# Trade idea: Granger to New Orleans



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

> In the 2010 draft, Larry Bird selected Paul George, a 6'8" swingman with incredible athleticism and upside; essentially the next Danny Granger. Granger is already 27, and at the rate the Pacers are rebuilding, he doesn't seem to fit into their long term plans. So why not trade the New Orleans native back home?
> 
> With Troy Murphy platooning with both Roy Hibbert and Tyler Hansbrough at the four and the five, Indiana could use some stability with a defensive stopper like Okafor. Entering Okafor to share minutes with Hibbert would allow Murphy and Hansbrough to be more comfortable at the four, and they would always remain very fresh.
> 
> So the trade remains the same on the New Orleans side, offering up Collison and Okafor. Indiana would simply give Granger and get their point guard in Collison. From a talent standpoint, New Orleans gets the better end with Granger, but Indiana fills a need and they pretty much put their future on the floor.


*LINK*

Would you guys take on Okafor's contract, to get a nice prospect at the 1 spot in Collison, and free up minutes for George?


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

If this happens, there's no way the Hornets then trade CP3 as they'd be out of a point guard. I can't see this happening, though.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Basel said:


> If this happens, there's no way the Hornets then trade CP3 as they'd be out of a point guard. I can't see this happening, though.


If you go to the full article, that's why he proposed this trade. It's so that the Hornets can put some pieces around Paul and keep him happy. 

The first idea he proposes is getting Memphis' Gasol and giving Paul a proper trustworthy bigman.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Granger isn't going to make Chris Paul happy.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Basel said:


> Granger isn't going to make Chris Paul happy.


They need to make moves for the sake of making the effort though. I still think this summer they should have tried their hardest to move Peja and picks or Collison or someone to get some extra cap space and get someone next to Paul. Pretty obvious he wasn't just going to sit down and watch Heat create a trio of friends, Amare and Melo having a friendly agreement, and Lakers further strengthening their repeating championship side.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

He wants a championship; you don't make moves just for the sake of doing it. Granger isn't going to help the Hornets become a real contender. It would get them more regular season wins and maybe a playoff berth, but that's about as far as that tandem would go, in my opinion.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Basel said:


> Granger isn't going to make Chris Paul happy.


Not completely. But it's a solid start in that Granger is far better then anyone Paul has ever played with and it shows Paul that the managment isn't totally inept and is actually focused on winning. A Paul/Thorton/Granger/West/? lineup is pretty solid and is probably in the upper echelon in the west.

If nothing else it gives Paul somewhat of an incentive to stay.


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

Basel said:


> He wants a championship; you don't make moves just for the sake of doing it. Granger isn't going to help the Hornets become a real contender. It would get them more regular season wins and maybe a playoff berth, but that's about as far as that tandem would go, in my opinion.


At the same time though, you don't sit on your backside doing nothing, and not changing your team at all. They did nothing to make him want to stay.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

This would be the worst move, ever. The absolutely only thing we should not do is trade Granger, especially for a rookie and a bad contract. Granger is the only sure thing this team has and we need to keep him for the entirety of his contract.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

The Pacers would definitely listen if the Hornets came along and offered Collison, Thornton, Peja's expiring and a #1 pick for Granger and Dahntay Jones.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> The Pacers would definitely listen if the Hornets came along and offered Collison, Thornton, Peja's expiring and a #1 pick for Granger and Dahntay Jones.


No, I'm telling you, Larry Bird would hang up the phone the instant anyone mentioned Granger. He's not on the trade block. He's not untouchable, but he's close enough that he won't be traded until either things don't improve and he requests a trade, or Paul George pulls a Reggie Miller and usurps Chuck Person (Granger).

It would be incredibly dumb and shortsighted to trade a 25 ppg scorer for a young, undersized starting caliber PG and an undersized two who, albeit can score, can go with the rest of our collection at SG.

I realize Granger doesn't have the best reputation because he's played in this ****hole his whole career, but you don't trade your young franchise player for depth and players who won't average more than 15 ppg. We would have a collection of 15 ppg players, which would only work if we had a stellar defense. Unfortunately, we have Jim O'Brien, so that'll never come close to happening. 

We can trade just about everyone else for Collison. I don't think I'd give George at this point since I love everything he offers since we've drafted him, but I wouldn't be too upset if it were straight-up. I wouldn't give Hibbert because he's the closest thing to a post option this team has. But everyone else is on the table, and New Orleans can get a nice combination of youth (Rush/Hansbrough/McRoberts) with some expiring vets (Murphy/Dunleavy). I'm not saying we'd take Okafor, but if we were to do so, they'd listen.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

FX™ said:


> *LINK*
> 
> Would you guys take on Okafor's contract, to get a nice prospect at the 1 spot in Collison, and free up minutes for George?


no. murphy is gone after this season. besides calling george the next granger is a bit of a stretch since he hasn't even played yet.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Basel said:


> If this happens, there's no way the Hornets then trade CP3 as they'd be out of a point guard. I can't see this happening, though.


Well if they turn around next summer and do the Magic deal, they could get Jameer, Vince, & Gortat... That's a good PG, and a solid defensive center for a few years, and also get an expiring in Vince . 

I think Meer/VC/Granger/West core could still compete for a playoff spot in the west. They wouldn't be contenders due to lack of defense, but it's not a bad product to sell to fans.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

I doubt Demps is close to being talented enough to convince Bird that Okafor is such a positive that he makes up the difference between Granger and Collison when the Hornets have been begging other teams to take him.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

How about a more realistic scenario for Indiana? 

Pacers trade Danny Granger and Dahntay Jones (the last two non-expiring, non-rookie deals on the roster) for Darren Collison (a PG prospect they desperately need moving forward), the Hornets top 5-protected first round pick next season (likely to be in the 9 to 16 range), and Peja Stojakovic (another large expiring contract).

This would leave the Pacers with a young core of Collison/Rush/Hibbert/Hansbrough/George, a top 5 pick from themselves (due to what will be a rebuilding season), a mid-first pick from the Hornets, and a ton of cap space next summer. Indiana will finally have their chance to build the team the Knicks weren't quite able to construct this offseason.

The Hornets would then be able to sell their fanbase on the potential of this team:

PG Chris Paul
SG Dahntay Jones
SF Danny Granger
PF David West
C Emeka Okafor
--------------------
PG as yet unnamed veteran back-up who CP3 wouldn't see as a threat (Ty Lue? Rafer Alston? Chris Quinn?)
SG Marcus Thornton
SF James Posey (with Quincy Pondexter waiting in the wings)
PF Darius Songaila (with Craig Brackins waiting in the wings)
C Aaron Gray

That's a team that would sneak into the playoffs in the West and keep Chris Paul content enough to stick around. That's really all the Hornets can hope for at this point.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> How about a more realistic scenario for Indiana?
> 
> Pacers trade Danny Granger



I don't think any of you get it. Trading Danny Granger for anything right now is the most unrealistic scenario anyone can fathom. It makes absolutely no sense to trade an established franchise player on a great contract who hasn't even hit his prime yet for anything but an established franchise player. We have all the cap room we need for next offseason, so more expiring contracts does nothing for us. And besides, free agents don't come to Indiana. We don't sign anyone but scrubs, ever. We're better off trading our expiring deals for more talent/youth.

Collison is great, sure, and I'd be glad to add another lottery pick, if the Hornets are somehow in the lottery with Granger, but it makes absolutely no sense to ditch Granger for lesser players.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Pacers Fan said:


> It makes absolutely no sense to trade an *established franchise player* on a great contract who hasn't even hit his prime yet for anything but an established franchise player.


Let's examine this a bit, shall we?

By looking at Granger's top 10 Usage Rate (28.7%), one would determine that Granger certainly considers himself a franchise player. Is that necessarily the case, though? He had a sub-20 PER (good for 27th in the league). His TS% was 48th in the league and his Win Shares were 54th. If we make the assumption (albeit a potentially fallacious one) that each franchise should have one franchise player, Granger would have to be a top 30 player. He was very close to that borderline last season.

The next part of a Granger defense would probably start like this: "But he was hurt last season and stuck on a bad team, so his production dropped."

To this I would say, "He only played 5 games less than the previous season. His stats only dropped marginally. And shouldn't his stats be slightly inflated being the best player on a bad team, anyway?" In fact, his production hasn't really changed much the last three seasons. It's reasonable to say That Granger at 26 hasn't reached his prime, yet. I'll give you that, but what type of spike do you expect to see from him when he's been consistent the last 3 seasons?

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people thought Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a franchise player in 2001. Looks can be deceiving. I personally don't think you can win a championship with Granger as your best or even as your second best player.



> Collison is great, sure, and I'd be glad to add another lottery pick, if the Hornets are somehow in the lottery with Granger, but it makes absolutely no sense to ditch Granger for lesser players.


Collison has no less "franchise player potential" at this point in his career than Granger did at this point in his. The difference is that Indiana needs a PG worse than they need a swingman. For the Hornets, it's the other way around. That's why this trade makes sense.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Let's examine this a bit, shall we?
> 
> By looking at Granger's top 10 Usage Rate (28.7%), one would determine that Granger certainly considers himself a franchise player. Is that necessarily the case, though?



I don't care who you are. If you have a top 10 usage rate in the NBA, you're a franchise player if you average 15 ppg and shoot 35%. This team trusts Granger to have the ball more than anyone else. He is our offense.




> He had a sub-20 PER (good for 27th in the league). His TS% was 48th in the league and his Win Shares were 54th. If we make the assumption (albeit a potentially fallacious one) that each franchise should have one franchise player, Granger would have to be a top 30 player. He was very close to that borderline last season.
> 
> The next part of a Granger defense would probably start like this: "But he was hurt last season and stuck on a bad team, so his production dropped."


He had a down year. He actually regressed last season. I invite you to check out his stats from the year prior to this one. He'd improved by at least 5 ppg in each season in his career, so he was bound to drop down at some point. I fully expect him to have another all-star caliber season.



> To this I would say, "He only played 5 games less than the previous season. His stats only dropped marginally. And shouldn't his stats be slightly inflated being the best player on a bad team, anyway?" In fact, his production hasn't really changed much the last three seasons. It's reasonable to say That Granger at 26 hasn't reached his prime, yet. I'll give you that, but what type of spike do you expect to see from him when he's been consistent the last 3 seasons?


He's been just about as far from consistent, year to year, the past three seasons as you can get. His 3rd year in the league he was arguably our #2 option behind Mike Dunleavy. His 4th season he exploded and took over as THE guy. Last season he apparently forgot that going off the dribble is an important part of the game, and he jacked way too many 3's, and bad ones at that.

To the "he plays on a bad team, so he should have good stats" argument, I'll give you that, but he'll have a much lower shooting percentage. Granger was often forced to take terrible shots in a terrible offense that had no better option than to give the ball to Granger for a contested 25 footer. Honestly, last year, the state of our offense was so bad that it was probably just as efficient to let Granger jack a 3 every play as it would be to run plays, give Hibbert post looks, or set up Troy Murphy.

On a better team, Granger would likely maintain his 24-25 ppg on better shooting because even though he wouldn't get the amount of looks he gets now, he wouldn't get as many bad looks, either. 



> I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people thought Shareef Abdur-Rahim was a franchise player in 2001. Looks can be deceiving. I personally don't think you can win a championship with Granger as your best or even as your second best player.


I personally don't think the Pacers will win a championship in Granger's career, so that doesn't matter. But as a 2nd best player on another team, certainly. With the way the NBA is set up, having Granger and a bunch of scrubs won't win anything. You'd need to pair him with a superstar and a fringe all-star to even have a shot at a title.




> Collison has no less "franchise player potential" at this point in his career than Granger did at this point in his. The difference is that Indiana needs a PG worse than they need a swingman. For the Hornets, it's the other way around. That's why this trade makes sense.


Um, without Granger, we desperately need a swingman. You think Paul George is ready for the NBA? Mike Dunleavy might be finished. Brandon Rush flat out sucks. And it's not about need. Assuming we trade Troy Murphy, are we better off trading Granger for David West because we need a PF? No. Granger's light years ahead of him just like he is ahead of Collison.

I mean, seriously, it makes no sense. The Kings need a PG since Ty Evans isn't a real PG, right? They have Francisco Garcia behind him, so why don't they trade Ty Evans for a PG? You don't trade the best player at a certain position to rely on someone like Francisco Garcia or Paul George at another. It makes you just as weak elsewhere, and reliant upon the player you're getting to be every bit as good as the player you're trading.

I like Collison, but I don't think he'll do as well on a team that doesn't require a ball dominant PG. I'm a big fan of his, but Indy's offense wouldn't allow him to average any more than 14/7. Offenses set up to have the PG with the ball 90% of the time like New Orleans, Phoenix, or Utah are perfect for Collison to shine, but in O'Brien's offense when he won't have the ball, he won't be as productive. And he's not even close to being a franchise player. Good rookie year, yes, but not even close. Here all he'd be allowed to do is shoot open 3's, feed Hibbert, and drive to the basket late in the shot clock when we have absolutely no other option. We run the pick & roll to some extent, but not very well.

What people don't understand about Jim O'Brien is that his offense doesn't really require a PG. It requires someone to bring the ball up the floor, call the play, and then hit open shots. While that's fine, and Collison would be solid in the role, he wouldn't be great and he wouldn't thrive like he would elsewhere. Would I take him as my PG? Absolutely. Would I ditch Granger? Not a chance. And I wouldn't even trade Paul George for him at this point.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Pacers Fan said:


> I don't care who you are. If you have a top 10 usage rate in the NBA, you're a franchise player if you average 15 ppg and shoot 35%. This team trusts Granger to have the ball more than anyone else. He is our offense.


The scenario you describe does not necessarily mean you're looking at a franchise player. You could be looking at a slightly above average player on a team with no other options.



> I invite you to check out his stats from the year prior to this one. He'd improved by at least 5 ppg in each season in his career, so he was bound to drop down at some point. I fully expect him to have another all-star caliber season.


This past year Granger stole the ball slightly more, assisted slightly more, rebounded slightly better, scored slightly less, and shot slightly worse. In each case I strongly emphasize *SLIGHTLY*. His last two seasons were extremely similar.



> He's been just about as far from consistent, year to year, the past three seasons as you can get.


Hmmm... there was a total swing of 6 PPG, 1 RPG, .7 APG, .5 SPG, .3 BPG, 1.8% shooting, and 1.8 WS. It simply doesn't get more consistent than that. John Stockton had more swings in the middle of his career, and he is widely considered one of the most consistent players of all time. 



> On a better team, Granger would likely maintain his 24-25 ppg on better shooting because even though he wouldn't get the amount of looks he gets now, he wouldn't get as many bad looks, either.


Recent examples to the contrary:
Pau Gasol - Memphis: 20.8 PPG, Lakers: 18.6 PPG
Kevin Garnett - Minnesota: 22.4 PPG, Boston: 16.4 PPG
Ray Allen - Seattle: 26.4 PPG, Boston: 17.4 PPG
Rashard Lewis - Seattle: 22.4 PPG, Orlando: 17.1 PPG
Caron Butler - Washington: 20.8 PPG, Dallas: 15.2 PPG
Antawn Jamison - Washington: 22.2 PPG, Cleveland: 15.8 PPG

Good players on bad teams almost never switch teams and maintain their scoring averages. That's a pipe dream at best.



> I personally don't think the Pacers will win a championship in Granger's career, so that doesn't matter.


If you don't think they can win a championship with Granger, you have to look to trade him. If you're not trying to win the title, what are you doing?



> But as a 2nd best player on another team, certainly.


Of course this is all purely speculative, but I couldn't disagree more. If you had the Lakers current roster but with Granger as their second best player instead of Pau Gasol, I don't think they could win a championship.



> Um, without Granger, we desperately need a swingman.


Without Granger, the need for a swingman is way, way less desperate than the need for a PG with Granger.



> You think Paul George is ready for the NBA?


By the time Collison is ready to play at an elite level, Paul George should be ready to be a competent wing player. Otherwise, they wasted that draft pick.



> Mike Dunleavy might be finished.


He is nothing more than an expiring contract in either trade scenario proposed above.



> Brandon Rush flat out sucks.


I would argue that he has a better future than any swingman on the current Hornets roster.



> Assuming we trade Troy Murphy, are we better off trading Granger for David West because we need a PF? No. Granger's light years ahead of him just like he is ahead of Collison.


You're missing the real question. Is Collison/George/extra cap space/mid-first-rounder better than Granger/George? I think it is.



> I mean, seriously, it makes no sense. The Kings need a PG since Ty Evans isn't a real PG, right? They have Francisco Garcia behind him, so why don't they trade Ty Evans for a PG? You don't trade the best player at a certain position to rely on someone like Francisco Garcia or Paul George at another. It makes you just as weak elsewhere, and reliant upon the player you're getting to be every bit as good as the player you're trading.


I believe very simply that every player on your roster should be available for the right package of assets unless that player is the single best player in basketball. Would I rather have a Ty Evans/Beno Udrih backcourt or a Brandon Jennings/John Salmons backcourt moving into the future? Given the rest of the Kings' pieces, I'd have to seriously consider that trade if it was on the table. 

Also, trading for need makes a ton of sense if your team depth allows for it. Look at the Hornets. They would never have even discussed trading Chris Paul if they didn't already have Collison on board. You're examining these concepts in a vacuum. Look at the broader picture.



> I like Collison, but I don't think he'll do as well on a team that doesn't require a ball dominant PG. I'm a big fan of his, but Indy's offense wouldn't allow him to average any more than 14/7. Offenses set up to have the PG with the ball 90% of the time like New Orleans, Phoenix, or Utah are perfect for Collison to shine, but in O'Brien's offense when he won't have the ball, he won't be as productive.


Does that mean that the player isn't as valuable or that the coach needs to change his system to accommodate his personnel? 



> And he's not even close to being a franchise player. Good rookie year, yes, but not even close.


My point was that Collison is every bit as close to being a franchise player after his rookie year as Granger was to being a franchise player after his rookie year... if not more so.



> And I wouldn't even trade Paul George for him at this point.


Now you're just contradicting yourself.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> The scenario you describe does not necessarily mean you're looking at a franchise player. You could be looking at a slightly above average player on a team with no other options.


Reggie Miller only had one season on par with Danny Granger scoring-wise. Would you argue that he wasn't a franchise player for the 10 years he was leading to the Pacers to Eastern Conference Finals appearances?




> This past year Granger stole the ball slightly more, assisted slightly more, rebounded slightly better, scored slightly less, and shot slightly worse. In each case I strongly emphasize *SLIGHTLY*. His last two seasons were extremely similar.



Hmmm... there was a total swing of 6 PPG, 1 RPG, .7 APG, .5 SPG, .3 BPG, 1.8% shooting, and 1.8 WS. It simply doesn't get more consistent than that. John Stockton had more swings in the middle of his career, and he is widely considered one of the most consistent players of all time.[/QUOTE]

You're just looking at stats that have a good face value, but don't really get at the nuances of the game. Granger's entire approach for the game went from being a shared scorer, to THE man, to THE man who takes waaaaaay too many bad 3's and doesn't drive the ball as much as he should. His game has been entirely different the past three years. While he's probably not going to score more than 25-27 ppg in his career, I'd leave the door open for him to maybe average 30 some day. Even if he stays at around the same point total, it'll be at a more efficient clip with a more well-rounded offensive game. 



> Recent examples to the contrary:
> Pau Gasol - Memphis: 20.8 PPG, Lakers: 18.6 PPG
> Kevin Garnett - Minnesota: 22.4 PPG, Boston: 16.4 PPG
> Ray Allen - Seattle: 26.4 PPG, Boston: 17.4 PPG
> ...


Pau hardly changed.
KG severely declined.
Allen severely declined.
Lewis severely declined.
Butler I'll give you.
Jamison had a terrible, terrible year in Cleveland, and he's getting older as well.

Granger might not score 25/game, but if you pair him with a PG like Paul, I could easily see him maintaining around that average. However, if you put him with Paul and another talented, scoring swing, he might drop to 20-22 ppg. Better still, give him a SG and run the old Seattle 'Shard/Allen swingman rotation, and he'd probably average around the same. But of course, neither of us have any way of proving this until it actually happens.




> If you don't think they can win a championship with Granger, you have to look to trade him. If you're not trying to win the title, what are you doing?


We're not going to win a championship with Darren ****ing Collison, either. If we're going to trade everyone we don't think we can win a title with, this is going to be a revolving door for the rest of eternity. Maybe down the line we can be an ECF team. I do like how this team is coming along, but it's going to be a long time, and probably past Granger's prime, before we even think about being competitive.




> Of course this is all purely speculative, but I couldn't disagree more. If you had the Lakers current roster but with Granger as their second best player instead of Pau Gasol, I don't think they could win a championship.


That's because of the build of the team. Ditching the best post player in the league for a swingman who plays the same position as Ron Artest is obviously going to affect the team.




> Without Granger, the need for a swingman is way, way less desperate than the need for a PG with Granger.


Dunleavy/Rush/George really isn't much better than Ford/(Watson)/Price/Stephenson, if at all. And besides, you don't trade your team's best player for need. It really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I mean, sure, trade Dunleavy, trade Rush/Dahntay, possibly trade George if the deal is right, but under no circumstance do you trade the face of your franchise.




> By the time Collison is ready to play at an elite level, Paul George should be ready to be a competent wing player. Otherwise, they wasted that draft pick.


Or we could have Granger, who already plays at an elite level and is guaranteed to play at an elite level for years to come. George is just a complement at the moment. His game is very similar to Granger's if you throw in a bit of Trevor Ariza, but they're both versatile enough that they'd be quite the tandem if things work out well enough. 




> He is nothing more than an expiring contract in either trade scenario proposed above.


Point being we don't exactly have other good options on the wing.




> I would argue that he has a better future than any swingman on the current Hornets roster.


Marcus Thornton? But yeh, I'd probably agree just because the kid can play D and rebound, even if Marcus is a pretty dynamic scorer.




> You're missing the real question. Is Collison/George/extra cap space/mid-first-rounder better than Granger/George? I think it is.


The cap space really doesn't matter. We have enough of it already and I've already stated above that this is Indiana, and we don't sign free agents because 1. They don't want to come here and 2. We're cheap. So it's essentially getting a potential James Johnson/Gerald Green hybrid or maybe, if things turn out well, a rotational player, to make up the difference between Darren Collison and Danny Granger? **** that.




> I believe very simply that every player on your roster should be available for the right package of assets unless that player is the single best player in basketball.


I believe that you're too trigger happy and have been playing too much NBA 2k10.



> Would I rather have a Ty Evans/Beno Udrih backcourt or a Brandon Jennings/John Salmons backcourt moving into the future? Given the rest of the Kings' pieces, I'd have to seriously consider that trade if it was on the table.


I'd stand pat if I were both teams. Again you're proving you're trigger happy.



> Also, trading for need makes a ton of sense if your team depth allows for it. Look at the Hornets. They would never have even discussed trading Chris Paul if they didn't already have Collison on board. You're examining these concepts in a vacuum. Look at the broader picture.


The Hornets have never discussed trading Chris Paul. I can see you're thinking the Paul/Collison situation is just like the Granger/George situation, but you're entirely wrong.

1. Granger and George can play together. Sure, you can go small with Collison/Paul for a few minutes every game, but not for very long. Granger and George can both see time at the 2/3/4 and would work great as a 'Toine/Paul Pierce combo in O'Brien's offense.

2. George is entirely unproven.

3. Collison may as well be unproven, if not overhyped. Most people thought he'd be a career backup, if that, coming out of college, and he was put into a position behind the greatest PG in the game where he had to step up. And he did. Kudos to him, but will he maintain it, and can he maintain it in a different offense? Is he too short? He has way too many questions for me to trade Paul George for him, let alone even think about Danny Granger.

4. You're trying to trade the Hornets' backup PG for a proven star swingman. Why don't I propose Paul George for Chris Paul? We can give you expiring contracts so you have room in free agency, and a mid-first round pick because we'd surely make the playoffs with Paul. The answer is because their values are entirely different and George hasn't proven anything. Because Collison/George could possibly be better than Paul/Collison in the future, do you pull the trigger? **** no. You trade Collison if you trade anyone. Just like the Pacers would trade George, if he didn't have room. But we do. He's going to sit back and learn from the vets for a few years, then hopefully be able to play with Granger.




> Does that mean that the player isn't as valuable or that the coach needs to change his system to accommodate his personnel?


He isn't as valuable in the system. Just because we could possibly be trading for Darren Collison doesn't mean it would be a better for the offense if we stopped running motion and instead ran 150 pick & rolls every game. Discounting that a Collison/Rush/Dunleavy/Murphy/Hibbert would probably set an NBA record for fewest wins in a season, even if we kept Granger and had Collison, the pick & roll would severely diminish Granger's game.



> My point was that Collison is every bit as close to being a franchise player after his rookie year as Granger was to being a franchise player after his rookie year... if not more so.


Granger was playing behind Ron Artest and steadily improved every year. Sure, Collison is as close to a franchise player as a 8 ppg rookie, but do you really expect Collison to improve his game as much as Granger did every season? If you do, that's great, but let me see it first before we ditch Granger for the guy.



> Now you're just contradicting yourself.


How? I fully see a George/Granger swing rotation as one of the best in the league if George develops like he can. If he doesn't, oh well, but I'm excitedly to see how it works, especially since we have a post option to go with them, something O'Brien's Celtics never had. The PG in O'Brien's motion isn't nearly as important as the SG/SF/PF. I guess this goes back to the earlier point. Collison just isn't as valuable as you think he is, especially when it comes to the system you're trying to put him in.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

While trading Granger (who's already 27) might become the right move in the future, Indiana has to wait at least a year and see how free agency pans out next year. They're set to have max cap space next summer with what should be a solid young supporting cast around Granger, finally getting the team past the aftermath of the Artest team falling apart. If next summer produces no serious talent and it become apparent there's little chance to win with Granger, they probably have to move him for a younger guy with all-star potential. As for now, the Pacers would be best served to hold onto him.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

What an awful trade idea. If Granger was expiring then MAYBE but we have him locked up for a long time so this trade is just complete crap and never ever going to happen.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> The scenario you describe does not necessarily mean you're looking at a franchise player. You could be looking at a slightly above average player on a team with no other options.





Pacers Fan said:


> Reggie Miller only had one season on par with Danny Granger scoring-wise. Would you argue that he wasn't a franchise player for the 10 years he was leading to the Pacers to Eastern Conference Finals appearances?


What a giant leap you took right there!

I mentioned Usage Rate not scoring.
My point was that a high Usage Rate does not automatically make someone a franchise player. You had suggested that was the case.
Even if bringing up Reggie Miller was not completely irrelevant (which it was), you would still be off base. Reggie never led his team in Usage Rate during his prime years. Rik Smits always filled that role for those teams.
More to the point, high usage rates (and high scoring averages, for that matter) are mutually exclusive with franchise player status. This is why my Abdur-Rahim comment holds water. You can have a high usage rate without being a true franchise player or you could be a true franchise player (like Reggie Miller was) without leading your team in usage rate. 
You’ve successfully proved my point. I’m glad you agree.



> You're just looking at stats that have a good face value, but don't really get at the nuances of the game.


This is the old “more than one way to skin a cat” argument. You are quite right. Let’s look at an example, shall we?

In the ’97-’98 season, Scottie Pippen scored 19 PPG on 45% shooting from the field.
In the ’91-’92 season, Isaiah Thomas scored 19 PPG on 45% shooting from the field.

No one would be crazy enough to think that these guys accomplished these numbers in exactly the same way. They had very different styles and approaches to the game. Ultimately, though, does that change their production? If two players put up basically the same numbers with basically the same efficiency levels, does it matter how they did it? 

Conventional wisdom says that Granger’s role has changed over the last three seasons. I agree. His production, however, has stayed extremely consistent. What does that say about Granger to you? Does that make it seem like he has a bunch of room to improve and blossom or does it seem like he might be very near his peak as a player? 



> We're not going to win a championship with Darren ****ing Collison, either…


I will now attempt to condense the rest of your comments into a single statement:

“I’m a trigger happy, NBA 2K10-playing, child who doesn’t have a concept of player values or of building a stable, winning franchise.”

Does that about cover it?

This is the same type of thinking that has made the NBA the league with the least overall parity of any of the major sports. Since the 1979 season, only 8 franchises have won NBA championships. Let that number sink a little bit. 30 years… up to 30 franchises at a time… 8 champions. In the same time period, there have been 14 different Super Bowl Champions, 14 different Stanley Cup winners, and 19 different World Series winning franchises. Why is that the case?

From a fan’s perspective, too many teams have taken the Donald Sterling approach to owning an NBA team. Put a mediocre product out that doesn’t take much of an investment to finance and keep turning a profit. Are you satisfied if your team stays in that mode for years at a time? If not, why not pull the trigger on some radical moves? What good does standing pat (as you suggest) do for you as a fan? Let me paint you a sensible picture of what your franchise could look like in a couple years with different ownership and this trade. I will stop off to address some of your other points along the way.

Let’s start with the bleak outlook for next season that you described:

PG Darren Collison/TJ Ford/AJ Price
SG Brandon Rush/Lance Stephenson
SF Mike Dunleavy/Paul George/Peja Stojakovic
PF Troy Murphy/Tyler Hansbrough/Josh McRoberts/Solomon Jones
C Roy Hibbert/Jeff Foster

I agree with you that this team will finish with a bottom 5 record in the league. This gives them a much better shot at winning the top pick than they would have had otherwise. This brings me to another one of your points:



> You don't trade your team's best player for need. It really makes absolutely no sense whatsoever… we could have Granger, who already plays at an elite level and is guaranteed to play at an elite level for years to come… I mean, sure, trade Dunleavy, trade Rush/Dahntay, possibly trade George if the deal is right, but under no circumstance do you trade the face of your franchise.


We have already established our fundamental disagreement on Granger’s future potential. I don’t think your team is going anywhere with him as the face of your franchise. Regardless of that consideration, though, we both agree that’s he’s just about good enough right now to keep the Pacers drafting somewhere in that 8 to 14 range every year. You can get good players in that range, sure, but the probability of landing a franchise player with one of those picks is much lower than the probability of landing that type of talent with a top pick. Imagine what this Pacers team would look like if Granger had been hurt long enough to get them John Wall this offseason. Why not give them that chance and fill a need at the same time?

This brings us to the offseason. Indy would have their pick (top 5), the Hornets’ pick (9 to 18 range), and their own second round pick (31 to 35 range). This brings us to another of your points:



> {Collison} isn't as valuable in the system. Just because we could possibly be trading for Darren Collison doesn't mean it would be a better for the offense if we stopped running motion and instead ran 150 pick & rolls every game… even if we kept Granger and had Collison, the pick & roll would severely diminish Granger's game.


I have two huge problems with this assertion.

Collison is more versatile than you let on. It’s far too early in his career to pigeonhole him as a system player.
Jim O’Brien’s contract expires at the end of this coming season for a reason, folks. Bird has no intentions on bringing him back the following year. The reinvention of the team that he’s been planning for next summer included more than just loads of cap space. The new coach will bring in a system and hopefully mold that a little to meet the strengths of his core personnel.
Now we come to the cap space (that you don’t care about) that Larry Bird has been working his hind quarters off trying to create:



> The cap space really doesn't matter. We have enough of it already and I've already stated above that this is Indiana, and we don't sign free agents because 1. They don't want to come here and 2. We're cheap. So it's essentially getting a potential James Johnson/Gerald Green hybrid or maybe, if things turn out well, a rotational player, to make up the difference between Darren Collison and Danny Granger? **** that.


Spoken like a true fan of a wounded franchise that hasn’t won a title since the ABA era. Let’s take a reasoned look at the upcoming free agency situation.

After this deal, the Pacers will have 7 guys under contract. All of them will be young and growing together. The total cap number of those 7 players would be slightly over $13 mil. That’s it. Regardless of what the new CBA looks like, the Pacers will have a ton of money to spend. I’ll take Carmelo, Yao, and Tony Parker out of the equation because of reason number one that you stated. So just what type of free agent would actually sign in Indiana? 

A guy like Zach Randolph might be a good fit. He is coming off a true all-star season. He’s motivated and in good shape. He will be 29 after next season, coming into his own as a player and as a person, and looking for a long term deal. They might even be able to lock him up for less than the max. While they’re at it, they could make a play for Marc Gasol, too. He’s a guy who would be 26 and just approaching his prime at that time. He’s got legit center size and he’s not scared to do the dirty work for you. Let’s throw Mike Conley in the mix as well. The Grizz have been souring on him as of late. He would be a nice back-up PG to Collison. Of course, these deals only work if the Grizzlies don’t get these guys locked up to extensions this summer.

Thaddeus Young is a young guy with a lot of potential that might consider a move to Indiana as well. If Doug Collins likes what he gets out of Elton Brand this season, Young would be expendable due to the financial investment this team has made on Brand. Depending on how the season plays out in Utah, Dallas, Detroit, and Washington, a bunch of under under 30 guys like Andrei Kirilenko, Caron Butler, Tayshaun Prince, and Josh Howard might all be looking for changes of scenery after this season.

Jamal Crawford will probably be looking for a new home. Celtic big men Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis might be on the market… as might other good, young, role players like JR Smith, Tyson Chandler, Arron Afflalo, Craig Smith, Kelenna Azubuike, Carl Landry, Nick Collison, and Sam Dalembert.

On the list of veteran talent looking to land one last starting job will be Jason Richardson, Grant Hill, Joel Przybilla, Peja Stojakovic, Michael Redd, Shane Battier, Kenyon Martin, Maurice Evans, and Eric Dampier. All of them could be had at a very reasonable price next year. Not to mention that Dunleavy and Murphy themselves wouldn’t be bad additions at much reduced prices.

Again, we’re not talking about signing one or two of these guys either. Depending on the terms of the CBA and the contracts they wind up commanding, Indy could be looking at 4 or 5 really solid players from that free agent class. Here’s one possible scenario:

PG Darren Collison/Mike Conley/AJ Price
SG Jamal Crawford/Brandon Rush/Lance Stephenson
SF Caron Butler/Paul George/CJ Leslie (#18 pick out of NC state)
PF Enes Kanter (#3 pick out of Turkey)/Tyler Hansbrough/Craig Smith
C Roy Hibbert/Joel Przybilla/Keith Benson (#33 pick out of Oakland)

Head Coach: Lawrence Frank (who will be looking for a rebuilding job at the right time)

In this very realistic scenario, you are maximizing your potential to the utmost. You are basically banking that at least two players out of the Kanter/Collison/George/Hibbert/Conley/Rush/Stephenson/Hansbrough group of promising young players has all-star potential. That’s not too much of a stretch, IMO. Plus, you have all but guaranteed yourself a shot at a top 5 guy again the following year. You know who rebuilt their teams this exact way? Oklahoma City, Portland, and Memphis to name three. Those are also three of the most promising young teams in the league who all feel like they have championship aspirations in the next few years. 

Why couldn’t Indiana be one of those teams?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> What a giant leap you took right there!
> 
> I mentioned Usage Rate not scoring.
> My point was that a high Usage Rate does not automatically make someone a franchise player. You had suggested that was the case.
> ...


Touche. I lost track of your original point, because yes, Reggie Miller was probably one of the most efficient, low usage players in the history of the NBA. But even as far as usage rate goes, Rik Smits was never top 10 in the league. I don't even have the numbers and I'll go ahead and assert that. 

Sure, you can throw out guys like Abdur-Rahim, and I'll go ahead and toss in Monta Ellis, Rip Hamilton, and Rodney Stuckey for guys who have equal or higher usage rates than Granger who I don't consider franchise guys. So perhaps my notion of anyone in the top 10 being a franchise player is a bit naive since I never looked at the list. However, the only Small Forwards ahead of Granger are Durant, LeBron, and Melo. In terms of Shooting Guards, he even has more chances than Brandon Roy. Do I think that number would go down if he were paired with a superstar? Absolutely, but I don't think his overall production would change since he wouldn't have to take so many bad 3's every game.



> This is the old “more than one way to skin a cat” argument. You are quite right. Let’s look at an example, shall we?
> 
> In the ’97-’98 season, Scottie Pippen scored 19 PPG on 45% shooting from the field.
> In the ’91-’92 season, Isaiah Thomas scored 19 PPG on 45% shooting from the field.
> ...


Yes, not all 19 ppg lines are equal.



> Conventional wisdom says that Granger’s role has changed over the last three seasons. I agree. His production, however, has stayed extremely consistent. What does that say about Granger to you? Does that make it seem like he has a bunch of room to improve and blossom or does it seem like he might be very near his peak as a player?


You really should stop thinking that a jump in 6 ppg is equal in production. You can argue that the last two years have been equal, and I'll give you that, although this past year he's been much less efficient, but arguing that a 6 ppg jump is equal in production, you could argue that Granger's never improved his production his entire career because each year until this past one he's made a jump about that size. 

Near his peak of statistical production? Possibly, but I don't think he's anywhere close to being finished as a player. He has a lot to add to his game that could make him as diverse a scorer as Melo/Durant. Of course, this is all on Granger to get in the gym and work on his post game (which could be lethal) and ball handling in addition to possibly bulking up. As a guy who stands in the corner and shoots 3's, or pops up and shoot 3's, yes, he's probably peaked, but you're completely overlooking how dynamic his game can become. 




> I will now attempt to condense the rest of your comments into a single statement:
> 
> “I’m a trigger happy, NBA 2K10-playing, child who doesn’t have a concept of player values or of building a stable, winning franchise.”


I can't accurately the first two, but yes, I don't think you have the first clue about player values because you're too focused on your own team's backup PG.

And that's connected to the ability to build a franchise, because the lineup you posted at the bottom looks absolutely atrocious. Discounting that Caron Butler is another player who would never come here, that team has no one, absolutely no one, that I would trust to give the ball to with 10 seconds left in a game. No one on that team is going to average 20 ppg, except Butler, who has no chance of being on it. You're suggesting we trade the only bright part of this team to tank the season, when that's not even necessary. As much as I dislike tanking, we don't even need to do it. This team hardly has a chance of sniffing the playoffs. Last year, with a similar lineup (and the rest of the league has improved more than us), we were in the bottom 5 of the league for a very long time until we put it all together in the end of the year when it didn't matter and no other teams out of the playoffs cared. This team is a bottom dweller with or without Granger, and we're going to get a top pick with or without Granger.




> From a fan’s perspective, too many teams have taken the Donald Sterling approach to owning an NBA team. Put a mediocre product out that doesn’t take much of an investment to finance and keep turning a profit. Are you satisfied if your team stays in that mode for years at a time? If not, why not pull the trigger on some radical moves? What good does standing pat (as you suggest) do for you as a fan? Let me paint you a sensible picture of what your franchise could look like in a couple years with different ownership and this trade. I will stop off to address some of your other points along the way.


You're arguing this for the exactly wrong team. Sure, you can say this for Donald Sterling, but for this Pacers team, we lose money every year. I'm pretty sure it's been 3 years in a row that we haven't turned a profit now and have been next to last in attendance, so no, sitting in mediocrity is terrible for this franchise. You know what would be even worse? Trading the only guy on this team who matters right now, killing the last remaining hope for any fan of this team, and being a bottom 5 team for the next 10 years. 

I don't think you realize the serious nature of this situation. This isn't just building a team. This isn't NBA 2k where you can be a bottom dweller for a few years, stock up on draft picks, and then win. This is real life, where if you don't put out a competitive product, your fans will ditch you. 

Now, the Pacers are likely to stay in Indy until Herb Simon dies, which could honestly be any day now. His brother died early this year. Any new owner for this team would see that we have no fans, no product, and no market, which is a good combination to move this team. The way our agreement with Conseco is set up is that any new owner that wants to move the team after the 2012-2013 season will owe about $30 million, and nothing after the 2019-2020 season. $30 million is hardly anything for a potential billionaire owner, so if we want this team to stay in Indianapolis, they need to be competitive. Bird's trying to make us competitive, but it'll take a while. He learned everything he knows from Donnie Walsh, who took over a similar situation with the Pacers back in the '80's. He needed 8 years, and he said so at the start, to turn over a competitive product. Bird has used 5 years already, although two of those were putting out a very mediocre, potential playoff team. However, 3 years from now, with a likely top 8 pick this year, and lottery picks the next year or two afterwards, we'll absolutely be a playoff team and start turning the corner.

We have a core now of Hibbert/Granger/George/Rush, which, although isn't spectacular, is a core, and could work out in the long term. The proposal you have below is a similar strategy to what the Nets did this off season in clearing almost everyone. They ended up with a big pile of ****. No one wants to come to Indiana, and I guarantee you without Danny Granger, the best we'll be able to do is sign a 6-7 million dollar player to a max contract to pair up with a bunch of a scrubs and role players, and more 6-7 million players on max contracts. We'll be the next version of the Detroit Pistons, who aren't any better than we are right now. 

It's a potentially crippling and devestating move that not only threatens to move the team in 2-3 years, but possibly even cause the franchise to fold because we won't have any money to spend. This is why I say you don't look at the seriousness of the situation. If we trade Danny Granger, the entire franchise may indeed not exist in 5 years.

Let’s start with the bleak outlook for next season that you described:

PG Darren Collison/TJ Ford/AJ Price
SG Brandon Rush/Lance Stephenson
SF Mike Dunleavy/Paul George/Peja Stojakovic
PF Troy Murphy/Tyler Hansbrough/Josh McRoberts/Solomon Jones
C Roy Hibbert/Jeff Foster

I agree with you that this team will finish with a bottom 5 record in the league. This gives them a much better shot at winning the top pick than they would have had otherwise. This brings me to another one of your points:




> We have already established our fundamental disagreement on Granger’s future potential. I don’t think your team is going anywhere with him as the face of your franchise. Regardless of that consideration, though, we both agree that’s he’s just about good enough right now to keep the Pacers drafting somewhere in that 8 to 14 range every year. You can get good players in that range, sure, but the probability of landing a franchise player with one of those picks is much lower than the probability of landing that type of talent with a top pick.


I don't think you understand that for the most part, we don't draft well in the top 5. We've consistently been an 8-14 pick team for the past 20 years, discounting the Reggie Miller era. We've picked Reggie Miller, Clark Kellogg (who would've been great if not for injuries), Herb Williams, Dale Davis, Malik Sealy, and Danny Granger in that range. Sure, we have Eric Dampier, Austin Croshere (who was solid), and Freddie Jones, but for the most part, we've been experts in that range, and we even find good value later in drafts like Danny Granger and Al Harrington. Tanking to get top picks has never been this team's philosophy.



> Imagine what this Pacers team would look like if Granger had been hurt long enough to get them John Wall this offseason. Why not give them that chance and fill a need at the same time?


You know we were toe-to-toe with the Wizards for that #5 spot that won them the lottery for the better part of the entire season? We just made a run towards the end of the year that pushed us back to #10.




> Collison is more versatile than you let on. It’s far too early in his career to pigeonhole him as a system player.


It's also far too early in his career to have enough confidence in him to trade your 25 ppg star swingman for him.




> Jim O’Brien’s contract expires at the end of this coming season for a reason, folks. Bird has no intentions on bringing him back the following year. The reinvention of the team that he’s been planning for next summer included more than just loads of cap space. The new coach will bring in a system and hopefully mold that a little to meet the strengths of his core personnel.


I'm really not sure you follow this team very much. It's a possibility that Obie leaves after next season and Bird has said that coaches tend to lose their players after 3 seasons of losing. But, Bird is great friends with O'Brien, loves his approach as a coach, and wanted to keep him around so badly that he gave him a contract extension when he was considering retirement. Bird's method is different than most other NBA executives. He'd rather build his team around his coach than find a coach for his team. He learned that very well with Rick Carlisle and in Obie's first two seasons. For the first time in Obie's tenure, we're fielding a mildly-athletic team that can run and can shoot, so if Bird sticks around, he might give him another extension.




> A guy like Zach Randolph might be a good fit. He is coming off a true all-star season. He’s motivated and in good shape. He will be 29 after next season, coming into his own as a player and as a person, and looking for a long term deal. They might even be able to lock him up for less than the max. While they’re at it, they could make a play for Marc Gasol, too. He’s a guy who would be 26 and just approaching his prime at that time. He’s got legit center size and he’s not scared to do the dirty work for you. Let’s throw Mike Conley in the mix as well. The Grizz have been souring on him as of late. He would be a nice back-up PG to Collison. Of course, these deals only work if the Grizzlies don’t get these guys locked up to extensions this summer.


No Randolph, ever.

Marc Gasol I'm fine with, but I see no reason the Grizzlies would let him go after max'ing Rudy Gay.

Mike Conley, ugh. The last thing this team needs is another underwhelming PG who can't shoot.



> Thaddeus Young is a young guy with a lot of potential that might consider a move to Indiana as well. If Doug Collins likes what he gets out of Elton Brand this season, Young would be expendable due to the financial investment this team has made on Brand. Depending on how the season plays out in Utah, Dallas, Detroit, and Washington, a bunch of under under 30 guys like Andrei Kirilenko, Caron Butler, Tayshaun Prince, and Josh Howard might all be looking for changes of scenery after this season.


Thad Young would be an excellent addition, but he's also not going to be a franchise changer. All the guys you mentioned are complementary players (besides Butler, who won't come here). So in your scenario, we'll be surrounding Roy Hibbert and Darren Collison, unreliable and unproven as they already are, with role players. Excellent. Just superb. That's a winner. Sigh.



> Jamal Crawford will probably be looking for a new home. Celtic big men Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis might be on the market… as might other good, young, role players like JR Smith, Tyson Chandler, Arron Afflalo, Craig Smith, Kelenna Azubuike, Carl Landry, Nick Collison, and Sam Dalembert.


To everyone besides Landry, and Perkins (who is staying in Boston), all I have to say is:

We're trading Granger for the opportunity to get two more of you than the 2-3 we're already getting!?!?!?



> On the list of veteran talent looking to land one last starting job will be Jason Richardson, Grant Hill, Joel Przybilla, Peja Stojakovic, Michael Redd, Shane Battier, Kenyon Martin, Maurice Evans, and Eric Dampier. All of them could be had at a very reasonable price next year. Not to mention that Dunleavy and Murphy themselves wouldn’t be bad additions at much reduced prices.
> 
> Again, we’re not talking about signing one or two of these guys either. Depending on the terms of the CBA and the contracts they wind up commanding, Indy could be looking at 4 or 5 really solid players from that free agent class.


Yes. Stupendous. We can have the deepest bench in the league and be a more well-rounded version of the Pistons with slightly cheaper contracts. Playoffs? Never.



> Here’s one possible scenario:
> 
> PG Darren Collison/Mike Conley/AJ Price
> SG Jamal Crawford/Brandon Rush/Lance Stephenson
> ...


Can I just kill myself right now? That team is atrocious.

In this very realistic scenario, you are maximizing your potential to the utmost. You are basically banking that at least two players out of the Kanter/Collison/George/Hibbert/Conley/Rush/Stephenson/Hansbrough group of promising young players has all-star potential. That’s not too much of a stretch, IMO. [/QUOTE]


Yes, it is. We know already that Conley and Rush won't be all-stars. Hansbrough is a career scrapper, and that's assuming he'll ever play another NBA game.

Hibbert might make a few all-star games if he keeps improving. George is a complete unknown. Collison might not ever make an all-star game with how deep the guard position is in the East. I can't really comment on Kanter, and Stephenson most likely won't be an all-star. And no, we need them to be more than just all-stars. Please tell me what exactly is wrong with keeping an all-star and banking on Hibbert/George/Rush/Stephenson/Hansbrough/cap space/our pick this year to get us another player to tear up the league with Granger? Really, the only difference is that we get a guy who probably won't be an all-star for a guy who already is. We get a smaller contract so we can sign role players in free agency, and then a mid-range pick. Just outstanding.




> Plus, you have all but guaranteed yourself a shot at a top 5 guy again the following year. You know who rebuilt their teams this exact way? Oklahoma City, Portland, and Memphis to name three. Those are also three of the most promising young teams in the league who all feel like they have championship aspirations in the next few years.
> 
> Why couldn’t Indiana be one of those teams?


Because we won't be around if we trade Granger. We'll be in San Diego, Vegas, or not even in the NBA.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

hey, here's an idea- how about we get into a multi-team trade and end up doing a trade that sends away Murphy for Collison?


----------

