It's_GO_Time

No. Outlaw does not do everything Granger does, Granger give you 35 minutes a night at the SF position . . . that is what are missing and that is why those stats don't tell the whole picture.

If Outlaw should be starting here . . . why isn't he? Because you know more than Nate? (And if he wasn't starting for these so called half the other teams in the league, then I'm guessing you would say he should be.)

You sit there and wonder why everybody sees it so different than you . . . I think it is either because you are so far advanced in your thinking that you see it clearer than Nate and other coachers and GMs in the league (better than Granger) or you are over reading one half of a season.

ThatBlazerGuy

Well, if one of the picks is our 1st rounder, than I think it sucks. But if both are 2nd rounder, I think it rocks. Imagine this lineup next season....

PG- Steve Blake/2008 1st round pick/Sergio Rodriguez
SG- Brandon Roy/Rudy Fernandez
SF- Danny Granger/James Jones
PF- LaMarcus Aldridge/Travis Outlaw/Josh McRoberts
C- Greg Oden/Joel Pryzbilla

Thats exactly what we need. A deal that shaves down the quantity and brings in quality.

nikolokolus

If that's the case why did you include Sergio in your lineup?

crowTrobot

presumably because martell is a head case with a fragile psyche and/or we want to see as quickly as possible how he is going to develop.

i'm not sure "everybody" necessarily does. agreed that granger as the more proven commodity would be the desired choice by most between the two, but that doesn't mean many GM's wouldn't value outlaw nearly as much or consider outlaw to have an as high or possibly higher ceiling (which is all i'm saying).

YugoslavianMtnHound

How about this one:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/feature...2~22&te=&cash=

Oldmangrouch

Of the 30 coaches in the NBA, I'm betting at least 20 would disagree with that. Granger's numbers are equal or better, pretty much across the board.

Having a 6th man like Travis is nice, but Granger has the chance to be a well above average starter.

__________________
We enter this life naked, wet, and hungry - and it only gets worse!

nikolokolus

Probably would have to be closer to this:
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/feature...1~11&te=&cash=

that is unless a third team was brought in.

Five5even

I thought about this because Foster is a great banger inside. The only issue is that We would probably have to give up way more than three players. But i dont know how that would work...

probably involves another team or two.

__________________
5EVEN

Bill Walton
Charles Barkley IS Ron Burgundy

Samuel

Yeah RIGHT.

YugoslavianMtnHound

I was meaning to include the 1st round pick from this year 2008. I think that might do it. Foster has a fairly high value not just because he's productive defensively but he's only signed through 2009. I doubt PDX would deal for a long term contract, even to get Granger.

crowTrobot

which is why outlaw has a higher PER : )

granger's rebounding numbers seem pretty weak for a 6'9 player on a team who's best rebounder is jeff foster.

they are both above average "starters" right now. outlaw just doesn't happen to start even though he's earned it and typically plays starter's minutes in the second half.

Five5even

I just noticed that the Indy board has a thread about Mike Miller for Ike and Marquis...

If that was the case then you could have something like this...

oddly enough, it works perfectly in the trade machine....

throw in some draft picks and that might be a potential scenario.

__________________
5EVEN

Bill Walton
Charles Barkley IS Ron Burgundy

Samuel

Holy cow. That's one of the best trades I've ever seen on here.

Props.

yuyuza1