RealGM

I just wanted to hear what you all have to say about this.. What's the point of keeping copeland? I know the guy has value in this league so what are the pacers doing with him and his 3mill dollar contract. Why not look for trade options? Why not trade him for someone who have an expiring contract?

he's the only insurance we have should West or Scola be injured. he also has more years left in him than they do.

He's our 5th big man, though he was originally signed to be our backup PF before we lucked into Scola. He also provides a skillset that is essentially always useful as a pure scorer. He can both sneak to the basket and hit the 3 effectively. Also has a good mid range post game.

He's what keeps us from disaster with a West, Scola, Hibbert, or Mahinmi twisted ankle in the playoffs. I also think he'll play spot minutes in the playoffs for certain roles, even if everyone is healthy.

Ultimately, I think we'd move him for a useful expiring big man who can be a safety against injury. I don't think we're willing to pay to do so.

I'm not sure the expiring contract would even have to be useful. There is logic to waiting until the deadline because you never know who might get hurt and Cope looks like he could handle backup 4 minutes. But there is no denying his 3 million salary slot looks more and more essential to the goal of resigning Lance and staying below the luxury tax threshold.

Waiting also allows more time to assess Granger. I see nothing in Copeland's game that Danny can't bring as a stretch 4. So I'm not sure that in the playoffs Copeland has any situational role. You would simply expand Granger's role.

I also question Copeland's value as a 5th big. The small doses of Copeland and Scola together have not looked encouraging. Heck Scola and West together for any extended minutes hasn't looked good to me. A 5th big who could give a rebounding/defense element competent to battle with a true center would better serve the 5th big role on this team. Find the guy who comes closest to that in the D League and replace Copeland and I'd feel better about the team. I don't mean to say Copeland is a bad guy or player. Just that right now his skillset s unneeded.

8305 wrote:I'm not sure the expiring contract would even have to be useful. There is logic to waiting until the deadline because you never know who might get hurt and Cope looks like he could handle backup 4 minutes. But there is no denying his 3 million salary slot looks more and more essential to the goal of resigning Lance and staying below the luxury tax threshold.

Waiting also allows more time to assess Granger. I see nothing in Copeland's game that Danny can't bring as a stretch 4. So I'm not sure that in the playoffs Copeland has any situational role. You would simply expand Granger's role.

I also question Copeland's value as a 5th big. The small doses of Copeland and Scola together have not looked encouraging. Heck Scola and West together for any extended minutes hasn't looked good to me. A 5th big who could give a rebounding/defense element competent to battle with a true center would better serve the 5th big role on this team. Find the guy who comes closest to that in the D League and replace Copeland and I'd feel better about the team. I don't mean to say Copeland is a bad guy or player. Just that right now his skillset s unneeded.

I can't imagine that we'd play Granger many minutes, if at all, at 4 this year in an attempt to keep his legs from getting beat up.

I can't see Granger at the 4 either if West and Scola stay healthy. Particularly during the regular season. What I was trying to respond to was the notion that Copeland would be a situational guy in the playoffs if you needed shooting. I can't see it if you have a healthy Granger available as an alternative.

Given their exemplary records, Bird and Walsh have probably tested the market already. If they haven't, then they'd certainly listen to offers. Indy isn't in a position where they have to make a trade, so why not wait it out until the deadline? And if there's no offers, just hang on to him as insurance.

I have full confidence in our front office. As Pacer fans, we are truly blessed to have them.

Unless we have to move his contract to re-sign Stephenson, I have no problem keeping him on our bench. I think he's a pretty good bench player. He just can't get any minutes because he's buried behind Granger and to a greater extent, Scola. At the time of his signing, getting Scola wasn't a given...who knows, it may not even have been on the table. It speaks volumes to the improvement of our bench, as well as how much we emphasize defense that he isn't playing.

I was a little surprised we went to granger ahead of cope when we were short of bigs in clipper game.

Sent from my PG41200 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Wizop wrote:I was a little surprised we went to granger ahead of cope when we were short of bigs in clipper game.

Sent from my PG41200 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I was too. I wonder if Vogel has just gave up on cope. That was a perfect time for him to come in an play and played granger over him

I think the thought process on putting Danny in over Cope was just that if Scola couldn't guard Griffin, what makes Copeland able to? Copeland isn't a very good defender in the first place, but Granger is semi-wiry and savvy (he knocked away the first 2 passes sent Blake's way) so I think it was a good decision.

Like I said earlier Granger can do everything and more than Copeland. The Clipper game presented a nice challenge and using Granger gave us a better chance of meeting it. Danny has had to swallow a little pride in taking on an off the bench role. This was a nice opportunity for him to show another facet of his game.

Jake0890 wrote:I think the thought process on putting Danny in over Cope was just that if Scola couldn't guard Griffin, what makes Copeland able to?

didn't the Clips go small and play Griffin at 5 putting Ian on him? your point is well taken tho9ugh - it's defense, not offense, that is keeping him on the bench.

Wizop wrote:

Jake0890 wrote:I think the thought process on putting Danny in over Cope was just that if Scola couldn't guard Griffin, what makes Copeland able to?

didn't the Clips go small and play Griffin at 5 putting Ian on him? your point is well taken tho9ugh - it's defense, not offense, that is keeping him on the bench.

I could be wrong, but I remember Jordan being out there with Griffin as well.

Jake0890 wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Jake0890 wrote:I think the thought process on putting Danny in over Cope was just that if Scola couldn't guard Griffin, what makes Copeland able to?

didn't the Clips go small and play Griffin at 5 putting Ian on him? your point is well taken tho9ugh - it's defense, not offense, that is keeping him on the bench.

I could be wrong, but I remember Jordan being out there with Griffin as well.

they both were out there at the same time then they sat Jordan and played small with griffin at the 5