# Rebuilding the Pacers



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Here is what I think we should do to rebuild the Pacers, starting with who I think we keep, who we should trade, and our expirers.

Stay
------

Mike Dunleavy
Travis Diener
Jeff Foster
Marquis Daniels
Jermaine O'Neal
Ike Diogu
Shawne Williams


Trade
------

Danny Granger (I don't like having two starting SFs and I think we could get a lot more value out of him compared to Dunleavy, maybe even a top 10 pick)

Troy Murphy


Let expire
----------
Flip Murray
Stephen Graham




We trade Granger for a top ten pick, that way we have two. We draft Russell Westbrook and Kevin love with our 2 first rounders. With our second round pick, we draft Will Daniels out of Rhode Island. I would resign David Harrison for a big body, Kareem Rush for a backup shooting guard, and Andre Owens for a third string point guard. To get rid of Murphy, I say we trade Troy Murphy and a second rounder for Raef Lafrentz (an expiring contract), if we could get the Blazers to agree to it. Here is how our roster looks now.

Travis Diener/Russell Westbrook/Andre Owens
Marquis Daniels/Kareem Rush/Will Daniels
Mike Dunleavy/Shawne Williams/Will Daniels
Jermaine O'Neal/Ike Diogu/Kevin Love
Jeff Foster/Kevin Love/David Harrison

We get minutes for our young guys to show us what they can do (mainly Ike Diogu and Shawne). I think Love would get about 24 mins as a rookie, which isn't bad, and Russell gets about the same amount. This is rebuild on the fly, because we would be competetive and also have a lot of youth. If we suck really bad next season, then is the time to get rid of JO, but i'm not giving up on him yet. 


Here is what I would expect our rotation players to average.


Diener
24 mins
8 pts
5 assists
1.5 rebounds

Westbrook
24 mins
9 pts
3 assists
2 rebounds

Marquis
28 mins
14 pts
3 assists
3 rebounds

Dunleavy
35 mins
19 pts
4 assists
5 rebounds

Rush
20 mins
8 pts
2 assists
2 rebounds

O'Neal
32 mins
16 pts
3 assists
9 rebounds

Foster
20 mins
4 points
1 assist
8 rebounds

Love
24 mins
6 points
2 assists
6 rebounds

Diogu
20 mins
8 points
.5 assists
4 rebounds

Shawne Williams
13 minutes
5 points
.5 assists
3 rebounds


What do you guys think?


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

No way we keep Dunleavy over Granger. Dunleavy really strikes me as the kind of person to crumple under pressure (Celtic Game the other night), Granger is younger and has more of an upside as well. If we deal a SF it should be Dunleavy while his stock is still high.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

No way Jose. Granger is our franchise player. Why take a chance on a top ten pick when we know Granger can play? And I still don't get why you want Westbrook. Have you seen him play? He's nothing special. Kevin Love is the guy we need and if we do get him hopefully Bird will get rid of Jermaine O'neal for whatever we can get. I honestly dont even care anymore. Just get him out of here. I do like the Murphy trade though for an expiring contract.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Knick_Killer31 said:


> No way Jose. Granger is our franchise player. Why take a chance on a top ten pick when we know Granger can play? And I still don't get why you want Westbrook. Have you seen him play? He's nothing special. Kevin Love is the guy we need and if we do get him hopefully Bird will get rid of Jermaine O'neal for whatever we can get. I honestly dont even care anymore. Just get him out of here. I do like the Murphy trade though for an expiring contract.


GRANGER IS NOT A FRANCHISE PLAYER!!!!!! WE WILL NEVER EVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP WITH HIM AS OUR BEST PLAYER!!!! Gosh, and as for keeping Dunleavy over Granger, he is a very efficient player and I would keep him over Granger because he doesn't have as much value and we probably won't get half the player he is in a trade with him as the main piece. Also, your opinions are not facts and no I have not seen Westbrook play but I have heard great things and its not what he is now, its what he could be that makes me want to draft him. I can't see everyone lying about Westbrook being a hard working guy and a great coachable player, and you also can't fake athletecism. He supposedly has a money mid range jumper and I watched a video of him and he gets to the rim at ease, though his ball handling on the drive is not the best, but thats something you can teach easily and I have confidence that he will improve it if he is half the worker he supposedly is. Another thing about Granger, if he was a franchise player he would be more than a three point shooter and that is all he is on offense except for his occasional drive. He isn't even a good defender, he just has potential in that area. According to what people say Westbrook is a great defender. Even after this rebuilding job I posted we will not have a franchise player and we probably won't for a few years, there are only a handful of franchise players in the league and Granger is not half the player they are.

Here are what I call franchise players:

Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Tim Duncan
Chris Paul
Dwight Howard
Kevin Garnett
Steve Nash

Players like Chris Bosh and Deron Williams have that kind of potential but they aren't there quite yet. You could probably throw Stoudemire in there but he isn't even the leader of his team so I left him out also. Anyways, point is, Granger is nowhere near the level of these players and I can't see him getting there.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

If you were lucky enough, Murphy AND Dunleavy would be gone this off-season. Those contracts are killing you. As far as I am concerned Granger is the only Keeper.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Ruff Draft said:


> If you were lucky enough, Murphy AND Dunleavy would be gone this off-season. Those contracts are killing you. As far as I am concerned Granger is the only Keeper.


Dunleavy is actually a bargain if he kept his play up for the rest of his contract. Murphy is a burden, yes, but I think some teams would give expirings for him.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> GRANGER IS NOT A FRANCHISE PLAYER!!!!!! WE WILL NEVER EVER WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP WITH HIM AS OUR BEST PLAYER!!!!


So? We never won one with Reggie. He wasn't an all-time great, but did you consider him to be our franchise player?



> and no I have not seen Westbrook play but I have heard great things and its not what he is now, its what he could be that makes me want to draft him. I can't see everyone lying about Westbrook being a hard working guy and a great coachable player, and you also can't fake athletecism. He supposedly has a money mid range jumper and I watched a video of him and he gets to the rim at ease, though his ball handling on the drive is not the best, but thats something you can teach easily and I have confidence that he will improve it if he is half the worker he supposedly is.


So you've never seen the guy play, yet for the past week, you've been touting him as a great draft pick based on a few opinions from others and a video clip?



> Another thing about Granger, if he was a franchise player he would be more than a three point shooter and that is all he is on offense except for his occasional drive.


His driving ability basically tripled this season. He's no longer just a shooter, although he still needs work.



> He isn't even a good defender, he just has potential in that area.


Reggie? He was worth keeping.



> Even after this rebuilding job I posted we will not have a franchise player and we probably won't for a few years, there are only a handful of franchise players in the league and Granger is not half the player they are.


Too bad if you don't think he's worthy of being our franchise player, because he is. The team is being built around him, so he's not leaving. That's a franchise player.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> So? We never won one with Reggie. He wasn't an all-time great, but did you consider him to be our franchise player?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm tired of arguing this. Reggie was a franchise player, he made all star teams, he was a leader, he came through in the clutch, and would have gotten championships if he had the type of team he needed, Granger will never be on the level he was. He can't shoot off the dribble like Reggie could (although I am too young to see anything but clips shown on TV, never got to see him in games or in person) and unless he changes his weired form I don't think he will ever be able to get his shots off like Reggie could. He has yet to hit a game winning shot and he will probalby never make an all star team because of how loaded the NBA is. I only consider the players mentioned earlier franchise players because they are either the most talented players or because they have won championships like Duncan.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> I'm tired of arguing this. Reggie was a franchise player, he made all star teams, he was a leader, he came through in the clutch, and would have gotten championships if he had the type of team he needed, Granger will never be on the level he was.


Not to downplay Reggie's career, but he only averaged 18 ppg. I see no reason why Granger can't make all-star teams or be the head guy on a championship team. He might not be as vocal or charasmatic, but he's good.



> He can't shoot off the dribble like Reggie could (although I am too young to see anything but clips shown on TV, never got to see him in games or in person)


Apparently you haven't seen Granger, either, because his mid-range jumper off the dribble from about 17 feet is turning into his best move.



> and unless he changes his weired form I don't think he will ever be able to get his shots off like Reggie could.


His form's fine. It's not super quick, but he gets such great extension on it that it's hard for others to guard.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Pacers_Fan saved me alot of typing.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> Not to downplay Reggie's career, but he only averaged 18 ppg. I see no reason why Granger can't make all-star teams or be the head guy on a championship team. He might not be as vocal or charasmatic, but he's good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He is also not the clutch player Reggie was. Thing is I just think that Granger will be successful unless he is the second best on the team. He has leadership abilities yes, but I think he needs a star post player (ironically, like Jermaine O'Neal) to be the best player because he will never be able to do it just by himself.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> He is also not the clutch player Reggie was.


That can come with time. For now he's missed every last-second shot he's ever taken, but he still takes them. It's promising.



> Thing is I just think that Granger will be successful unless he is the second best on the team. He has leadership abilities yes, but I think he needs a star post player (ironically, like Jermaine O'Neal) to be the best player because he will never be able to do it just by himself.


I thought the same about Reggie Miller. Ideally Reggie would've been the #2 option to a post player, but that didn't happen. Granger can easily become a 20+ ppg scorer, maybe even 25 in this offense.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> That can come with time. For now he's missed every last-second shot he's ever taken, but he still takes them. It's promising.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the same about Reggie Miller. Ideally Reggie would've been the #2 option to a post player, but that didn't happen. Granger can easily become a 20+ ppg scorer, maybe even 25 in this offense.


Porblem is the only offensive moves he has is an occasional drive and the three. I disagree that his mid range jumper is his best move, he never makes them. His shot is a problem because he has to be set to look comfortable shooting, otherwise its low and hits off the back of the rim all the time.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

DienerTime you may be the only Pacer fan that does not like Granger...


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

rock747 said:


> DienerTime you may be the only Pacer fan that does not like Granger...


I do like Granger, I just think you guys have stupid and unreasonable expectations of him.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

DienerTime said:


> I do like Granger, I just think you guys have stupid and unreasonable expectations of him.


I think you have stupid and unreasonable expectations for Dunleavy. Granger is going to be the better of the two. Dunleavy won't show up for big games. Now is our chance to get something for Dunleavy while his stock is high. I think it makes no sense to keep Dunleavy over Granger.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

DienerTime said:


> I do like Granger, I just think you guys have stupid and unreasonable expectations of him.


AND I do like Westbrook, I just think you have stupid and unreasonable expectations of him.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I don't get why DienerTime is arguing for a college player's case off highlights. Westbrook could be the player with the bigguest bust factor in the lottery. He is a valuable contributor but he never carried his team. You look down the lottery, and you see names like Lopez, Gordon, Mayo- all #1s on their team. Westbrook hasn't exactly stepped up that much in the tournament either.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

rock747 said:


> I think you have stupid and unreasonable expectations for Dunleavy. Granger is going to be the better of the two. Dunleavy won't show up for big games. Now is our chance to get something for Dunleavy while his stock is high. I think it makes no sense to keep Dunleavy over Granger.


I know Danny will be the better of the two I just think the difference isn't big enough to get almost naught for Dunleavy compared to getting a top 10 pick for Granger, and I don't like having two starting small forwards starting together, it takes away from us defensively and makes us slower offensively compared to having someone like Daniels starting at 2-guard. Why do you say Dunleavy won't show up for big games? He hits clutch threes all the time late in games and Granger wasn't exactly doing well against the Celtics either.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Chan said:


> I don't get why DienerTime is arguing for a college player's case off highlights. Westbrook could be the player with the bigguest bust factor in the lottery. He is a valuable contributor but he never carried his team. You look down the lottery, and you see names like Lopez, Gordon, Mayo- all #1s on their team. Westbrook hasn't exactly stepped up that much in the tournament either.


If those players were available at our pick you'd better believe i'd be taking them, but they won't be and i'm thinking Westbrook will be about where we draft. I'm not a college basketball fan at all, so I rely on gut instinct and reading about them online around draft time.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Knick_Killer31 said:


> AND I do like Westbrook, I just think you have stupid and unreasonable expectations of him.


I never said he was a superstar I said he could be a borderline all-star, just like Monta Ellis.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

There is no we are drafting Westbrook, so I wouldn't really worried about that too much...And I understand what DT is saying about Granger, but even though he's no Kobe or Howard, he's all this franchise has right now, plus the kid is young and continues to improve, so who's to say he won't ever make the All-Star team. We will continue to build around Danny because it's the smart thing to do, and I think even Bird can figur that out.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> Porblem is the only offensive moves he has is an occasional drive and the three.


He's been posting up a bit more and using a turnaround jumper. He can make 3's, mid-range shots, shots off the dribble, and then get to the basket through a spin, crossover, or post-up. He's not completely well-rounded, but he has something in every area of offense that he can use now, and when he develops them further, he'll be much better.



> I disagree that his mid range jumper is his best move, he never makes them.


Are you talking about his pull-up mid-range jumper? He's a shooter. He'll make them when he's on and won't when he's not. That shot is rather flat, though, which is an issue.



> His shot is a problem because he has to be set to look comfortable shooting, otherwise its low and hits off the back of the rim all the time.


Granger has great arc on his 3-pointer. He's been using the same form on his jumper all year, so he looks comfortable with it.



> to getting a top 10 pick for Granger


How is that good? We'd just end up picking a PG like Augustin or Collison who will never be close to as good as Granger. Trading a proven scorer who is just now learning all the moves on offense for a rookie is not the right move.



> and I don't like having two starting small forwards starting together, it takes away from us defensively and makes us slower offensively compared to having someone like Daniels starting at 2-guard.


Daniels would be a terrible starting 2 in this offense. Everyone needs to be able hit a jumper here, and Daniels can't.



> Why do you say Dunleavy won't show up for big games? He hits clutch threes all the time late in games and Granger wasn't exactly doing well against the Celtics either.


Dunleavy has to be hit in the face to wake up in some games. Sure, Granger shies away from the ball at times, too, but remember that he's in his 3rd year, while Dunleavy's in his 6th. Granger has more room to improve.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> Daniels would be a terrible starting 2 in this offense. Everyone needs to be able hit a jumper here, and Daniels can't.


He is getting a lot better at that, and has been shooting it with confidence. I am in belief that next year he will be a lot better at the jumpshot and he will be able to hit about 35% from long range.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

DienerTime said:


> If those players were available at our pick you'd better believe i'd be taking them, but they won't be and i'm thinking Westbrook will be about where we draft. I'm not a college basketball fan at all, so I rely on gut instinct and reading about them online around draft time.


That's a terrible policy. There's no other player that is of equal value with Granger. You won't get a top 2 pick, and the best you can get is probably Brook Lopez. What, you gonna trade Granger for Westbrook?


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> He is getting a lot better at that, and has been shooting it with confidence. I am in belief that next year he will be a lot better at the jumpshot and he will be able to hit about 35% from long range.


He's shooting 26% from beyond the arc this year, the best in his career, which averages about 25%. He's shooting 71% from the line from the line with a career 74% mark, so he's not a shooter at all. If a summer of working on his jumper for a new style raised it 3% and his free throws 1%, I don't see how you think him having confidence is going to cause him to raise that 3P% 9% in one offseason. Shawne Williams and Travis Diener shoot 33% and 31% from 3. You think Daniels will be better than both of them at 3-point shooting, or are they both going to improve 9% as well?


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> He's shooting 26% from beyond the arc this year, the best in his career, which averages about 25%. He's shooting 71% from the line from the line with a career 74% mark, so he's not a shooter at all. If a summer of working on his jumper for a new style raised it 3% and his free throws 1%, I don't see how you think him having confidence is going to cause him to raise that 3P% 9% in one offseason. Shawne Williams and Travis Diener shoot 33% and 31% from 3. You think Daniels will be better than both of them at 3-point shooting, or are they both going to improve 9% as well?


I do think Daniels has potential as a shooter, he will never be great at it, but 35% is possible for him especially if he worked on it the most in the off season. I think its possible he passes Shawne in thee point efficiency, and if Diener doesn't show that his percentages in Orlando weren't a fluke, its possible he could pass him too. I just have hope for Daniels and his shooting has looked decent the past while, he just needs to add more arc and better technique, and he could get better. Why do you keep taking everything I say and arguing it? You know i'm not going to change my mind just because you don't agree with me and you have a thing or two I could point out and argue, like the fact that you think Tinsley should stay.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Chan said:


> That's a terrible policy. There's no other player that is of equal value with Granger. You won't get a top 2 pick, and the best you can get is probably Brook Lopez. What, you gonna trade Granger for Westbrook?


I'd love to trade Granger for Lopez, we need a good young Center to develop other than David Harrison. And your not even a Pacers fan and you haven't see just how much of a ghost Granger is on the court, half the time you don't even notice he is there. Once I was talking to a friend online watching the game and he said "Where is Granger? Is he not playing?" and guess what, Granger was on the court the whole time. Granger does not stand out in any way and if you took any small forward with a decent shot and revolved the game around them i'm sure they could average what Granger does. He doesn't even show his athletecism, he hardly ever dunks and when he does its the same exact dunk, excluding yesterdays dunk over Bogut (that happens maybe once every 40 games). Maybe I don't like Granger, I just hate how he is invisible on the court. My mom was suprised yesterday to hear Granger is our leading scorer, and she watches almost every game with me, she don't really even know who he is! She is a good fan too, we are going to the game tomorrow together. My point is, if he was any type of franchise player he would be noticeable on the court, and he is not.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Just because Granger isn't a Lebron-esque superstar doesn't mean you trade him. What are the guarantees that Lopez will be better? More than likely Lopez will be a servicable but not spectacular player. Then what, you gonna trade him for the best prospect you can get your hands on? You don't rebuild a team by recycling the best player on your team every 3-4 years.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

I'm not a Pacers fan but trading Granger straight up for Lopez would be foolish IMO. Having Lopez without Granger is pretty much like just having Granger or worse.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> I do think Daniels has potential as a shooter, he will never be great at it, but 35% is possible for him especially if he worked on it the most in the off season.


He's one of the worst guards at shooting in the entire league. You have no evidence to suggest that's going to change besides your magic crystal ball.



> I just have hope for Daniels and his shooting has looked decent the past while, he just needs to add more arc and better technique, and he could get better.


His form is fine. Sure, he needs a bit more arc, but it doesn't matter how he shoots if it always clanks off one side of the rim...or the backboard.



> Why do you keep taking everything I say and arguing it?


Because I disagree with you and you don't present any evidence of your opinions.



> You know i'm not going to change my mind just because you don't agree with me and you have a thing or two I could point out and argue, like the fact that you think Tinsley should stay.


But that's not the discussion.



> Once I was talking to a friend online watching the game and he said "Where is Granger? Is he not playing?"


I do that with every player that isn't playing PG.



> Granger does not stand out in any way and if you took any small forward with a decent shot


Decent shot? Decent?!



> and revolved the game around them i'm sure they could average what Granger does.


The game doesn't revolve around him. Not even close. Indy plays team ball.



> My point is, if he was any type of franchise player he would be noticeable on the court, and he is not.


That'll come with time. Him being a franchise player doesn't mean he always has to have the ball. It means that the team is built around him and that he won't be traded anywhere. He'll be better with time.

Brook Lopez will be nothing special as a pro. At best he's Chris Kaman in the build of Chris Mihm. While every team would like that, having a #1 scoring option who can play a bit of defense is better.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

DienerTime I think your a great poster but I just can't even come close to agreeing with you on this one(neither can many others). Is Danny Granger the ideal franchise player? No. But he's the best we got right now and we need to do everything we can to build around HIM. Were not building around Mike Dunleavy or Jermaine O'neal, WERE BUILDING AROUND DANNY GRANGER which means he's going nowhere. There is no chance in hell Larry Bird would even consider trading Granger. He is probably the only guy going into the off season who is guaranteed to be with us next year. Lot's of teams could be interested in Dunleavy after seeing what he did this season. Dunleavy has been great but getting rid of his contract would be real good for the team too. 

And back to the draft discussion, I especially don't like how you have been fighting for us to draft Westbrook when you haven't seen him play. Just watching some videos and reading people's opinions on the internet isn't enough to convince me that you truly know Westbrook could be a borderline all-star.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

DienerTime said:


> I know Danny will be the better of the two I just think the difference isn't big enough to get almost naught for Dunleavy compared to getting a top 10 pick for Granger, and I don't like having two starting small forwards starting together, it takes away from us defensively and makes us slower offensively compared to having someone like Daniels starting at 2-guard.


I don't beleive that Dunleavy will keep this play up when more scoring options come back to the team. I think now would be the best time to trade Mike. 


Granger and Shawne Willaims are really the only future this team has. Why trade a proven, solid, improving talent on a team for a unproven player in the draft??

Daniels should not start.


----------



## Wayne (May 24, 2006)

Im actually really liking Dunleavy right now, although if we could get some salary space or a better player I would do it while his stock is high.

Daniels deteriorated a lot and has really been bad at finishing. Earlier in the year and last season, he had a few 20 point games but hes just not consistent.

Pacers really need to draft a PF or a PG that can really create opportunities as opposed to a scoring one(PG most important).

Jeff Foster should start at Center


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Instead of calling Granger a franchise player, the way you guys are saying it, he is our best player and he is young. Not every team has a franchise player. Basically you guys don't wanna trade Granger because he has the most talent on the team and he is young and (possibly) still improving. I don't see him getting much better than he is now, so I wanna trade him while he has peak value (teams still see him as a improving 24/25 year old). While I want to keep Dunleavy because he is basically averaging what Granger does, with better percentages, and he is bound to improve without having Granger next to him, those two aren't a good fit. IF Daniels did improve his shooting to a respectable rate, he is what you want in a shooting guard. Defend, slash, finish (he needs to work on that), and he is an above average passer and ball handler for the 2- guard. I think with consistent minutes and a better jumpshot he could average about what I predicted, while fitting better with Dunleavy. Lets face it, Granger and Dunleavy have both been spot up shooters this year, except for Dunleavys screen shots in the mid range area (where did that go? I haven't seen that since early in the season) and Dannys occasional drive. I don't think you should have two players in the lineup that do the exact same thing. We'd be getting rid of the better defensive player, yes, but I think that is a small price to pay since for Dunleavy we would probably get an expiring contract but for Danny we'd get a top 10 pick and maybe even more.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Pacers Fan said:


> His form is fine. Sure, he needs a bit more arc, but it doesn't matter how he shoots if it always clanks off one side of the rim...or the backboard


That sounds a lot more like Troy Murphy. His shot is either right on target or off the side of the back board.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

DienerTime said:


> Instead of calling Granger a franchise player, the way you guys are saying it, he is our best player and he is young. Not every team has a franchise player.


Yeh, not every team has a guy to build around. We do. He's not LeBron James, but he's still very talented.



> I don't see him getting much better than he is now, so I wanna trade him while he has peak value (teams still see him as a improving 24/25 year old).


What makes you think he won't improve? He's made incredible strides so far both during the offseason and regular season, and has an offensive game that'll greatly complement his jumper if he works on it more.




> While I want to keep Dunleavy because he is basically averaging what Granger does, with better percentages, and he is bound to improve without having Granger next to him, those two aren't a good fit.


Sure, anyone's going to score more points if you eliminate a 19 ppg scorer and replace him with a crap rookie. Granger would, too, if Mike wasn't taking his shots.



> IF Daniels did improve his shooting to a respectable rate, he is what you want in a shooting guard. Defend, slash, finish (he needs to work on that), and he is an above average passer and ball handler for the 2- guard.


Yes, but that's also like saying if Adam Morrison had the ability to drive to the basket, he'd be a perfect SF, or if Brian Cook had the ability to post up, he'd be a great PF. It's not going to happen. Specialty players don't suddenly become great in other areas in one off season.



> I think with consistent minutes and a better jumpshot he could average about what I predicted, while fitting better with Dunleavy. Lets face it, Granger and Dunleavy have both been spot up shooters this year, except for Dunleavys screen shots in the mid range area (where did that go? I haven't seen that since early in the season) and Dannys occasional drive.


Are you forgetting Mike's cuts without the ball? Those have worked so well this year, and since he is more of an off the dribble player than Granger, they're okay together.



> I don't think you should have two players in the lineup that do the exact same thing.


They don't. Mike's a great passer and much better ball handler than Granger, and has some strange ability to make off balance shots around the basket and draw the foul. His driving to the basket is so awkward that no one can defend it. Granger's more of a shooter, but the other parts of his game will come. When it comes to the point where Granger's right with Mike in driving ability, they'll be completely different. Granger will rely on his quickness and spin moves, while Mike will rely on his deceptiveness.



> We'd be getting rid of the better defensive player, yes, but I think that is a small price to pay since for Dunleavy we would probably get an expiring contract but for Danny we'd get a top 10 pick and maybe even more.


The top 10 pick is worthless, especially in this draft, for Granger. Seriously, do you want him off the team that badly that you'd rather have Love, Westbrook, Jordan, Griffin, Gordon, Bayless, or Mayo's attitude?



> That sounds a lot more like Troy Murphy. His shot is either right on target or off the side of the back board.


Murphy also has no arc at all, yet is still shooting almost 40% from 3 this year, so it only clanks off some part of the goal 60% of the time, whereas it's 74% for Daniels.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

I can't even come close to agreeing with you DienerTime.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Oh well I give up. Guess who is heading to the game in an hour and a half?


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

Great man, have fun!


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I think Dunleavy can be used as an incentive to trade up in the draft, and possibly land Mayo, Bayless, or Gordon (who is the best fit for this system). Those guys are impact players, and I'd like to see Indiana get one of those. Just hope Bird doesn't decide to draft Kevin Love.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

rock747 said:


> Great man, have fun!


Oh I definitely did, my voice was gone after the game.. still hurts. I was screaming and clapping so loud at times that the person in front of me leaned forward.. I didn't care:lol:

Wanna hear something else funny? Some guy was dancing on camera during the game to get low (apple bottom jeans, boots with the furr) just to be watched on the camera (next to my seat they had cameras for an interview and afterwards put fans on camera for the rest of the fans to see, and no I didn't get to be on camera) and he was funny, his friend joined in, they were having a lot of fun. The atmosphere during the run was great(lathough quiet before that), everyone was screaming and having a good time when we were coming back for the win and while we were winning every shot people went crazy. It was a great experience and I might be going back in six days, we got cards for buy one get one free tickets and I hope I can go. I am really starting to grow onto our Pacers team.. the reason i'm making such a big deal out of this is because its the first game i've went to as a Pacers fan. The last time I went I wasn't really a fan and it was too long ago to remember much of it, I know it was a win against the Hawks and we still had Artest.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

Diener had a great game too. The guy couldn't miss in the 4th.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

rock747 said:


> Diener had a great game too. The guy couldn't miss in the 4th.


Yeah he definitely showed us what he is made of.. although thats once in every 20 games. Or when he plays the Bucks.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Glad you had fun DT!


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> Glad you had fun DT!


I might be going back to see the Bobcats on the 12th, they gave out buy one get one free cards so we might be going again. :yay:


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Nice to hear you had such a good time DT. I've been to a couple Timberwolves games. It's just so cool to see the games live in person. It's just awesome being so close to the players your use to seeing on TV. I saw the Celtics vs. T-Wolves this season. It was suppose to be KG's return to Minny. It was sold-out. It's a damn shame he was injured though. 2 nights later I got to see them play the Raptors and I moved up and got to watch the game from right behind the Raptors bench. It was fantastic. Nothing would be better then seeing a Pacers game at Conseco though.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

Knick_Killer31 said:


> Nice to hear you had such a good time DT. I've been to a couple Timberwolves games. It's just so cool to see the games live in person. It's just awesome being so close to the players your use to seeing on TV. I saw the Celtics vs. T-Wolves this season. It was suppose to be KG's return to Minny. It was sold-out. It's a damn shame he was injured though. 2 nights later I got to see them play the Raptors and I moved up and got to watch the game from right behind the Raptors bench. It was fantastic. Nothing would be better then seeing a Pacers game at Conseco though.


Wow right behind the bench. I'm sure you got to meet some players or coaches right? My seats were okay, but still balcony although I could see everyone clearly, we just don't have the money to get great seats.


----------



## PaCeRhOLiC (May 22, 2005)

Next time please take some pics for us...:cheers:


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

PaCeRhOLiC said:


> Next time please take some pics for us...:cheers:


Unfortunately I don't think cameras are allowed because it could distract the players.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

I'm pretty sure they are allowed.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

rock747 said:


> I'm pretty sure they are allowed.


okay then if I go to the bobcats game I will bring a camera and take a few pictures.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

DienerTime said:


> Unfortunately I don't think cameras are allowed because it could distract the players.


What are those pictures you see in on the sports page then?


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

Cameras are allowed DT. I took around 50 pictures.


----------



## rock747 (Aug 3, 2004)

DienerTime said:


> okay then if I go to the bobcats game I will bring a camera and take a few pictures.


Haha. I don't care if you take pictures. I was just going to tell you that you can take pics.


----------



## Redeemed (Feb 2, 2008)

pacerholic wanted me to take pics unless he wasn't talking to me


----------



## PacersorBust (Mar 6, 2008)

It looks like this has gotten off-topic a little bit but I'd like to provide some input/thought about this topic.

While his trade value is this high, I say we try and trade Dunleavy this summer, making this our number 1 goal (before O'Neal or Tinsley). Try and trade him for a mid 1st round pick and 08-09 expirings. 

Even though he is our franchise player right now, trading Danny Granger for a top 5 pick + 08-09 expirings wouldn't be such a bad idea, but I love the guy and would hate to see him go. But he has the most trade value on this team, and if the opportunity presented itself, i'd be tempted to pull the trigger. Note: I love Granger. I just want to see what kind of trade offers we could get for him.


----------

