Would anyone do this trade

celtspacers · Post #1 » by **celtspacers** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:35 am

This is a real trade offer the Pacers could have made at the deadline. Oker. Brooks and this years unprotected 1st round pick from the Nets for Danny Granger. Bird told them Grangers untouchable.

Indy2thaWindy · Post #2 » by **Indy2thaWindy** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:41 am

celtspacers wrote:This is a real trade offer the Pacers could have made at the deadline. Oker. Brooks and this years unprotected 1st round pick from the Nets for Danny Granger. Bird told them Grangers untouchable.

Yeah, Bird has some unreal expectations from Granger. He's not that good of a player. I would have easily accepted that. Could potentially have been Anthony Davis or Thomas Robinson or possibly moved for a point guard.

Where did you get this from?

celtspacers · Post #3 » by **celtspacers** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:46 am

Got it tonight at the game from the same guy that told me about the Barbosa trade before it happened. He's related the someone in Pacers front office.

frizzledizzle · Post #4 » by **frizzledizzle** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:21 am

I'd only do this trade if we're giving up for this season and maybe next. After the back to back Knick losses, maybe. I'm not impressed by the Knicks so it's sad that they beat us so easily. I told someone I'd trade Hansborugh to Charlotte, Diaw(expiring) to Dallas and Marion to Pacers just to help Dallas acquire Deron and Dwight. We would have to pay more but Marion is good and for whatever reason, superstars kill this team. We do not want Dwight and Deron together. Suck against Dwight now, don't need another powerhouse. At this point, I'll be happy if we draw anyone but the Heat, Magic and Knicks in the first round. I want no part in those 3 because they are this teams kryptonite.

frizzledizzle · Post #5 » by **frizzledizzle** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:25 am

Adding to that....

I respect Bird's loyalty. Granger is on par with JO. I loved JO but think I've accepted him being gone and didn't look back. It was also a trade that worked perfectly for this team. I don't think you trade Granger for an expiring contract, Brooks and a player you have no clue that you'll be getting. JO was traded at the right time. Granger's time shouldn't end on a random draft pick and Brooks. Idk even know if that trade offer existed. It's moot at this point.

I'm frustrated as **** but nothing we can do about it now. Pull for the team and let it go. It's done with, move on.

frizzledizzle · Post #6 » by **frizzledizzle** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:27 am

frizzledizzle wrote:We do not want Dwight and Deron.

In the east that is. If we make it to the championship, we'll deal with them then.

basketballwacko2 · Post #7 » by **basketballwacko2** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:29 am

That's not a bad offer but since we have been winning untill the NY series, it's real hard to make a marjor deal that alters your team win you are winning.

chube · Post #8 » by **chube** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:12 am

I'm not worried about drawing New York in the post-season quite yet. Yes, they are a talented team, but they are one still fresh off of getting rid of their coach. And unless you're the Wizards, teams tend to make nice runs to start a new coach's tenure. Even Portland, who was falling apart at the seams this year, had a nice first game the other night.

Until further notice, while this is a talented team, no real defensive studs except for Tyson Chandler, and a blossoming young point guard in Jeremy Lin that still can be turnover-prone. Guys like Stoudemire, Fields, Melo, and JR Smith are still allergic to defense. I want the Woodson honeymoon period to pass, and see if the Knicks come back down to Earth at all. Then I'll judge.

I just need to see a sample size of more than the first 3 games of a new coach's tenure before judging whether or not they are a legitimate threat in the playoffs yet.

Wizop · Post #9 » by **Wizop** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:38 pm

while I would have been very reluctant to trade Granger as it would probably blow off this season, I didn't understand why the Nets made that deal with Portland. they say they only see three good players in the draft but that's silly. Okur would have helped us a lot. Brooks is someone I wanted in last year's draft. If the pick was the Net's, that would have been hard to pass up. The problem is the timing isn't right because it would probably have cost us a ton of wins this year. give me the same deal at the end of the season, and I jump on it.

so did Portland get the Nets' pick protected top 3 or the Rockets pick which had been previously traded to the Nets?

Post #10 » by **Gremz** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:40 pm

Well, the pick wouldn't have been completely unprotected, probably the same as you saw in the Wallace deal.

I don't hate it, but it seems like a backwards move right now. Maybe on draft night it could have been a deal worth looking at, not in our current state though.

Post #11 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:46 pm

Yeah, I don't buy it. A lot of people saw the Barbosa trade coming down the pike. It was listed as an inevitability for weeks on the trade forum here.

Is this the same guy you know that told you that the Pacers turned down a Granger to Minnesota for Beasley, Rubio, and 1st round pick this past summer? That same offer that was floated by Bleacher Report and people quoted as fact, but never was?

8305 · Post #12 » by **8305** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:25 am

I was surprised to see Jersey give a pick with so little protectation for Wallace. Granger is more valuable than Wallace I think. Before the Wallace trade I'd have said no way you get an unprotected pick from a clear lottery team and a promising player for Granger. But making this trade probably blows up this season. Tough decision if it really was out there.

jowglenn · Post #13 » by **jowglenn** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:32 am

Wow, I doubt that was true...

But if it was, then Bird made a huge mistake by not jumping on it. Brooks is the kind of instinctive scorer we need, and that pick could get us our star. Jesus if that deal was really on the table, then shame on Bird for not fleecing the Nets.

And again, I think "no way that was on the table" but they did give up the top 3 protected for wallace.

Post #14 » by **Gremz** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:47 am

8305 wrote:I was surprised to see Jersey give a pick with so little protectation for Wallace. Granger is more valuable than Wallace I think. Before the Wallace trade I'd have said no way you get an unprotected pick from a clear lottery team and a promising player for Granger. But making this trade probably blows up this season. Tough decision if it really was out there.

If you want Deron to stay, you do what you have to.

celtspacers · Post #15 » by **celtspacers** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:29 pm

The trade offers are true. You guys can believe it or not. The person i'm getting these from knows whats going on inside. I'm not going to post anymore of these.

Wizop · Post #16 » by **Wizop** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:48 pm

I can see this one being true. it is very similar to the actual deal that the Nets made for Wallace.

Val Holliday · Post #17 » by **Val Holliday** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 6:02 pm

Gremz wrote:
8305 wrote:I was surprised to see Jersey give a pick with so little protectation for Wallace. Granger is more valuable than Wallace I think. Before the Wallace trade I'd have said no way you get an unprotected pick from a clear lottery team and a promising player for Granger. But making this trade probably blows up this season. Tough decision if it really was out there.

If you want Deron to stay, you do what you have to.

The Wallace trade doesn't help them keep Deron. Wallace being traded means he can opt out just like Deron, and probably will.

Starkiller · Post #18 » by **Starkiller** » Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:39 pm

celtspacers wrote:This is a real trade offer the Pacers could have made at the deadline. Oker. Brooks and this years unprotected 1st round pick from the Nets for Danny Granger. Bird told them Grangers untouchable.

If true, that's a fail on Bird's part, especially if it's a 2012 first.

Post #19 » by **Scoot McGroot** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:02 am

celtspacers wrote:The trade offers are true. You guys can believe it or not. The person i'm getting these from knows whats going on inside. I'm not going to post anymore of these.

Sorry to call you out, but the last trade you quoted as real that we turned down was something that was a fake rumor thrown out there by a very unreliable website. I don't doubt that you know a guy in the franchise, but I sometimes wonder if the guys in the franchise read the same websites we do, and pass it off as near fact to be "more official". I know a guy or two at Notre Dame that seems to do that every time a new coaching search fires up for football. Doesn't mean he's a bad guy, or even a liar, just that maybe they want to believe something so much they wish it true, also.

Post #20 » by **Gremz** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:07 am

Val Holliday wrote:
Gremz wrote:
8305 wrote:I was surprised to see Jersey give a pick with so little protectation for Wallace. Granger is more valuable than Wallace I think. Before the Wallace trade I'd have said no way you get an unprotected pick from a clear lottery team and a promising player for Granger. But making this trade probably blows up this season. Tough decision if it really was out there.

If you want Deron to stay, you do what you have to.

The Wallace trade doesn't help them keep Deron. Wallace being traded means he can opt out just like Deron, and probably will.

He may very well, but you're going to have a better chance of keeping Williams if you make moves that get you veterans that can play.