RealGM

First off I can't see a trade happening until after the season. The Pacers biggest need is another competent wing and thare very few wings better than Granger. He knows the system, the guys on the team it's hard to see a better option than Danny when everything is considered.

But if you do the 2014 math Danny just doesn't fit. If no trade is made prior to the summer of 2014 Granger could be lost for nothing. I can't see the Pacers allowing that to happen. If you concede the logic of moving Granger before he becomes a free agent it would make sense to try to get the best value possible. Assuming he comes back close to normal this season the best value will be obtained this offseason.

I'd aspire to move up into this draft as high as possible, take back considerably less salary and if we take back a player he would at least fit in as a rotation guy.. I'd also be willing to throw our first round pick into the deal.

An example:

Pacers trade Granger and our pick
Suns trade Dudley and their pick

Minnesota is another team that looks to be in the lottery and appears to be a fit for Granger.

Is Granger gone this summer?
What draft night trades could everyone else see making sense?

I don't think it's inevitable.

And I would loathe trading Granger to move up in the draft. There's no one I'm just dying to get, and we've done well with our late picks recently (Excluding the Miles Plumlee pick )

If we trade Granger, we better get talent that helps up. Not some lottery pick.

Do you think there is a a way to keep Granger beyond 2014 without paying the luxury tax? I can't see it.

8305 wrote:Do you think there is a a way to keep Granger beyond 2014 without paying the luxury tax? I can't see it.

Is the luxury tax so bad? Obviously, if you're paying as large of a tax bill as the Lakers are, it becomes a problem.

I think it's a bigger problem with the new CBA. Higher tax and and less flexibility with mid level exceptions. I wouldn't 't pay it if I were th Simons. They still struggle with attendance.

I love how the new CBA was supposed to be more beneficial to small-market teams. Yet Oklahoma City had to trade James Harden (hasn't hurt them too bad though), Memphis had to trade Rudy Gay, Utah will have to trade Al Jefferson and/or Paul Millsap, and Milwaukee may well lose Brandon Jennings to a bigger market. Yet in the last 2 seasons, Miami has acquired Ray Allen, the Lakers have acquired Steve Nash and Dwight Howard without losing Gasol or Ron Arrest (I mean, Metta World Peace), and New Orleans lost Chris Paul to the Clippers.

But let's look at the examples you've sited. Like you say Ok City seems just fine without James Harden while retaining the flexibility rookie contracts provide. I like the Rudy Gay trade for Memphis. Prince might actually be a better fit and Ed Davis could be a useful player. Is Miami any better than they were a year ago. The salary restraints have to this point prevented them from adding what they really need, a competent big man. And LA is a train wreck.

Losing Danny would be painful but, if you can draft a young player who can be useful while on his rookie deal and develop at the same time, 2 or 3 years out you might someone like Paul, Roy or Danny who is still only 25 years old.

I dont think theres any question about it. Granger is as good as gone IMO. The team needs to save some money if they want to re-sign West and they still need to extend Paul George long term. This has been Granger's team for years, and moving forward it will be George's. Some players just don't react well to such changes. I love Granger, don't get me wrong.

Second, realistically looking, theres so many trade rumors surrounding Granger. His name is always in the media. These guys don't throw stuff on a wall and hope it sticks. When some of these insiders report stuff, more times then not there is lots of truth to it. As they say, where theres smoke, theres a fire. (or something like that lol)

The reality of it all is Pacers are legit considering trading Granger, and i truly believe, if he is kept past the trade deadline this season, the only reason is because his value dropped due to his injury. But i doubt he'll be a Pacer past the NBA draft.

Jake0890 wrote:(Excluding the Miles Plumlee pick )

Actually, I'm a Plumlee fan.

In my opinion, the Pacers would be foolish to trade Granger before the end of the season.

This summer they will have a decision to make. Either keep Granger and try for a run deep into the playoffs, including perhaps a shot at the championship or trade him and try to get something for him.

One thing to consider if the Pacers do decide to keep Granger is the question "will Herb Simon be willing to pay the luxury tax for a couple of years?" The reason this question is important is because Hibbert will become a free agent in the summer of 2016, unless he opts out in the summer of 2015. If the Pacers sign Granger to a 2 year deal, that means Granger and Hibbert will both be free agents and that will free up some salary to either keep one of them or try to sign another free agent(s).

In my opinion, the best move the Pacers could make would be to move Granger this summer. Houston is very interested in him, maybe a Granger for Chandler Parsons deal could be made. Better yet, maybe we could even do a Granger/Green for Parsons/Patterson or Morris. I would even be willing to throw in a draft choice to get Parsons/Patterson or Morris. That move would cut our salary, give us a back up wing that could score and give us a PF to replace Tyler. Stephenson has proven he can be a pretty good starting SG and he is only going to get better.

We would keep our current starting line up and our bench would be OJ, Parsons, Ian, Patterson or Morris and use our draft pick to select a back up PG.

Nuntius wrote:

Jake0890 wrote:(Excluding the Miles Plumlee pick )

Actually, I'm a Plumlee fan.

Any reason why? I don't see the benefit of having him rather than just re-signing Lou to a min contract last offseason.

Jake0890 wrote:I don't think it's inevitable.

And I would loathe trading Granger to move up in the draft. There's no one I'm just dying to get, and we've done well with our late picks recently (Excluding the Miles Plumlee pick )

If we trade Granger, we better get talent that helps up. Not some lottery pick.

Miles Plumlee is on track to appear in as many games and play just as many minutes as Jeff Foster did his rookie year. I'd say that one worked out alright. I'm willing to give Plumlee 3 or 4 years of dirt cheap play to see if he can turn out ok.

In regards to a Danny trade, sometimes it's better to not make a move and just let him expire and walk than to be stuck with crap in return. Would 1 and a half years of Danny level production be worth more than having someone cheaper play for use for 2 full seasons? Maybe.

Scoot McGroot wrote:In regards to a Danny trade, sometimes it's better to not make a move and just let him expire and walk than to be stuck with crap in return. Would 1 and a half years of Danny level production be worth more than having someone cheaper play for use for 2 full seasons? Maybe.

That's why I think the most desirable exchange for Danny is a draft pick. You now are working with 4 years of rookie contract compensation. Your hypothetical trade partner is a team that has already accumulated a number of young guys that now needs a veteran component. Or a team that' been outside the playoffs for too long that doesn't see another rookie solving that problem.

Minnesota, Philly, Houston, Phoenix (with the lower of their two 1sts) come to mind. There are probably others.

8305 wrote:That's why I think the most desirable exchange for Danny is a draft pick.

Salarywise that could be very true, but like Scoot said, then you still have to ask yourself if 1 and a half years of Danny Granger isn't more valuable to this team than a player on a rookie contract who can be a good player in a few years. It's not a given he will ever be a good player, so is it really worth the risk of taking a step back on the moment you are trying to compete?

A lot depends on how well the Pacers play in this years playoffs, but I don't think Granger has to be traded.
They could let him expire or not re-sign West or trade the guy with that other big contract.

A very good run in the playoffs (conference finals or beyond) where the team is competitive with whoever puts them out, I agree you might have to bring the group back and give them another chance.

But even that, how much are you willing to sacrifice. It could be difficult to recover from getting nothing for Granger in 2014. The Pacers aren't looking at even a mid first round pick for a number of years without moving another core player.

If you own the Pacers are you better served by 5-10 years solid compeitive play or a 2 year run with a little more upside?

Under the new CBA, what are the rules for negotiating with a player still under contract that is about to expire. I'm pretty sure I remember Reggie once saying that he was never a free agent because he and management always worked out a deal before his contract officially expired.

I ask because Danny has constantly said how much he loves playing in Indiana and whenever his name comes up in trade rumors, he/his agent come out and say he doesn't want to be traded. Which sounds to me like a home-town discount miiiiiiiiight be in the cards. Especially considering how much value he may or may not bring in.

chube wrote:Under the new CBA, what are the rules for negotiating with a player still under contract that is about to expire. I'm pretty sure I remember Reggie once saying that he was never a free agent because he and management always worked out a deal before his contract officially expired.

I ask because Danny has constantly said how much he loves playing in Indiana and whenever his name comes up in trade rumors, he/his agent come out and say he doesn't want to be traded. Which sounds to me like a home-town discount miiiiiiiiight be in the cards. Especially considering how much value he may or may not bring in.

To play devil's advocate here, why would Danny take a home town discount just to take a back seat to the new show in town - Paul George? His contract is big, and I'm not sure it makes sense for us to pay him that for him to come off the bench.

If we trade him, I'd still rather have a scoring SG in return (Arron Afflalo, etc.) than a draft pick that may or may not turn out to be a good player.

After you re-sign West and George I'm not sure you could also take on Afflalo like salary and not pay the luxury tax.

Being that the Hornets...err...Pelicans are willing to deal EG....why not start with Granger and Stevenson for EG?