Page 1 of 1

SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:27 am
by HicksvsKnicks08
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/b ... ble/1.html

5. Danny Granger just signed a five-year extension with the Pacers worth up to $65 million. Do you view him as franchise-player material?

Thomsen: He is not a franchise or elite player, and the contract reflects that -- he didn't get max money. Granger is the Pacers' best player, and they can't afford to lose him. A lot has gone wrong in that franchise and he is one of the promising assets. This contract should confirm that he has the backing of his organization, so if he does have greatness in him, there are no excuses to prevent him from achieving it. He needs to improve his ball handling, post play and defense. That's asking a lot -- remember that he was a mid-first-round pick with low expectations -- but even if he doesn't become one of the top players in the game, he is still well worth keeping.

Burns: Granger reminds me of Andre Iguodala and Luol Deng. They are all good, young small forwards who could be highly valuable supporting players on a championship team. But none has really shown himself to be a "franchise player" -- at least not yet. Granger showed last year that he can shoot the ball (40 percent from three-point range), slash to the basket and hold his own on defense (at least against smaller forwards). He has improved in each of his first four seasons, and at age 25 is headed into his prime. But Granger doesn't create a lot of scoring chances for others, so at this point he looks more like a really good second banana.

McCallum: By "franchise player" I'm going to take it to mean a player who a) is the rock upon which the franchise will build, and b) has the skills and talent to lift that franchise to a winning situation. I believe he's A, but not B. So I'm going to say no.

Mannix: Kevin Garnett is a franchise player. Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwight Howard -- these are franchise players. Granger has the makings of a strong No. 2 player, a Scottie Pippen type who can carry a team when he has to ... but one who needs a more potent sidekick to take a team to the next level. I don't blame Pacers boss Larry Bird for giving Granger $64 million; it's very possible he would have had to pay even more to keep Granger once he hit the open market. But Bird now has to be shrewd with his draft picks, because he will need a superior supporting cast if he is planning to build a team around Granger.


Ouch, I think Grangerwill be better than that. Top 20 in the game

Re: SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:16 am
by JarrettJackSG
Yay..most basketball experts have been saying the same things I'm saying..granger is a very very good second banana.

Re: SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 12:30 pm
by count55
I don't see any reason to say ouch. I think the criticism/questions are valid, but my read from those is that they think it was a good move and a reasonable contract...which is exactly what I think.

Re: SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 1:46 pm
by HicksvsKnicks08
I just dont understand why people are so quick to say he cant become a star. I think if the first to game sbecome the norm then he will

Re: SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:36 pm
by count55
Not being a "star" is not an insult. People are too hyperbolic these days. These guys are talking about "franchise" players. It's hardly degrading to Danny to say that he's not one, because there are probably only a half-dozen of those guys in the league right now.

I find it surprising that Danny has reached the level he's reached, so I can see the possibility of him being more than he currently appears. However, what he currently appears to be is pretty damn good, and I'm happy with his presence and his contract.

Re: SI Roundtable talks Granger signing

Posted: Wed Nov 5, 2008 2:43 pm
by mizzoupacers
^ What he said.