Better Indiana Pacers move: Acquiring nobody or acquiring Evan Turner?
Donahue: Net-net, the Turner trade cost them no real assets other than a second-round pick. It’s possible that Danny Granger’s presence could have prevented some of the chemistry issues late last year, but that’s impossible to know. The team had started to struggle in late January, and the truth may be that Turner caused no harm, but offered no help, either. All that being said, acquiring Turner was — at best — no better than acquiring nobody. That seems a sufficiently damning assessment of the deal.
Washburn: The Evan Turner trade wasn’t nearly as disastrous as everyone remembers. Danny Granger was actually worse than Evan Turner throughout the close of last season and Turner (gasp) helped to turn two different playoff games against Atlanta. Overall, Turner was just not a good player, but Larry Bird still got something better than Danny Granger. I guess that means I believe that acquiring Turner was better than what the Pacers did yesterday — nothing. I will now go stare blankly into the sun.
Furr: Can I go with option C: Acquiring Lavoy Allen? But seriously, acquiring no one. Acquiring an angry, live bull to live in the locker room would be better that acquiring last year’s Evan Turner.
Barth: Acquiring nobody. The Turner trade last year is the exact same move the team could have made this time around at the deadline and Bird clearly learned his lesson: Don’t mess with great team chemistry, which the Pacers seem to have in spades at the moment.
Next: Paul George: My Ballhandling and Shooting Have Improved
More from 8 Points, 9 Seconds
- 2 Studs, 1 dud from gut-wrenching Indiana Pacers loss to Charlotte Hornets
- Handing out early-season grades for Pacers’ Bruce Brown, Obi Toppin
- 3 positives, 2 negatives in Pacers In-Season Tournament win vs. Cavaliers
- 2 positives, 3 negatives from first week of Indiana Pacers basketball
- Should Isaiah Jackson’s days with Indiana Pacers be numbered?