crowTrobot

outlaw is very humble and has said he doesn't mind coming off the bench. based on past reports about ego issues i'd guess martell probably minds and would be affected if demoted.

given jack's prior play and the team's recent total lack of success with a dinky lineup that was baffling by anyone's standards. can only hope it was for showcasing purposes.

i think they are very close to the same player with outlaw potentially having a slightly higher upside. i also think outlaw's game would be a slightly better fit for us (valuing rebounding and taking care of the ball over offense), not to mention outlaw would likely be 1/2 the price of granger to retain.

crowTrobot

not at all. i was just saying it's not like the pacers have a dominant center claiming most of the rebound opportunities.

Masbee

I haven't advocated any quick fix trades for players such as Jason Kidd or Shaq. I have advocated making consolidation trades for still young prospects better than the ones we have. Like the idea of multiple pieces for Devin Harris. Thus I haven't advocated any "quick fix" deals, thus you are inserting a strawman.

You want to keep all our young guys. If we do this is what will happen:

1) Players will start to gripe about playing time and starting slots, as their agents, friends and family get into their ear that lack of playing time and low scoring will ruin their career and cost them millions. Since this can be a true statement, there is no refuting it, calming it or fixing it - short of - wait for it.......... trading out those players before this happens. Your vaunted chemistry will fall apart - and right quick. (See: Bulls, Chicago).

2) Some young players will pan out and demand to be paid. They can't all be paid, thus in the future some will be allowed to walk.

3) Some will not pan out and thus lose most of their trade value, and the opportunity the team had to package them in a trade diminishes. If the team wants to retain this low productive player for their bench or deep bench, that player will demand more money than they are worth, claiming they sacrificed by being on a stacked team.

Good franchises lose good young players at times:

San Antonio let Stephen Jackson go when he was a young player. Pop even bemoaned the loss. This season, a few years on, Jackson was considered one of the all-star snubs.

Phoenix let Joe Johnson go. Traded away a high lotto pick (Luol Deng).

Detroit let Mehmet Okur go.

There are other examples.

You could say they should have kept them all. Problem is - they can't. You have to pick and choose which good players to keep if you have too many. That is a better problem to have then too few. And if one breaks out after they leave, is that any different than making a mistake on a free agent signing or a draft pick (like say, choosing Webster over Chris Paul)?

drexlersdad

I already admitted that i dont get to watch much PACERS basketball. who does?

All i ever see of Granger on ESPN is him making a three or two. For all I know the guy is a lock down defender, and has vision like Magic Johnson. So please, enlighten me if that is the case.

I understand that Granger is perceived as the superior talent, but I am still waiting for someone to make an argument WHY Granger is better than Outlaw, Martell, Frye, and Jack put together.

Upside?? Outlaw is younger than Granger people.

Like i said before, maybe someone can explain to me why Granger is soooooo much better than Outlaw. I truly would like someone to tell me. is it some intangible that doesnt show up on the stat sheet?

im not against trading outlaw, but i think it needs to address the pg position.

__________________

mook

nice post, Masbee. Chicago should be our model of what not to do. had they traded in some of their assets, they could have a pretty good, balanced team featuring Deng and Randolph or Deng and Pau.

or there was a time they probably could have traded Curry and Chandler for Kevin Garnett.

we are going to make mistakes with these young guys. somebody will get away from us who we'll look back on and say, "if only we hadn't traded him..."

it's the NBA. it happens to everybody. but you can't let the fear of that happening freeze you into making the even worse decision of doing nothing at all.

hasoos

I'll tell you why. Just like Brandon Roy, Danny Granger was ready to play NBA ball in all facets of the game when he entered the league. His all around game is strong, he can create his own shot, and he is a better finisher. As he doesn't have the issue with small hands and being able to dunk that Outlaw does, and always will, have. Lastly, Granger plays all 4 quarters, and doesn't take a quarter or two off, which is more than I can say for any of the small forwards on the Blazers right now.

__________________
Hasoos

nikolokolus

I can't say I've seen tons of Pacers games with Granger, but I've seen enough to at least form a partially informed opinion -- The guy can flat out play.

I think there's been a tendency in this discussion to focus too much on stats like PER and +/- (in the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics."), it's far too easy to zero in on one or two figures and then interpolate some conclusion "between the lines" that doesn't tell the real story. I guess I'm not so interested in Granger because he is gigantic leap over Travis or Martell, but instead he would fill a role on the team where we are deficient -- getting reliable outside shooting from the 3 position combined with an ability to take it inside (Jones frequntly hurt, and Martell too streaky) and if that means giving up a great sixth man to get a proven starting quality 3, with youth and tremendous upside, who would be able to stretch opposing defenses, and open up lanes for Brandon, then I would be hard pressed to fault KP for making such a trade

Whatever the case I think it is highly unlikely that Larry Bird is going to let this guy get away, even if KP did include Travis, Jack, Frye and draft picks in some kind of deal.

mook

I'm pretty ignorant about Granger too. that said, I think it'd be strange to trade Outlaw for an upgrade at SF when we don't even really know if Outlaw could be our upgrade at SF.

it's like we are thinking about selling our Ford to buy a Hummer so we can go off roading, but we've never even tried the four wheel drive in the Ford.

wouldn't it make a little sense to see what Outlaw would look like as a starting small forward before we liquidate a bunch of assets for Granger?

Webster and others may get their noses a little bent out of shape with such an experiment, but it's not nearly the level of disruption a trade for Granger would entail.

it seems so strange to me that we can see Outlaw grow in so many different ways in one year, but we still assume that a failed experiment of 11 starts three years ago proves he'll never be a starting SF.

GOD

Just from the stats, i don't see how Granger can be considered much better that outlaw.

The Stats
Position
Outlaw:SF/PF
Granger:SF/PF

Height
Outlaw:6'9"
Granger:6'9"

Age
Outlaw:23
Granger:24

MPG
Outlaw:26.3
Granger:35.0

FG%
Outlaw:.443
Granger:.442

3pt%
Outlaw:.397
Granger:.393

FT%
Outlaw:.701
Granger:.855

Since Granger plays 9 more minutes, the following stats are per 48
pp48
Outlaw:23.3
Granger:24.4

ap48
Outlaw:8.8
Granger:7.9

rp48
Outlaw:8.8
Granger:8.0

TO/48
Outlaw:2.3
Granger:3.0

BPG/48
Outlaw:1.46
Granger:1.51

Aside from being a better free throw shooter, i don't see much difference. Of course, stats don't tell the whole story, but I don't watch the Pacers much so I don't have much else aside from the stats to base my judgment on. One thing to note is that, like Outlaw, Granger is known as a character guy.

My personal theory is that Indiana is going to be looking for several things in the trade, and that might not include Outlaw. Granger, like Outlaw, is a tweener, and that is not bringing them wins. My guess is that they want a PF and a SF, so Webster and Frye, may be the players they would prefer over Outlaw. Also, they will want to send out a bad contract and receive picks.

I think a trade like this might work:
trade idea

Blazers send out
Webster (a true SF prospect for the future)
Frye (A good PF back up with potential to be more)
Green (needed for salary to make the trade work)
Jones (Money coming off their books this offseason - could resign and use till Webster is ready)
2 second round picks (or perhaps a future 1st (2009 or 2010 - restricted)

Blazers receive
Danny Granger (Best player in the trade)
Troy Murphy (The cost of getting Granger, he has a big and long salary, but is a decent player)

Why the Blazers do it. They get the best player in Granger and Murphy will make a very good, although expensive bu and provide more rebounding and toughness than Frye and more scoring than Przybilla.

Why for the Pacers. They save 14 million in this trade, get decent young prospects and get some picks. If they really are going to blow up their team, this could be a very good deal for them. Then they would trade O'Neil for even more pieces. They could have a lot of picks, young players and money to spend.

__________________

nikolokolus

I'll give you one stat that doesn't tell the real story when comparing Outlaw and Granger
3PT%
Danny has taken ~250 attempts
Travis has taken ~50 attempts

and when you factor in attempts per minute Granger attempts 3pt shots at about a rate of 4:1 compared to Travis, their respective % is almost identical, but the real difference is that Granger makes his living as a 40% 3pt shooter and Travis tends to cherry pick his 3pt shots (albeit very reliably from the baseline).

drexlersdad

i like granger to shoot the 3, i just dont know how much of a savior he would be. if we give away all of our assetts, thats it, they are gone.

__________________

nikolokolus

I don't think anyone is expecting a "savior" out of this proposed trade, just a reliable and dependable 3 who can take some of the pressure off of our the team's real savior, Brandon.

Danny Granger would fill the role that James Jones does for this team; stretching the defense and keeping other teams honest when it comes to double teaming Roy and/or keeping them from packing the paint.

But like I said, I don't see this deal going down, Indiana would be loathe to give him up -- this would be the equivalent of us shipping out Aldridge for Chris Duhon and Ben Gordon (yuck).

hasoos