Rumblings from Marc Stein

kdawg531 · Post #1 » by **kdawg531** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 8:21 am

Just saw this on espn.com via Marc Stein:

"Perhaps it comes as little surprise after Danny Granger earned a spot on Professor Hollinger's All-Disappointing Team, but there are some fresh rumbles in circulation that the Pacers are softening their no-trade stance on the Team USA swingman.

The Pacers have generally resisted trade interest in Granger, including feelers from Denver earlier this season about Indiana's willingness to include Granger in multiteam Carmelo Anthony trade scenarios.

One source with knowledge of Indiana's thinking, however, said this week that the Pacers -- 6-11 and fading since their big November wins over the Heat and Lakers -- have not dismissed every recent proposal that includes Granger. Another source insisted to ESPN.com that the Pacers, although they naturally would be seeking a lot in return, quietly listened to a few Granger pitches last season, as well.

It seems far safer to suggest that the Pacers would make a move before the Feb. 24 trading deadline with one of their expiring contracts, such as Mike Dunleavy or T.J. Ford, but here's another way to put it: Roy Hibbert, despite his own December fade, has emerged as the more untouchable piece in Indiana's eyes than Granger, who is shooting just 41.6 percent from the field, is going to the free throw line just 5.1 times per game as he too often settles for jumpers … and has three pricey years left on his contract after this season valued at $40 million."

It seems that we can expect a trade or two here shortly. I still don't believe we are entertaining offers for DG33, however.

Thoughts?

Indy2thaWindy · Post #2 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 9:08 am

I thought it's been known Hibbert the probably the one player that won't get traded.

Post #3 » by **Gremz** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 11:06 am

Eh, I'll believe it when I see it. But Windy Andy is spot on.

Aiq · Post #4 » by **Aiq** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 5:32 pm

I will be extraordinarily upset if Granger gets traded. We have a very talented young team that we have put together and all we really need is A. New Coach and B. Some playing time for our young players. JOB's handling of player rotation and young players is absolutely ridiculous. I'm ready to get my pitchfork and rally the townsfolk. I really dislike mid-season coaching changes in any sport, let alone basketball. But sometimes you have to just realize something is a terrible mistake, correct it and make the most of the remaining season. The bottom half of the east is terrible anyway, so a coaching change really shouldn't drop us out of, or not to far out of the playoff race. I really think I would die if we traded Granger away, continued playing Posey at the 4, re-signed Dunleavy and JOB. We have to get T-Hans and PG more time. DC would THRIVE in a system where he could create for himself and others. The only thing going for JOB was his fast past offense...and that has been nowhere to be found throughout the year. Ugh, I am just disgusted with this entire situation.

chube · Post #5 » by **chube** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 7:19 pm

"Sources" also said that LeBron to New York was practically done deal, LeBron/Bosh to Chicago was practically a done deal, etc.

I'll believe it when I see it. I truly think a new coach will rejuvenate Danny. If he's still slumping after the trial period under a new coach, then look into it more. JOB continues to wreak havoc on this franchise.

Post #6 » by **PR07** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 7:28 pm

Granger shouldn't be untouchable by any means. He's a very good player, but if a move helps the team going forward, you have to consider it.

Post #7 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:49 am

PR07 wrote:Granger shouldn't be untouchable by any means. He's a very good player, but if a move helps the team going forward, you have to consider it.

I think this, is pretty much always the case. We love Granger. He's a very nice player. However, if an option comes along that makes the team better in some manner, or at least maintains the team while achieving something else (like lowering the average core age of the team by moving Granger for a similar, but younger piece), you have to seriously consider it.

Post #8 » by **Grang33r** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 7:07 am

In the off-season i posted that if the right offer came around they should trade him and i got blasted for it. I love Granger and he's a very good player but it's apparent that our team has a different look and we don't exactly need him to succeed however we do need a lot more to succeed and he is our #1 bargaining chip we have if we were to make a big move and improve.

I wouldn't make a trade with him anytime during the season, it'd need to be in the off-season. I don't feel like such blockbusters should be made during the season. Magic are doing fine but i feel like it'd ruin chemistry and just look bad for the organization to trade your star player mid-season. Also, we don't even know if Paul George can be that SF of the future yet?

Minnesota is the only team that makes sense because they have Kevin Love and the Pacers would love to have a Love/Hansbrough combination at power forward.

Post #9 » by **Gremz** » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:16 am

Sacramento or New Jersey might be an option if they're willing to offer up their top picks next draft as they have other pieces to add. :dontknow:

old rem · Post #10 » by **old rem** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:39 am

Scoot McGroot wrote:
PR07 wrote:Granger shouldn't be untouchable by any means. He's a very good player, but if a move helps the team going forward, you have to consider it.

I think this, is pretty much always the case. We love Granger. He's a very nice player. However, if an option comes along that makes the team better in some manner, or at least maintains the team while achieving something else (like lowering the average core age of the team by moving Granger for a similar, but younger piece), you have to seriously consider it.

Really...almost nobody is truely untradeable but I seriously doubt there's a deal on tap the Pacers should do,would do.

You ought to look into A Randolph as a relatively cheap get in a year where the draft lacks guys like him. Supposedly the Knicks want a pick,though they did a pretty awful job of "showcasing' him

Post #11 » by **Grang33r** » Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:45 am

old rem wrote:You ought to look into A Randolph as a relatively cheap get in a year where the draft lacks guys like him. Supposedly the Knicks want a pick,though they did a pretty awful job of "showcasing' him

The worst statement in sports... teams "showcasing" somebody. With so much money involved into scouting, video research and reports on players, that a little sample of a team "showcasing" anyone would not differ anybodies opinion.