RealGM

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/eye-on-basketball/22385175/report-cavaliers-interested-in-trading-for-danny-granger

Multiple sources believe the Pacers are looking for a taker for veteran small forward Danny Granger. The Cavs are interested, sources said, but have reservations about the knee injury that forced him to miss much of the season. If the injury robbed Granger of his explosiveness, such a move would hardly be worth the gamble.

I saw it a couple of days ago on a friend's post. Nothing new about the Granger trade rumors but this is the first time if I am not mistaken that a team "sort of" expressed interest in Granger.

Though I would hate to see Danny go, realistically, the Cavs got some interesting young guys like Zeller and Gee.

I could see something like the 19th pick and someone like Gee. My guess is they see Zeller as a long term piece and aren't willing to put him in a deal like this.

This is a way of salvaging some potential value beyond 2014 from Danny and creating some cap space this year to throw some money at a one year contract for a higher profile guy. I'm thinking Dallas like one year deals thrown at Chris Kaman and OJ Mayo. Not sure who the candidates for those type deals are but I'd think that would be the underlying strategy if Cleveland were the trade partner.

doesn't Cleveland have big cap room and lots of draft picks? I assume they have no interest in trading away their young prospects but they might want to exchange some of this years picks for picks in future drafts just to space their roster building. do they have a longer contract they hope to unload for an expiring one? Varajao? might Hansbrough interest them?

Scoot, what's going on in your home town?

I dont think a Cleveland trade makes sense. Gee is a solid guy but in no way is he equal compensation for Granger nor would he provide Granger type production for a team with championship aspirations; this team is young enough (the excuse they used for the ECF loss); they dont need to get any younger than they are in the rotation for next season. The emergence of George and Stephenson with a healthy Batman probably is the best wing rotation in the league next season. No way do i give up that opportunity for a young potential guy.

^ I think Varejao's status depends on who they will draft. If they go for Noel, I'm thinking Varejao will get traded before the trade deadline, when Noel is already playing (hopefully). If they go McLemore, I don't know their plans about Waiters and Gee.

Not degrading Granger's value in any way, but getting someone like Gee and multiple picks seems kinda fair. It would be a big help regarding our future financial situation. Speights is also an expiring contract, yes?

Wizop wrote:doesn't Cleveland have big cap room and lots of draft picks? I assume they have no interest in trading away their young prospects but they might want to exchange some of this years picks for picks in future drafts just to space their roster building. do they have a longer contract they hope to unload for an expiring one? Varajao? might Hansbrough interest them?

Scoot, what's going on in your home town?

Granger's been brought up an awful lot in the papers here. The general thought is that the Cavs have no interest in bringing in 4 rookies this year (with 4 picks in the first 33 of the draft), and would look for a veteran leader in the clubhouse as Varejao really isn't a leader in that regards. There's all kinds of discussions as to what trades they make though. Could they trade #1 in a package for a front-line kind of guy...(Cousins, Love, etc)? Could they trade 19 for another usable vet.....(Marion, Granger, Gasol, etc)? Or, could they try and package 19, 31, and 33 and other pieces (Zeller, the future Memphis or Sacramento 1sts?) and try and move up into the mid to high lotto to get a Bennett or Len (depending on what they do with #1)?

Granger is conceivable as a one year deal, even with his high salary. The Cavs also have a bit of a 2014 salary cap "hope" in keeping max space for the very low possibility of a return from Lebron, which Granger's salary wouldn't hamper in any way. Also, if they strike out on a max salary guy this year, they'll need help getting to the salary cap minimum this year. They wouldn't go higher than #19 or Zeller, depending on how they felt about a certain prospect in this draft.

Varejao still holds value to them, especially with the return of Mike Brown. Brown just loves Varejao. Tristan Thompson is pretty much holding down the PF spot there, and is a huge upgrade to Tyler. I don't see ANY interest from them in Tyler with Tristan, Varejao, Speights, and Kevin Jones all guys they like at the 4, with Varejao, Zeller, and likely Noel or Len coming in at the 5 as well. They've already got 5 bigs, and likely to draft a high level one this year, too.

Ultimately, the Cavs have 100 different ways they could go this year with their ample cap space, solid young talent (Kyrie, Dion, Tristan, Zeller) and plenty of picks (#1, #19, #31, #33, and future firsts from Sacramento, Miami, and Memphis, and future 2nds from Orlando and Memphis). They also have holes all over the bench, but a HUGE hole at SF. If Varejao isn't healthy, they also have a question mark at the 5. They also have to see if Kyrie and Dion can play together long-term at the 1 & 2 spots as well.

Ultimately, the Cavs want to make the playoffs this year. That's been made clear by all levels of their management. The question is how are they going to get there....

I don't think 19 helps us all that much unless packaging 19 and 23 would get you 10 to 13. I would like MCW or Larkin and I think they'll both be gone at 19. I wouldn't pass on Zeller but I want the youngest Zeller and not the one playing for Cleveland. If we can't get one of the best point guards - I'm not sold on Schroeder - maybe 31 and/or 33 would net you Canaan or one of the other riskier guys.

Yea, I'm not seeing 19 help much at all. There's not a whole lot on the Cavs that they'd part with that could help us.

Wizop wrote:I don't think 19 helps us all that much unless packaging 19 and 23 would get you 10 to 13. I would like MCW or Larkin and I think they'll both be gone at 19. I wouldn't pass on Zeller but I want the youngest Zeller and not the one playing for Cleveland. If we can't get one of the best point guards - I'm not sold on Schroeder - maybe 31 and/or 33 would net you Canaan or one of the other riskier guys.

I'm not sure I see the value in a trade like this being contingent on any one player being available at pick 19. A move like this does a bunch of little things.
1. Maybe with three picks (19, 23 31) you rationalize using one of these picks to move Gerald Green (eliminating the problem next off season when his contract becomes a problem).
2. You now have cap space (at least for the coming season) to aggressively persue players who might be willing to sign 1 year deals, probably more than one guy. This mitigates the loss of Granger next year.
3. Even if you used one of the picks (19, 23, 31) to move Green you still have the ability to draft two players who could be developed patiently. Cheap guys who after next year will be needed to fill out your bench.

Granted these moves cumulatively may not be the home run the return of a healthy Granger represents. But, maybe you hit big on one of the picks (we've been know to do that). Or one of the free agents just blows up in our system (someone like JJ Redick). Or the roster spot you open up by moving Green allows you to keep the next Gary Neal on your roster next year.

Moooose wrote:^ I think Varejao's status depends on who they will draft. If they go for Noel, I'm thinking Varejao will get traded before the trade deadline, when Noel is already playing (hopefully). If they go McLemore, I don't know their plans about Waiters and Gee.

Not degrading Granger's value in any way, but getting someone like Gee and multiple picks seems kinda fair. It would be a big help regarding our future financial situation. Speights is also an expiring contract, yes?

The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

Boneman2 wrote:The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

we got to game 7 of the ECF this year. do you think we would have a better chance to go further next year with Granger and Green or with Gee, Speights, and 3 rookies (ignoring the fact that you'd probably be forced to draft some Euro's just to avoid having to clear roster spots for 3 new guys)? I think Granger gives us a better chance to win a championship in 2014 than anyone we could get in a trade for him. why make next year worse in hopes that'll make future years better? unless we lose West, we're right there.

put another way, if you have your ticket order form out, which team would have you looking for a stamp?

Speights is a big upgrade as a 3rd big man. Swapping Greens deal for Gee is an upgrade, and at this point Gee is a better player. Using 19 & 23, you could move up and get a pretty solid long term piece.

I think that would be a good enough deal for Indy to move Granger. Clears some financial burden (Green), nets a solid now piece (Speights), and a long-term piece (19), while eliminating the risk of Granger possibly not being healthy.

It's not an awful deal for us, but I would still be tempted to take the flier on Grangers health.

I also think it might be much to net 31 as well in this deal. Maybe we could net 33 instead if we also include our 53 pick. This would let Cleveland still stash a prospect with 53, and net a fallen prospect at 31. Although, maybe we could include Plumlee to get the 31 as well for a Withey? Granger, Green, Plumlee, 53 for Speights, Gee, 19, 31, 33?

I think I'd want a deal in hand to exchange multiple picks to move up into the 10 to 13 range where I'm sure we could get a decent point guard prospect before I did this. alternatively we could make the trade during the draft contingent on a point guard we like being available at 19.

Wizop wrote:

Boneman2 wrote:The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

we got to game 7 of the ECF this year. do you think we would have a better chance to go further next year with Granger and Green or with Gee, Speights, and 3 rookies (ignoring the fact that you'd probably be forced to draft some Euro's just to avoid having to clear roster spots for 3 new guys)? I think Granger gives us a better chance to win a championship in 2014 than anyone we could get in a trade for him. why make next year worse in hopes that'll make future years better? unless we lose West, we're right there.

put another way, if you have your ticket order form out, which team would have you looking for a stamp?

To piggy back off of 8305's idea, the savings would allow us to offer any f/a a substantial 1 year deal. Think Mayo and guys of his caliber. A deal like this also opens the door to possibly acquiring TRob from Houston, not too mention trading up.

I get that we were real close, and that Granger could potentially put us over the top. But at the end of the day neither he nor Green were a factor at any point this season. So if we could add TRob in exchange for the 23rd pick, Shroder with the 19th pick, Rice Jr. with the 31st, Gee, Speights, and a high level f/a for one season, then we should do it. That way we get something in return to build upon instead of losing Granger outright at season's end. I don't know Gee's contract situation, but I have to believe his salary can easily be moved after next season. Regardless, this deal adds minimal salary in 2014, based off of the premise that Gee can be flipped.

Boneman2 wrote:

Wizop wrote:

Boneman2 wrote:The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

we got to game 7 of the ECF this year. do you think we would have a better chance to go further next year with Granger and Green or with Gee, Speights, and 3 rookies (ignoring the fact that you'd probably be forced to draft some Euro's just to avoid having to clear roster spots for 3 new guys)? I think Granger gives us a better chance to win a championship in 2014 than anyone we could get in a trade for him. why make next year worse in hopes that'll make future years better? unless we lose West, we're right there.

put another way, if you have your ticket order form out, which team would have you looking for a stamp?

To piggy back off of 8305's idea, the savings would allow us to offer any f/a a substantial 1 year deal. Think Mayo and guys of his caliber. A deal like this also opens the door to possibly acquiring TRob from Houston, not too mention trading up.

I get that we were real close, and that Granger could potentially put us over the top. But at the end of the day neither he nor Green were a factor at any point this season. So if we could add TRob in exchange for the 23rd pick, Shroder with the 19th pick, Rice Jr. with the 31st, Gee, Speights, and a high level f/a for one season, then we should do it. That way we get something in return to build upon instead of losing Granger outright at season's end. I don't know Gee's contract situation, but I have to believe his salary can easily be moved after next season. Regardless, this deal adds minimal salary in 2014, based off of the premise that Gee can be flipped.

Gee's essentially expiring.

And of course Granger wasn't a factor this year. He didn't play. The question is "would he be a big factor next year?".

Boneman2 wrote:

Moooose wrote:^ I think Varejao's status depends on who they will draft. If they go for Noel, I'm thinking Varejao will get traded before the trade deadline, when Noel is already playing (hopefully). If they go McLemore, I don't know their plans about Waiters and Gee.

Not degrading Granger's value in any way, but getting someone like Gee and multiple picks seems kinda fair. It would be a big help regarding our future financial situation. Speights is also an expiring contract, yes?

The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

I think the Pacers jump all over this deal. I think the extra 10-15 mil in 2013/1014 cap space would net one or two solid additions who would be willing to sign 1year deals. All considered pretty good chance the Pacers are not only better long term but also next year.

8305 wrote:

Boneman2 wrote:

Moooose wrote:^ I think Varejao's status depends on who they will draft. If they go for Noel, I'm thinking Varejao will get traded before the trade deadline, when Noel is already playing (hopefully). If they go McLemore, I don't know their plans about Waiters and Gee.

Not degrading Granger's value in any way, but getting someone like Gee and multiple picks seems kinda fair. It would be a big help regarding our future financial situation. Speights is also an expiring contract, yes?

The only fair deal without Cleveland actually giving up a valuable player is:

Granger/Green for Gee/Speights/ 19 & 31

I think the Pacers jump all over this deal. I think the extra 10-15 mil in 2013/1014 cap space would net one or two solid additions who would be willing to sign 1year deals. All considered pretty good chance the Pacers are not only better long term but also next year.

Also, if you could convince Chris Paul to come to Indy, you could give him a max and let West walk (while starting Speights). Or convince LAC to do a S&T of George Hill + picks for Paul so we could re-sign West, too.

Luxury tax in 2014? Sure. But worth it? I'll let you decide.

Paul/vet FA
Lance/OJ
George/Gee
West/Speights/Plumlee
Hibbert/Mahinmi

All with 19 & 23 to add low cost pieces, too. Maybe a Larkin and Karasev?

Would Cleveland move Varejao for Granger?

Does the new CBA still call for a thirty day wait between draft day and trading a player you draft? If so, wouldn't that make a sign and that included the picks be pretty difficult?

PR07 wrote:Would Cleveland move Varejao for Granger?

Possibly. However, not sure we want that contract on in 2014.