RealGM

The warriors re-signed Monta Ellis for 6 years and $67 mil. See Espn article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3504378

To me, this seems like a good number for Danny as well. You can make cases for either player being more important to his team, but I want to get Danny extended ASAP. Of course I would love to lock him up for less, but whatever it takes, I want it done soon. I would be ok with a deal similar to Monta's.

Thoughts?

To put it into perspective...yearly salaries of $8, $9, $10, $11, $12, and $13 million would be 6 years and 63 million. Anything near that total +/- 5mil would be grand. Of course -5 mil is preferred, but I want Danny to get what he deserves. He's our future. This type of deal would lock him up until he's 32.

I would like to see a deal for around 45 mill over the next 4 years with a good amount gaurenteed and if he keeps improving like he has over past seasons, get him a new contract after two years of the contract I proposed.

Monta really deserves that money, and that lead role now that B. Davis is gone.
I think Danny deserves a contract like that too. I'm guessing +/-52M for 5 years. He's the future of this franchise, hope we can keep him forever like Reggie.

freeman wrote:Monta really deserves that money, and that lead role now that B. Davis is gone.
I think Danny deserves a contract like that too. I'm guessing +/-52M for 5 years. He's the future of this franchise, hope we can keep him forever like Reggie.

I would look at the Monta situation as a good measuring stick as to what we should offer Granger. Both are young players that have significantly improved over each season they were in the league. Both have been handed over the mantle of Franchise player since the departure of the previous Franchise Player.

Honestly...I don't want to lowball him like the way the Hawks and Clippers their Top FAs. I think something inbetween $11-12.5mil over 5 years is a good starting point.

I'd have no problems with six years, $67 million for Granger. The Pacers are probably going to have to pay something like that to keep him, and they really need to keep him.

It averages out to slightly more than $11 million per year; as ladiesluvpgs points out, spread over six years it tops out at a bit more than $13 million in the last year of the deal. The Pacers can afford to pay their best player that much.

Big difference between $13 million and $20+ million like the Pacers were going to have to pay Jermaine O'Neal. I hope the Pacers never again agree to pay someone $20 million a year, unless they swing a trade for LeBron or Dwight.