Iggy for Granger should happen

eitanr · Post #1 » by **eitanr** » Sun Aug 7, 2011 3:06 pm

The Iggy for Granger trade idea should really occur. Found this blog about it. Author makes a good point.

http://futurenbagm.blogspot.com/2011/08 ... anger.html

kdawg531 · Post #2 » by **kdawg531** » Sun Aug 7, 2011 4:35 pm

Not sure what "point" the author of this blog was attempting to make, but a swap like this wouldn't really do much for either team, IMO.

Post #3 » by **Miller4ever** » Sun Aug 7, 2011 6:28 pm

Not a fan. Both are players who should go to contenders for youth if anything.

Moooose · Post #4 » by **Moooose** » Mon Aug 8, 2011 10:49 am

eitanr wrote:The Iggy for Granger trade idea should really occur. Found this blog about it. Author makes a good point.

http://futurenbagm.blogspot.com/2011/08 ... anger.html

so you are the author?

i get the point of swapping these 2 guys to make their "potential" replacements in Turner and George play in their natural ways, and develop some more to reach their true potentials. That Iggy for Granger rumor's been running for quite some time now, although not that much active anymore, but a lot of people, i mean majority, think of the same "point".
It could probably help both teams as Indiana's been looking for a starting two and Philadelphia needs a legit, scoring SF to pair with Turner. But i don't think it'll drastically improve their situations in an instant.
Both of their replacements in Turner and George are too young to go in the same pace as Iggy and Granger, they'll probably take some time and when they finally do, Iggy and Granger could be in their late 20's or early 30's already.
IMO, as a pacer fan, i would prefer to have younger, and potentially "better" guys. Maybe Eric Gordon.

chube · Post #5 » by **chube** » Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:14 pm

I disagree. Granger is a quality player even in the overall scope of the NBA who is loyal to small-market Indianapolis. That's hard to find. Who knows if Iggy would be the same. Plus, if Paul George develops, he and Iggy are very similar whereas PG and Iggy complement each other nicely.

Wizop · Post #6 » by **Wizop** » Mon Aug 8, 2011 5:57 pm

I don't see the attraction either although I sure wanted to trade up to draft Iggy as a rookie. we're fine on the wings and if we need depth I'd rather pay Mike a backup players salary than to bring in someone else's starter. Hill will play some two and Lance might as well. Rush has another year and Dahntay got out of the doghouse in the playoffs. plenty of twos even if you play Paul G mostly at three. the problem we had last year was matching up with teams like the Jazz with two wide bodies. I don't see how Iggy solves that.

I went back and read the article. seems to me the more logical trade would be Granger for Turner and a big contract. trading for an all star at a position where we already have an all star doesn't help. yes, Iggy is more of a two and Danny is more of a three but a wing is a wing in our system.

Post #7 » by **Gremz** » Tue Aug 9, 2011 5:52 am

Iggy's contract sucks.

Post #8 » by **PR07** » Tue Aug 9, 2011 7:34 pm

Iggy is a worse scorer than Granger is, what we need is a #1...not a downgrade from our best scorer.

Post #9 » by **Gremz** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 7:41 am

Actually read it this time, funny that the author and your handle are eerily similar......

Please don't spam in the future.