Hatrik

First, i never said we should have all roleplayers. I said maximize your talent. And I said Trade for EQUAL value at a position of need. Equal value means trading one Robin #2 type for another Robin #2 type. Depending on what position you consider some of guys who are kind of "tweeners" we have serious holes at several spots.

1. We really need a PG who can pass the ball.
2. PF is only fixed for the short term.
3. I think George is really out of position at two guard. And that may be why his game hasn't improved the way we'd have hoped.
4. Hill is probably a better two guard than a PG. I love it when Hill looks to score, but I don't think he's much of a playmaker at all.

So if you could get a EQUAL talent for Granger at PF or PG I think we're a better team, because we'll have better production from Paul George and George Hill. My point was if you don't have a Mega Star or three you better at least not be "wasting" your talent utilizing it the wrong way.

Hatrik

Or the other option would be to trade George. Before i mentioned trading Granger for Millsap, but what about Paul George for Millsap. I think in the Granger scenario, they'd be the bigger winner in that deal, but if it was George instead i think we're the bigger winner. Either way though George for Millsap is win-win for everyone in my opinion. So here's a What if scenario for you-

1- George for Millsap
2- Sign Ramon Sessions. The Mavs probably aren't anymore since they have collison now.
3- Trade for Courtney Lee. He's an excellent defender and long range bomber, he's got good size, and he's an indy guy.
4- Then shift Hill to more of a combo position. Say about 18-20 mintues at the two and only 10 minutes at the point a game.

We'd have a long term answer at PF, still have granger, and have PG who can get at 6.5 apg when given starter minutes. And have Hill doing what he does best, scoring not playmaking.

RollWithEm

If you trade for Millsap, why not trade DWest as well?

__________________
But that's just me.

Pacers Fan

The thing is, all these "equal talent" #2 guys who have similar value to Granger don't score as much as he does. Even if they do, they won't help our team as much. Do you really think guys like Kevin Martin, Andre Iguodala, or Tyreke Evans would help Indiana at all? The only player I can think of that would is Rudy Gay, but of course Memphis wouldn't do that. Point being, we have no reason to make lateral moves. Even in the case of Paul Millsap, that would make him our focal point on offense. Do you think Paul Millsap as our focal point on offense brings us any closer to a championship than Granger? Plus trading for him would eliminate David West, who was very productive last season.

Now, Paul George for Millsap I'd be more interested in, but I don't know why Utah would do that other than maybe they'd like to stockpile wing players instead of big men. And even still, that leaves us paying 10 million this season to a backup 4-man and essentially telling Tyler Hansbrough he should try a different sport.

We had a team last season that completely surprised people by being one of the top teams in the East. We took the eventual champions to 6 games. There's no reason at all to make major moves when we can already hang with Boston, Chicago, Brooklyn, and New York. No one's going to beat the Heat anytime soon and trading Danny Granger for the sake of trading Danny Granger isn't going to bring us any closer.

Trading Darren Collison was about as major as I was willing to get for this off season. But yes, we do need a PG off the bench who can see the floor. We were towards the bottom of the league last year in assists, and I don't think that will get any better considering the best passer on the team is a toss-up between Lance Stephenson and Roy Hibbert.

__________________
Indeed.

Hatrik

Lots of little points to make here.

1- I'm not talking about a trade for trades sake. I'm talking about getting the most out of every player we have.

2- I have no idea what your talking about with Utah's wings. They all suck. The kid from butler hasn't shown much, but still has promise. The guy from the hawks is a career bust. George or granger would immediately be the starting SF. The only talent Utah has is a log jam of bigs.

3- I disagree with your last paragraph. I don't like the idea of trading Collison. And i don't like the idea of George Hill as a starting PG. I like hill and it think he's good enough to be a valuable player on a championship team, but he's primarily a scorer with zero court vision and playmaking. I want a legit passing STARTING PG. I want Hill get "starters minutes" but not actually as the starting PG.

Pacers Fan

Sometimes chemistry >>> value.

You're forgetting Alec Burks. I can't imagine a team taking wing players in the lottery in back-to-back drafts only to trade for another young wing to usurp one or both of them as they're entering their 2nd and 3rd seasons. However, they do have less of a jam because Williams is a Forward, and they likely won't bring back Bell, Howard, or Miles. If they do bring back Miles, though, it'd make the scenario even more absurd.

Please do make suggestions as to who our starting PG should be, then, because I don't see anyone. Collison was a timid, undersized scoring PG with next-to-zero court vision because of his height. The era of John Stockton-like PG's is over. If it weren't, guys like Jared Jordan would be in the NBA. Look through the list of NBA PG's. Aside from the ten or so teams that have ball-dominant PG's, no one relies on their 1 to do much more than bring the ball up the court, get the team into their offense, and hit open shots. Do you really think we'd be better off starting Jose Calderon, Andre Miller, Ramon Sessions, Mike Conley, or Devin Harris? Because we're not getting Tony Parker, Derrick Rose, John Wall, Ricky Rubio, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, Rajon Rondo, or Chris Paul.

George Hill's a smart basketball player. He might miss a teammate under the basket sometimes, but if we're running our offense through Hibbert, West, and Granger, he won't be relied upon to do much passing besides hit Granger off a screen, feed the post (which is tricky but can be learned), and hit cutters. Hill's ability to hit cutters is really my only concern.

Honestly, Augustin was the best were going to find, actually far better than I expected, but you can't expect him to take George Hill's starting role.

__________________
Indeed.

Hatrik

[QUOTE=Pacers Fan;6910050
Do you really think we'd be better off starting Jose Calderon, Andre Miller, Ramon Sessions, Mike Conley, or Devin Harris?

Honestly, Augustin was the best were going to find, actually far better than I expected, but you can't expect him to take George Hill's starting role.[/QUOTE]

I'm ecstatic with the Augustin deal. And I do think he could be our starting PG. He's going to surprise people here. I think he never lived up to his potential in Charlotte simply because the players around him sucked. He's capable of significantly better assist numbers than he showed in Charlotte. If we had a back-up of 2 guard with some size and defense (Courntey Lee?) i would prefer those three guys all getting starters minutes, but with Hill only playing about 10 or so at PG. I'm turning into a broken record, but i just want hill to score points. Simply because that's what he's best at, and thats also what we could really use more of.

and to answer your question, I DO think we'd be a better team with most of those you listed running the offense.

Now here's a question for you. Are you happy with our future at PF? West is a month away from 32 and he has two bad knees. I'm happy to have him here, and was/is a huge part of our turn around, but he is a short term fix. We should be planning ahead.

Pacers Fan

I could really see Hill and DJ splitting minutes at the 1 just like Hill and Collison did last year. If they both play 24 minutes at PG and then Hill covers 8-10 minutes at SG, then that's only about a quarter of basketball off from what you want. Keep in mind the possibility that Lance Stephenson might be a decent basketball player this year. He's our best passer and ball handler, although he's not the most savvy of PG options. Say he gets 10 mpg and either knocks some of Hill's minutes at PG down or Green's minutes at SG down. That's even closer to what you want. Point being, we have the option to mess with rotations enough to the point where Hill might be only manning the one for over a quarter of basketball (if you count Lance as a PG; otherwise, he's just a 2 in there to help). I honestly don't see things in our backcourt being too different from last season, Hill starting or not, with the exception of an improved Hill and a more aggressive Paul George.

Also, the PG's I listed probably wouldn't start, either. They'd do the exact same thing Augustin will do which is see over 20 minutes off the bench. Conley might start, but the rest of them are pretty much bench material at this stage in their careers.

I'm decently happy with PF, but I also think it's an issue we should look at this upcoming off season when David West is a free agent. West is getting old, sure, but I don't see why he could not keep knocking down 14 footers and outmuscling people in the post for another 3-4 seasons. Defense might be a concern, but we already have him and Roy not stepping out to hedge picks, so I don't think it will be too much of an issue.

As far as Hansbrough goes, I still have some hope for him. If that jump shot's falling, he'll have more room to face up and drive to the basket. He can still be an effective player in the NBA, but probably not a starter. I just hope at some point he learns to use his left hand and learns to keep his head up when he gets the ball.

After that, I don't know. But we have assets and I'm sure we'll address the issue when it needs to be addressed.

__________________
Indeed.

TheGlove_20

Get 'Dre Miller and throw pendergraph's minutes on with Miller

__________________
Wants the 2K Rookies!