RealGM

What about a trade to the Kings?

Danny Granger
23rd pick

for

Marcus Thornton
Jason Thompson
7th pick

Pacers get a good 6th man player in Thornton. He can come in and provide instant scoring and shooting off the bench. Thompson would be the the third big off the bench behind West and Hibbert. Thompson is a very well rounded player. He's big, athletic, strong, and he's a good shooter, rebounder, and defender. Plus the Pacers get the 7th pick where they can take a guy like Schroeder who could become Hill's replacement if it seems like the Pacers need a better playmaker at PG.

After the trade this is what the roster will look like:

PG - Hill/Schroeder/Hansbrough
SG - Stephenson/Thornton/Johnson
SF - George/Green
PF - West/Thompson/Hansbrough/Pendergraph
C - Hibbert/Mahinmi/Plumlee

I think that's a very solid rotation and their contracts will allow Hill, Schroeder, Stephenson (resigned) Thornton, George (resigned), West (resigned), Thompson, and Hibbert to play for another two seasons together and then just Thornton's contract will come off the books and you can have Schroeder take his minutes and give you a solid 3 guard rotation of Hill, Schroeder, and Stephenson. What do you guys think?

While the deal would be very good value for the Pacers, it would mean one of West or George wouldn't be in the fold in 2014. Thornton is an expensive role player... My guess is that they re-sign West this year, putting them just over the cap, and then use Granger's money to extend out George.

Being okay financially this year, I think they hold on to him for a run, or swap him to another team with a better fitting expiring deal (a big, see Varejao or Gasol and a pick). The key is competing short and long-term and making sure they can pay the nucleus.

Trading Granger is a bad idea.

First, Granger's contract is a form of "savings account" for next year when George is a free agent. We KNOW $14 million will come off the books, we just need to move that over to George for his salary.

Second, IF Granger returns to even close to what he was before, think of how good the Pacers wings will be. A line-up of Hll, George, Granger, Hibbert and West will be very solid.

The player the Pacers need to unload is Gerald Green. If we can trade Green and our 1st round draft choice (I'd even throw in our 2nd round choice too) for a 2nd round draft choice, that will free up money for Free Agents. We would be in good shape to pursue J.J. Redick and Elton Brand plus still have a 2nd round draft pick to select another PG. We would also have a little money left to sign 1 or 2 other low cost free agents. With Redick, Stephenson and Brand as the nucleus of our bench, it would be a great upgrade from this season.

pacers70 wrote:Trading Granger is a bad idea.

First, Granger's contract is a form of "savings account" for next year when George is a free agent. We KNOW $14 million will come off the books, we just need to move that over to George for his salary.

Second, IF Granger returns to even close to what he was before, think of how good the Pacers wings will be. A line-up of Hll, George, Granger, Hibbert and West will be very solid.

The player the Pacers need to unload is Gerald Green. If we can trade Green and our 1st round draft choice (I'd even throw in our 2nd round choice too) for a 2nd round draft choice, that will free up money for Free Agents. We would be in good shape to pursue J.J. Redick and Elton Brand plus still have a 2nd round draft pick to select another PG. We would also have a little money left to sign 1 or 2 other low cost free agents. With Redick, Stephenson and Brand as the nucleus of our bench, it would be a great upgrade from this season.

It makes no sense to include 2 picks just to get rid of a 3.5 mil contract. It's different if we have an Amar'e level contract, but Gerald Green is no where near that.

If I'm another team I can't stomach trading ANYTHING of value for a the right to pay 13 million dollars for a guy you don't know if he will play. Even if he does play next year he could leave and you get nothing. Who's going to give up a top 10 pick for that? Nobody in their right mind, anyway.

Also, you cant trade a 1st round pick to drop a 3 million dollar contract. That is a short sighted deal that will always cost you in the long run. Monetarily and on the court, it will cost you.

Jake0890 wrote: It makes no sense to include 2 picks just to get rid of a 3.5 mil contract. It's different if we have an Amar'e level contract, but Gerald Green is no where near that.

You are most likely not going to find a player of much value with the 53rd pick. You can just as easily pick up an undrafted player, D-League player or low cost FA. The key is unloading Green's contract, since there will not be a game changer available by the time the Pacers select, they could use their picks to get rid of Green's contract. Then use the FA market to build a bench.

Jake0890 wrote:It makes no sense to include 2 picks just to get rid of a 3.5 mil contract. It's different if we have an Amar'e level contract, but Gerald Green is no where near that.

It saves you not only Greens 3.5 mil but also a slotted first round guaranteed contract and roster spot for a
Player who is likely 3-4 years away (bad draft + late pick).

The Pacers, being on the verge, can get one or two contributors out of the ring chasing group for that $.

No way do the Pacers trade Granger for a draft pick at a time like this when they are competing for a championship. I do agree however that they need to trade Green and should consider trading the first round pick and use that cap space on quality vets. Maybe the first round pick to Phoenix with Green for cash. The rumors are that Phoenix would like an additional first rounder. The second round draft pick could be a project guy for the future. One year with Granger/Stephenson and a couple good veterans on the bench added to the fold may be enough to get them over the hump. And even if they only win it once and lose Granger in 2014 free agency for nothing it would be worth it.

this could be a year to use the 2nd round pick on a Euro who could stay there for a while. however, there look to be some 2nd round point guards who could be worth a look if the first round options are off the board at 23.

my guess is that we will not trade Granger this year. whether we resign him next year is a harder question. I also doubt we'll trade Green because it is so well known that he had a poor year that I think the chances of him improving are better than the changes of getting much for him.

xBulletproof wrote:If I'm another team I can't stomach trading ANYTHING of value for a the right to pay 13 million dollars for a guy you don't know if he will play. Even if he does play next year he could leave and you get nothing. Who's going to give up a top 10 pick for that? Nobody in their right mind, anyway.
.

Eh, depends on what you feel you can get out of them for that one year. Can they help you to the playoffs if you haven't been there for a looooooong time? Can they provide vet leadership to help one of your young guys turn the corner? Can they provide a locker room leadership that improves everyone else on the roster? I wouldn't worry TOO much about a one and done kind of guy, though your concerns certainly wouldn't be completely unfounded. Also, for Sacramento, they're not just giving up a top 10 pick for Granger, they're dumping a TON of long-term salary as well in Thompson and Thornton. Salary that we just can't absorb.

I've liked Thornton for a long time and was always confused as to why he fell so far in that draft (interviews?). He would fill another hole that the team needs as well, another ball-handler off the bench. If I'm SAC no way do I take back damaged goods and a lower pick for Thornton and Thompson though. Both are young, relatively inexpensive and still improving.
I too, think that if Granger goes it will be for more expiring money. The only way that it will be for long term salary is if they ink George to an extension this off-season because (correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think this is true) then his upcoming $$ counts against the cap rather than the cap hold from his rookie deal. Having his deal on the cap would put the Pacers in the same position they are right now. Scraping the cap with a few roles to fill.

MNPacersfan wrote:The only way that it will be for long term salary is if they ink George to an extension this off-season because (correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think this is true) then his upcoming $$ counts against the cap rather than the cap hold from his rookie deal. Having his deal on the cap would put the Pacers in the same position they are right now. Scraping the cap with a few roles to fill.

Technically, yes. If they sign George this off-season, he won't have a cap hold next offseason, but rather a contract number that will count on the books. However, that contract will be about $8-10m more than what his cap hold would be (until he ultimately signed a max deal).

Either way, ultimately, his cap number in 2014 is going to be the same whether he signs this summer, or next, and won't change what our acquisitions will look like.

lets get Chris Paul and Jordan Hill so we can play Chris Paul, Paul George, George Hill, and Jordan Hill and drive the announcers totally crazy with all the Paul's, George's, and Hill's.

We could also draft Brandon Paul to add to the group.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

MNPacersfan wrote:The only way that it will be for long term salary is if they ink George to an extension this off-season because (correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think this is true) then his upcoming $$ counts against the cap rather than the cap hold from his rookie deal. Having his deal on the cap would put the Pacers in the same position they are right now. Scraping the cap with a few roles to fill.

Either way, ultimately, his cap number in 2014 is going to be the same whether he signs this summer, or next, and won't change what our acquisitions will look like.

Actually, if he doesn't sign the extension this summer and makes the All-NBA team next season he would qualify for the Derrick Rose exception and his 2014 salary could 3 million more than it would be if he signed the extension.

xBulletproof wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:

MNPacersfan wrote:The only way that it will be for long term salary is if they ink George to an extension this off-season because (correct me here if I'm wrong, but I think this is true) then his upcoming $$ counts against the cap rather than the cap hold from his rookie deal. Having his deal on the cap would put the Pacers in the same position they are right now. Scraping the cap with a few roles to fill.

Either way, ultimately, his cap number in 2014 is going to be the same whether he signs this summer, or next, and won't change what our acquisitions will look like.

Actually, if he doesn't sign the extension this summer and makes the All-NBA team next season he would qualify for the Derrick Rose exception and his 2014 salary could 3 million more than it would be if he signed the extension.

If you sign him to the max guarantee, his contract would be automatically recalculated once he reached the necessary requirements. Doesn't matter when he signs, he's not going to be punished by signing an extension a bit earlier. Ultimately, his cap would be the same no matter what. It all depends on whether you offer him a max, or the max designation.

Scoot McGroot wrote:

xBulletproof wrote:

Scoot McGroot wrote:
Either way, ultimately, his cap number in 2014 is going to be the same whether he signs this summer, or next, and won't change what our acquisitions will look like.

Actually, if he doesn't sign the extension this summer and makes the All-NBA team next season he would qualify for the Derrick Rose exception and his 2014 salary could 3 million more than it would be if he signed the extension.

If you sign him to the max guarantee, his contract would be automatically recalculated once he reached the necessary requirements. Doesn't matter when he signs, he's not going to be punished by signing an extension a bit earlier. Ultimately, his cap would be the same no matter what. It all depends on whether you offer him a max, or the max designation.

I've never seen this option mentioned to sign a contract that changes based on what the 'max' actually is for that player when the extension kicks in. That is what you're saying, right? In fact, when Russell Westbrook signed his extension before his 4th season he missed out on the Derrick Rose exception for the extra money because of it.

Where did you learn this is an option, because I've never heard of it?

Westbrook missed out on it because a team can only have one designated "Rose" max player, and they had Durant.

Max contracts are a set percentage of the cap, not a sheer constructed number like most other contracts, and are re-calculated every year when the cap is set. If you sign George to a contract that designates him as the "rose eligible" max player, it will recalculate once be reaches that.

It's in place because the players association demanded it. How many players would be eligible if they had to reach these standards before their 3rd or 4th offseason? About a handful or less. Then they'd have to wait another 5 years for their next contract to be eligible again? That's a lot of lost money on the table for the players.

I've never heard of a contract with a floating number based on anything in the NBA. I'm aware that a contract is based on a percentage of the cap, but I've never heard of that number fluctuating based on the movement of the cap from year to year, or any other factors. Unless I'm missing something mighty big your 'max' contract is based on the current cap numbers when the contract was signed and doesn't fluctuate based on anything. I'm not sure how you could sign Paul for a "Rose eligible" contract when he can't be eligible for it until after next season, either.

Also, the designation that teams are only allowed 1 player of is of the 5 year contract extension variety. I've never heard that the Rose exception is limited to one player per team itself. In fact, Durant's contract wouldn't have anything to do with Westbrooks in terms of that. Durant signed his contract under the rules of the 2005 NBA CBA, not the most recent one.

I had a job that required me years ago to understand NBA cap rules and loopholes. However it was years ago and I can't remember everything I knew at the time. I also haven't kept tabs on everything in the newest CBA so some minor details may escape me, but I've kept some tabs on it. I'm having a hard time coming to grips with the idea that I would be this far off.

***EDIT***
Okay, after looking it up, it looks like the floating 'max' number is for rookie wage extensions for guys who qualify for the Rose exception. Also that veteran extensions can be amended downward, but not up if the cap number isn't what it was the year the extension was signed. However those changes only apply at the start of an extension and it doesn't change from year to year during any contract. Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant but I was thinking you were saying every year max contracts were changed to reflect a percentage of the cap.

Also, I saw no restrictions on the ability to extend 30% of the cap to only one guy per team, and Durant wasn't signed under the Rose exception list. So Westbrook didn't get the Rose bonus to 30%, but he was their 5 year designation that they're only allowed one of. I'm not sure how Westbrook isn't getting the 30% max based on the ability for the floating number extended to guys coming off rookie contracts. An agent screw up maybe?

Bottom line, it would be very stupid to give away the 23rd pick just to save 3.5m. I really feel Green can be flipped for a veteran with a similar contract, whether it be a disgruntled player or a player buried on the bench.

Ultimately, he is an expiring next season and I don't want to throw away another pick. This is very counterproductive when you are a team that builds through the draft. I remember a similar deal where we gave ATL a first to absorb Al Harrington's albatross contract. Green is peanuts.