RealGM

so... luol deng is going to get roughly $12 million a year. what does everybody think - will granger get more, less, or the same? i'd say deng is about as comparable a player there is for granger, so this deal really sets the market value. i bet granger gets almost the exact same deal. it is a lot of money, but i doubt we can keep him for much less.

Granger is a better player than Deng. I think most everyone outside Chicago would probably agree. I think Chicago over-payed for Deng, just as we should over-pay Granger if its the difference between keeping him and losing him. I agree he will probably get around the same deal, it would be a lot of money, but he is our Franchise player and we can't afford to lose him. How long do we have to discuss extending Granger, does anyone know?

I would say at this point Deng is a better scorer than Danny. We know what Danny can do, but he tends to force things on the drive which leads to charging fouls. I am not very familiar with Deng's defensive ability but I know we usually say Danny is our best defender (maybe Rush or Jack will be now) However, with all of the scoring options the Bulls have, Granger is more important to us than Deng is to the Bulls, So I could see Granger going for a slightly higher amount to begin with.

I just don't get it though... Any amount of millions makes one a rich person... so if a player truly has WINNING as his #1 goal then he is not going to hurt the team with the highest contract possible. Remember when we signed JO to his big deal? His huge resingnng led to the sign-and-trade of Brad Miller


What do you think we could have done with a line-up of these guys under Carlisle?
Tinsley/Johnson
Miller/Jones
Artest/Harrington
O'neal/Croshere
Miller/Foster

JO might already have had a ring by now. I have never understood why starts like Tracy McGrady, Carmello Anthony, Chris Bosh, Jason Kidd, and Amare Stoudemire don't get together and agree to sign small contracts to the same team... win the title.,.. then collect their big payday afterwards.

It just goes to show that Winning is not what comes first but the highest dollar value possible. I understand why they are like that.... I would probably do the same thing... but I am just pointing out that 99 times out of 100 when someone says his main goal is winning he is lying.

Ah, the first report I saw said 5 years and I nearly choked. 6 years is more like it for that amount of money.


As it is, if we could get Granger for that exact deal (starts at about $9.4 million, tops out at about $14.5 million in 6 years), I'd be really ok with it. That'd probably be pretty good pay for him, but I'd be willing to overpay a bit. I'd even like to see them maybe even front load Granger's deal a bit or give him a relatively flat salary, I'd be pretty ok with it, but that would take a pretty long-term view, or at the least, a Tinsley end game to figure out exactly what we're looking at down the road.

I don't think Brad Miller was going to take us any farther than we actually ended up. Let's be honest now.

i had such high hopes for that group. the brad miller/jeff foster tag team was one of my all time favorites. one of my least favorite trades was the one one where we sent brad miller off (not only did we take back pollard's contract and minimal value, but we also could've had hedo turkoglu coming back to us but let him go to san antonio for nothing). maybe if we had kept brad miller (who was artest's smoking buddy), ron wouldn't have flipped out. also, i disliked the harrington for stephen jackson trade, when we could've just signed jackson with our mid-level. there was a time when it was rumored that we could've traded artest & harrington for tracy mcgrady, but we turned it down - now that houston's actually acquired artest, that seems fairly plausible. anywho... those two deals really put me off on sign-and-trades. sorry for the rambling on the way things could've been... we've come a long way since deconstructing that group.

Up until last season, I would have said that Deng was better. Last year he was slowed by injuries. If he comes back all the way from that...dude is really good.

I do think Granger and Deng are fairly comparable, though. I'd be OK with Granger getting the same amount of money. But no more $20 million a year JO-type contracts, front office, pretty please--hardly anyone is actually worth that kind of money.

fienX420 wrote:maybe if we had kept brad miller (who was artest's smoking buddy), ron wouldn't have flipped out.

I very much doubt that. Artest did crazy stuff while B. Miller was with him on the Pacers. And he did crazy stuff when both of them were in Chicago. I think that Artest = crazy stuff, no matter who else is in the locker room. He's a real self-starter.

fienX420 wrote:i had such high hopes for that group. the brad miller/jeff foster tag team was one of my all time favorites. one of my least favorite trades was the one one where we sent brad miller off (not only did we take back pollard's contract and minimal value, but we also could've had hedo turkoglu coming back to us but let him go to san antonio for nothing). maybe if we had kept brad miller (who was artest's smoking buddy), ron wouldn't have flipped out. also, i disliked the harrington for stephen jackson trade, when we could've just signed jackson with our mid-level. there was a time when it was rumored that we could've traded artest & harrington for tracy mcgrady, but we turned it down - now that houston's actually acquired artest, that seems fairly plausible. anywho... those two deals really put me off on sign-and-trades. sorry for the rambling on the way things could've been... we've come a long way since deconstructing that group.

The value in the Brad Miller trade was that we got to dump Ron Mercer's almost $24 million remaining for Danny Ferry's non-guaranteed deal. Pollard was the filler that got the deal to work and the value that let us dump Mercer. Getting Turkoglu is what convinced SA to take on Mercer's deal for Ferry's non-guaranteed deal. There was no way we could've gotten Turkoglu and dumped Mercer. Considering Turkoglu played out his San Antonio deal without much fanfare before signing a new deal in Orlando and taking about 2 years for him to do anything worthwhile (this season) I don't think we lost out on not having Turkoglu. He simply wasn't yet ready to contribute.


Stephen Jackson got more than the MLE. We could've maybe signed him for the MLE, but we would've had to dump other players as we would've then been luxury tax payers.



The T-Mac deal that was once rumored was Artest, Harrington, Bender, Tinsley, and I believe Foster for McGrady and Juwan Howard's albatross of a deal. Looking back now, that would be a no-brainer for us to have done, seeing how everything else worked out. However, at the time, that was WAAAAAAAAY too much to give up, considering Tinsley hadn't quite given us the hint of how stupid he was, Artest was still relatively sane and very, very good for us, and Bender still looked like the 2nd coming. Foster was already Foster. Harrington was the 6th man of the year candidate.

i thought mercer was an expiring contract when we made that deal. i think jackson still would've signed with us given nobody could offer more than the mid-level. and i remember a slimmed down t-mac rumor which was just harrington & artest straight up. not really important at this point - new fish to fry and all that.

fienX420 wrote:i thought mercer was an expiring contract when we made that deal. i think jackson still would've signed with us given nobody could offer more than the mid-level. and i remember a slimmed down t-mac rumor which was just harrington & artest straight up. not really important at this point - new fish to fry and all that.

I'm sorry, you're right on the Mercer one. Mercer was paid $6.75 million in 03-04, and waived after only 39 games. He would've been paid almost $6.75 million to ride our pine though for 03-04, and we were able to get out of his deal.


I think ultimately, Jackson would've rather signed for the MLE with Atlanta over us. He wanted more than the MLE though, and that was what we were willing to do, and why he wanted to come to Indy.


I don't think the slimmed down T-Mac offer was anything other than pipedream for Indy. Orlando had attached Juwan Howard to T-Mac in all offers, and even at that, Orlando was still wanting Harrington, Artest, Bender, and Tinsley.

I dont think Granger gets quite as much as Deng. Deng is younger and has more upside than Danny. I'd guess that after this deal, Granger would likely get a 6 year $73 million extension, which I think is good value for a guy like him.

Prior to last year, there's no question Deng was the better prospect. After last season, I'd call it a toss-up leaning slightly towards Danny for the simple fact that he continues to improve whereas Deng has already shown signs of peaking. I also think Danny's a more versatile scorer due to his three-point range. Defensively, I really couldn't say. Both have reputations of pretty good defenders. Deng's a slightly better rebounder and passer.

Like I said, pretty much a toss-up. Both are good, second-tier young SFs. Let's see if either one can take their game to the next level.

Ehhh, personally, I prefer Granger, but I think if you polled the teams around the league (or the fans around the league) that most would prefer Deng to Granger. He is two years younger and has a higher ceiling than Danny. Injuries kind of derailed him last year, but I dont think that tells the whole story. His numbers when he did play were fairly comparable. Like I said, I'd rather have Danny, and I wouldnt expect for him to get a deal as big as Deng's.

This might be a dumb question, but if Danny was from Great Britain would he be starting and performing well for their Olympic team like Deng?

Anyways, personally I'd prefer Danny over Deng because personality means a lot to me, and I think they should take that into consideration when giving him the contract. The people realize what product you put on the floor and awarding Danny for his progress would show the fans what direction the organization plans to go with good quality people.

Of course he would. I could go in there and play on their Olympic team.

you guys are putting too much stock in rumors. don't ever believe just because you hear or read about a proposed trade that such a deal was ever actually available to either team.

It is easy to realize how much the Bulls overpaid for Deng when you look at the Bobcats signing Okefor for 6 yrs/$72mil. For the $8 mil over 6 years, I would rather have Okefor on my team rather than Deng. I want to keep Danny but I hope he is reasonable in his demand.

deng is 2 years younger. that alone might drive him to be more valuable than danny, he is only 23.

cb4lif3 wrote:deng is 2 years younger. that alone might drive him to be more valuable than danny, he is only 23.

I really think this statement is completely without merit. It would be one thing if Danny were five or six years older, but this isn't the case. Two years of age is almost meaningless, particularly when both players will finish their upcoming contracts still in there prime.

Besides, even though Danny is two years older, he actually has one year less and 44 fewer NBA games worth of wear-and-tear.

Deng may or may not be more valuable than Danny, but basing it on the fact that Deng is 23 and Danny is 25 strikes me as misguided.