Paul George brings up Pacers trade....again

Moderators: pacers33granger, boomershadow, Grang33r, pacerfan, Jake0890

User avatar
Scoot McGroot
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 28,021
And1: 3,863
Joined: Feb 16, 2005

Re: Paul George brings up Pacers trade....again 

Post#21 » by Scoot McGroot » Fri Jul 3, 2020 1:31 pm

pacers33granger wrote:
Scoot McGroot wrote:
J. Michael of the Indy Star is ALL IN that it was Anthony Davis. And yes, he's pointed out the absurdity of the whole thing, much as you have. To J. Michael, it's even worse because Paul George claims now he was upset that he got AD to say "I'd like to be traded there", and Paul was upset that we had NOTHING near the sort of trading for a newly re-signed long-term AD.

But if it were Blake? Holy cow, I'm still ok with having not had that contract, but mostly because Blake just hasn't been healthy. But, down that rabbit hole, we'd have had Blake/PG13/MLE instead of Oladipo/Sabonis/Bojan/Collison/CoJo.

Yeah I can see that angle. Paul could very well be misconstruing the situation. I haven no doubts that AD expressed to him at some point that maybe he'd like to play with him. But he's making it sound like it was a done deal he had delivered and management nixed it due to costs.

That Blake/PG team looks like maybe a conference finals run one year if it works out. But we'd need another major piece to really have a shot at getting to the finals those years.

What gets me the most about this whole thing is that it's just not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I know a lot of people think Indy is cheap, but they're just conservative. We've never dumped money that I can recall other than the small contract dumps that don't hurt anything. And we've been buyers, just not big splash buyers. But that's the reality for any small market team. Management clearly did not turn down a homerun signing. It's highly highly likely they turned down a chance at a high reward, but very high risk signing.

The rest of the stuff from that interview, I'm on board with for the most part. The Granger trade was a gut punch for everyone at the time, though I get it since we were trying to win and Turner was putting up good numbers at the time. The Hill trade, meh, but I can get his point that it's one of his guys. And overall the lack of communication with players was clearly something that needed to be changed and was, so the organization has recognized that one.

Yes. I think George meant he thought we should’ve just gotten AD to make him happy , and that the whole thing is absolutely absurd. Mostly, I think it’s that Paul is trying to constantly shift it so that he has no blame and can be likable, especially after Oladipo came and was so embraced by the fans. Paul is a great player, and those teams had NO level of talent on them to compete. In hindsight, he’s absolutely fair to have wanted elsewhere, but he also has to live with the deal of having been the one to ask for a trade. But mostly, he wants to be lived and adored, and not have his leaving held against him. Lebron left Cleveland twice and took it on the chin like a champ. Paul needs to do the same. We gave him a poor chance to compete. And he left for it. That’s ok. But the constant changing and wish fulfillment of his recollections are a bit too much.

Return to Indiana Pacers