Evan Turner for Paul George

[basketballwacko2]

Better player? Really based on 3pt shooting? I didn't know that's the end all be all of whoses a player. Turner is a better ballhandler, decision maker, rebounder, slasher, post player, man defender and help defender.

I don't know how you come to that conclusion besides George is still developing. As is Turner but I think George has a higher ceiling!

[Solid]

I believe a trade with Philly makes sense for both teams.
PG's not going anywhere so it has to be a deal of Granger for Iggy, or Granger for Turner + .
I'd be ok with either as a starting point.

[Miller4ever]

We haven't really made sense as a trading partner for Philly for a long time, because the team directions are like the same. 1-player swaps of what amounts to counterparts don't sit well with either fanbase.

Holiday for Collison
Turner for George
Iggy for Granger
Brand for West
Hawes for Hibbert

I think it's in both teams' best interest to sit with what they have,

[Solid]

I think everyone agrees on two things here:

1. PG is eventually going to be a small forward. He's going to gain some weight.
2. Danny for Iggy is a fairly even deal that improves chemistry for both teams and doesn't dump either to a celler dweller (which would be a diservice to them).

The "fan base" will get over it if Danny is happy with it and we win more games.

[Scoot McGroot]

I think everyone agrees on two things here:

1. PG is eventually going to be a small forward. He's going to gain some weight.
2. Danny for Iggy is a fairly even deal that improves chemistry for both teams and doesn't dump either to a celler dweller (which would be a diservice to them).

The "fan base" will get over it if Danny is happy with it and we win more games.

I'm not sure I agree with #2. Danny has been a good teammate to these guys for years. I'm not sure that swapping him for an "unknown sum" in Iggy is going to help chemistry at all. If anything, it is guaranteed to throw it in a flux for quite a while.

[Solid]

I dont see Igg as an unknown quantity at all.
his output will be all in all comperable to Danny and his skill set and size compliments PG's quite nicely while George and Granger largely overlap.
The time is comming when we will be better off if 2 of our best players weren't best suited for the same position.
There is just a pretty darn large gap between the sizes of the Georges.
We want to keep Paul so It makes sense to look at offers for a near all star caliber player at either guard spot.

There's only a few points that I'd want and most of those would cost Danny AND Collison at least.
Trading two starters and maybe a pick for an upgrade for one is a hard pill to swallow unless your guy just sucks. Ours do not.

Nash and Dre are the only superior passers I can think of that we could get with out screwing ourselves. Neither will require our losing DG.

So DG for a 2 guard sound plausible....
Where oh where could we find a strong defensive hard working guy that's not too old and could give us production like Danny (that we might pry away at a fair price).

AI

We could hold out for Gordon but he's either gonna be gimpy or very costly.
And we wouldn't be near the defensive squad we would be with Igg.
Other guys I've heard are not worth DG.

[8305]

I too think the Granger/AI trade scenario makes sense. Both teams' existing situation involves some overlap with their existing wings so the move could allow all players involved to thrive to a level they don't currently.

I wouldn't have gone for this idea when Paul George was a sub 30% three point shooter. But with Paul now stretching the floor you can afford to give something up in that area. I took in a Pacer/6er game last year and Iggy owned us at both ends of the floor. We couldn't stop him off the dribble and he totally locked up whoever he guarded (Granger or George). You couldn't help but come away from this game seeing Iggy as the superior player.

Think of the defense you could play with Hill, Iggy and George at positions 1-3. Iggy's game off the dribble would be complimented remarkably by the three point shooting of Hill and George. He would argueably make us better on both offense and defense than we currently are.

I'd say this move would be akin to the Schrempf/Mckey move that I always thought was one of the keys to the 90's team reaching its potential.

[Scoot McGroot]

You don't think that trading Granger for Iggy would disrupt team chemistry? Do you think that Danny is hated by his teammates?

I'm not philosophically opposed to a Granger/Iggy swap, but you have to recognize that it WILL disrupt chemistry, and will take the team a while to play through it (possibly into next year's training camp).

[8305]

You don't think that trading Granger for Iggy would disrupt team chemistry? Do you think that Danny is hated by his teammates?

I'm not philosophically opposed to a Granger/Iggy swap, but you have to recognize that it WILL disrupt chemistry, and will take the team a while to play through it (possibly into next year's training camp).

I have no idea how this move would effect team chemistry. Not sure I'd do this trade in the middle of the season for that reason either. But from casual observation (which is all any opinion of mine can be based on) it seems like AI would be a better fit on the current Pacers than Danny. On offense he's that guy who can get something done off the dribble we lack. On defense he's remarkably better than Granger.

Over the summer this is a pretty low risk trade that has a potentially nice upside.

[Scoot McGroot]

That's a very different thing than was posted earlier by Solid.

At this point in time, Iggy *may* be a better fit, but no matter what, swapping Granger for Iggy WILL disrupt chemistry and take time to play through. It's simply an NBA fact.

[Solid]

I don't see much in the way of "chemistry" in our team right now. Regular 1 for 15 quarters and lazy jump shots against teams that are smaller and thinner just don't make sense. We have too many guys that prefer to jack threes and not enough that will do the dirty work. Iggy is a good glue guy with lots of intangibles.
True it would set us back a bit, but I do not think that much. I think both teams would be better by playoff time.
I guess there is no rush.
It's not even a big weakness for us.
Bu it would make us better.
imho