well that works.
> 
> Why is it Isiah Rider wasn't a superstar? How many rings did Shawn Kemp win? Where is Vin Baker right now?
> 
> ...


Did I say drug addicts and thugs? I said "character" guys don't win you basketball games. Trading _for_ thugs is just as helpful as trading _away_ thugs. It's all nonsense. Build a good team or get in another business.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

The '93 Heat said:


> Did I say drug addicts and thugs? I said "character" guys don't win you basketball games. Trading _for_ thugs is just as helpful as trading _away_ thugs. It's all nonsense. Build a good team or get in another business.


AI isn't a drug addict and I wouldn't call him a thug. In recent history every team that rids themselves of him improves in one way or another.
What I would call AI is a locker room cancer at this point of his career. Addition by subtraction. 

I do understand and agree that making a team with rainbows and fairy dust isn't going to win you a championship, talent will. But there are situations where getting rid of an AI, Jamal Tinsley, etc is helpful for the team.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

R-Star said:


> In the mean time the Pacers are stuck waiting with their 1b star sitting on the sidelines, destroying team moral. After the brawl, Artest, Tinsley and Jackson were tearing the team apart with their antics. The team needed to move on, plain and simple.


And my thing is if you're going to do that, trade 3 of your 4 best players you might as well offload that first one and start all the way over. ****, JO was swinging in the brawl to, so the stain wouldn't have left until *everyone* did.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

And AI isn't an offcourt distraction as much as you just couldn't deal with his ball domination oncourt. He wasn't a problem off court in Denver or Detroit. Now in Memphis, where you have young players he can corrupt their could be an issue, but I don't even look at him like a "cancer" anymore.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> GTFOH. You don't trade Artest and two years later not have *one* thing to show for it.


So Mike Dunleavy and Troy Murphy together don't amount to one thing?



> If the Kings gave up Peja, someone else would've given something up that actually would've stuck around.


Not Bird's fault. He had no idea Peja wasn't going to stay.



> And like I said, if they had traded JO when he was still looked at at the very least like an All-Star they could've got back substantially more.


And here you go again with this hindsight is 20/20 bull****. You're criticizing Bird for something that didn't make sense at the time. Why trade JO when you expect him to come back and still be a 20/10 player on a solid team?



> If he was healthy, the Pacers would literally be one of the top 6 teams in the East because he could be a terrific 6th man (that's where he is in his career now IMO)


I don't know if I'd say that's where his career is right now. For sure I expect him to be one of the best 6th men in the league, but don't forget that before last year, he was having a career year as well.



> I'm so sick about hearing about GM's trading for "character" guys and getting rid of players with bad images. Who cares. Just build a successful basketball team. This isn't a non-profit organization or a charity organization. It's just basketball.


Teams having bad reputations = poor ticket sales

I've talked to a lot of people and seen many people interviewed who cancelled season tickets or stopped going to games because of all the bull**** that was happening. Personally, I stick with my team no matter what they do, but look at Stephen Jackson. He's still causing ****. It's not the kind of image you want for a team.



> If you had played hardball he would've had no choice but to suit back up eventually.


No, not at all. We didn't want him to be there after what happened. Fans didn't want him there. And finally, he didn't want to be there. It was a mutual decision. We were going to try to keep Artest after the brawl, but when he asked for a trade right after he asked for time off to record a rap album, that was the final straw. And yet again, we have a lot more to show for Artest than nothing. It's those two Irish guys who've been keeping this team somewhat competitive.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> And my thing is if you're going to do that, trade 3 of your 4 best players you might as well offload that first one and start all the way over. ****, JO was swinging in the brawl to, so the stain wouldn't have left until *everyone* did.


Jermaine O'Neal - We expected him to return to old form and be a 20/10 guy
Mike Dunleavy - Turned into a 20 ppg scorer
Troy Murphy - Just had the best year of his career

Those were the three options that were supposed to, at least, keep us competitive in the East, and we very well could've been had JO's knee not been completely shot. He says the same bull**** every off season about being completely healthy and better than every, and everyone buys it, front office and fans, and then he hurts himself and *****es all year.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

My whole thing is it's not enough for me. If I'm going to go from a title contender to "solid", I'm going to skip solid and start over.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Dre™;6087849 said:


> My whole thing is it's not enough for me. If I'm going to go from a title contender to "solid", I'm going to skip solid and start over.


That's great. But with that kind of logic, you'd be telling the other 12 teams in the East who have no chance at the finals, let alone the conference finals, to start over. Ditch Bosh. Trade Wade. Let Josh Smith and Joe Johnson go. Andre Iguodala? Out of here. The reason teams stay in the 4-6 seed range is because they think they can eventually add the pieces to make themselves a contender. With your logic, the Lakers would've traded Kobe Bryant years ago instead of waiting on Andrew Bynum's development and trading for Pau Gasol. Sometimes rebuilding is the way go to and sometimes it isn't. We re-tooled instead of rebuilding, and now, thanks to drafting well, we have young, upcoming players who will be full-time starters for a long time as well as players in their prime who, when our other guys are finished developing, will be the veteran players every championship team needs.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

There's a difference between a promising team and a sinking ship, I'll let you figure it out.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Dre™ said:


> There's a difference between a promising team and a sinking ship, I'll let you figure it out.


You seem to be quite impatient. Sometimes its best to let people go for free. Peja is very overpaid and now he is sinking the Hornets ship as they aren't going anywhere for a long time. And he will never be worth $15 million

The Pacers are a business. They need people to buy tickets and corporations to buy sponsorships. They will not pay for a team of thugs who run in the crowd and constantly get arrested. 

Its better to let them go. Otherwise you end up like the Warriors or Bobcats who not only suck but, have bad players on looooong contracts no one is gonna pick up. So they are stuck in purgatory for years to come.

At least the Pacers have young talent. And no bad long term deals. That's saying something !


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

i'd be pretty happy with the current squad, i think they need more depth at the PG SG slots but hibbert, hansborough, troy is pretty nice, need a few banger role players and a nice PG and this team has big potential

i rather be where the pacers are than the raptors


----------

