Big Three trade challenge

[TrentTuckerForever]

So let's wind the NBA clock back to draft time, 2006. The Celtics had on their roster an established star in Paul Pierce, a bunch of young prospects, and the #5 pick in the upcoming draft (which eventually became Jeff Green.)

Danny Ainge, in the gamble that defined his career as an executive, brought in two more established stars while keeping the best of those young prospects (Rajon Rondo.) We all know the results, and the fact that the Miami Heat copied the Celtics' roster model (doing it through free agency rather than trade) should be all the validation we need to know that this is a viable way to build a winner.

So here's the challenge: the Wolves have an established star in Kevin Love. If Ricky Rubio can live up to the hype (and only time will tell that for sure), he can play the role of the young prospect to bring the team together.

If everyone else on the roster and the 2nd pick in the upcoming draft is an asset (i.e. tradeable), what's the best realistic Big Three you can put together for the Wolves in 2011? Here's one shot at it (adapted from an idea from the trade board):

Ind in: #2 pick, Beasley, Webster
Min in: Granger

Why for Indy:

Indy gets younger and more flexible. MN is essentially overpaying on pure talent to get Granger.

Phi in: Wesley Johnson, Nicola Pekovic, Luke Ridnour, #20 pick
Min in: Andre Iguodala

Why for Philly:

They dump their salary commitment to Iggy for smaller pieces who will help continue their ascent in the Eastern Conference.

Final Wolves roster:

Granger/Hayward
Love/Randolph
Milicic/Tolliver
Iguodala/Ellington
Rubio/Flynn

Iggy replicates KG's defensive impact and helps replicate the Celtics culture of ubuntu and defensive accountability, Rubio learns the ropes from two established perimeter scorers, Wolves are on their way to winning it all in 2012! (before the world comes to an end, of course. Damn Mayans.)

[Devilzsidewalk]

I cant help but look at it like the C's paying Jeff Green for future hall of famer and ultimate professional Ray Allen and D West vs The Wolves selling part 2 of a 2 man draft in Derrick Williams and Beasley for Danny "remember that 1 really good season I had?" Granger....and I feel highly swindled

I'd enjoy having a competitive team to cheer for again, but we'd probably max out as a 7th or 8th seed that cant win in the playoffs because Granger isnt a good enough scorer

[TrentTuckerForever]

So I set the bar low. It's still the best trade in the thread .

[Devilzsidewalk]

its fine for a final roster and I wouldn't expect even this much for Kahn, I just wish the Wolves could be the ones doing the swindling for once

[sisibilio]

Pierce > Love (at least for the moment)
Allen >>>>> Granger
Garnett >>>>>>>> Iggy

The Phily trade is fine but tat's overpaying waaay too much for Granger. I'd keep Beasley-Webster and select Kanter or Valanciunas in the draft, either with the 2nd pick or trading down to get some more assets.

[shrink]

I think this plan works best with Bogut and Iguodala.

We don't have a Paul Pierce, but I think we have as much trade value as the Celtics did when they made their move. The problem though is that Ray Allens and Garnetts, established vet stars that will put ego aside to win, aren't always available.

Lastly, if we want an elite guy that may be wasted in his current location, we could try to convince Chris Paul. While it'd be a longshot, the best way to do it is to sell the wolves based on the other players coming in. For example, if you add Bogut and Iguodala to Love, Paul might actually consider sticking around.

[TrentTuckerForever]

^Absolutely, shrink. Adding Iggy and Bogut to a roster with Love and Rubio already on it is the sales pitch right there. Remember, we're evaluating the guys that went to the Celtics in 06 as we see them now - back then they weren't thought of as champions. Hell, I don't think the Big Three had advanced as far as the Finals before 06 on their own, right? They were excellent, but flawed veterans who never could put a team over the top.

Under what circumstances is Dwight Howard available? Does this roster plus the #2 pick have enough trade value to put together a package for Dwight +1 while keeping Love?

[moss_is_1]

^Absolutely, shrink. Adding Iggy and Bogut to a roster with Love and Rubio already on it is the sales pitch right there. Remember, we're evaluating the guys that went to the Celtics in 06 as we see them now - back then they weren't thought of as champions. Hell, I don't think the Big Three had advanced as far as the Finals before 06 on their own, right? They were excellent, but flawed veterans who never could put a team over the top.

Under what circumstances is Dwight Howard available? Does this roster plus the #2 pick have enough trade value to put together a package for Dwight +1 while keeping Love?

Dwight for #2, Beasley, Flynn, Wes Johnson,Anthony Randolph. it's not near value for Dwight...but if he tells Orlando he's not re-signing I'd offer that right away. Pairing Rubio with Love/Dwight would be nice, although that'd leave us with a crap roster outside of that really.

[Worm Guts]

^Absolutely, shrink. Adding Iggy and Bogut to a roster with Love and Rubio already on it is the sales pitch right there. Remember, we're evaluating the guys that went to the Celtics in 06 as we see them now - back then they weren't thought of as champions. Hell, I don't think the Big Three had advanced as far as the Finals before 06 on their own, right? They were excellent, but flawed veterans who never could put a team over the top.

They weren't thought of as champions but they were thought of as 2 25 ppg scorers and an MVP. Have either Bogut or Iggy even made an all-star game?

And I'm not saying I dislike a team with Bogut, Iggy and Love, just that it's not the Celtics.

[Guidus88]

are you comparing Iguodala and Granger with garnett and allen?

[TrentTuckerForever]

^EDIT - okay, you edited when I posted.

If you've got a better Big Three trade (that could potentially happen), post it! I'm not saying Iggy and Bogut (or Bynum or Granger) are KG and Allen, just that they are two veterans that the Woofies could acquire around draft day.

[moss_is_1]

Flynn, Anthony Randolph, #20,2012 Utah 1st for Nash

Why for PHX? Time to blow it up, get 2 nice prospects to pair with Brooks,Dudley, Gortat, Lopez going forward and they get a pick this season and possibly next. Value is decent, although Nash is nearly 40, he's still a top 5 PG, which is why we have to give up so much value, but why PHX won't get a full return.


Wes J/Pekovic/Webster for Iggy
Why for Philly? Iggy is not a #1 guy despite being paid like one, and they decide to go in a new direction with turner. Iggy with Nash would be sweet.

#2 pick, Beasley, Darko for Bogut/Gooden
Milwaukee sheds one of the bad deals, and Boguts more longterm deal for a shot at a franchise player at #2, and another player who may have that potential as well in Beasley.


Nash-Rubio-Ridnour
Free Agent
Iggy
Love-Gooden-Tolly
Bogut

meh, not sure if these trades are that close, but that team would be fun. flip some guys around for a sg, sign a couple vets. Nash with Iggy would be sexy.

[Beas]

I like the idea of forming a "big 3" with Iggy, Bogut/Bynum, and Love. If Rubio comes it would look even better.

Rubio
FA
Iggy
Love
Bogut/Bynum

Could easily be a potential playoff team with that lineup imo. We would probably have a weak bench considering what we might have to give up to make it happen but still that looks like a pretty solid starting line up.

[Wingman]

Beasley is better for this team than Granger. I like Beasley and Love together, they like eachother, they are about the same age and lots of room to grow. Didn't KLove say he hates Iniana's players in a post game interview? I don't put a lot of weight on that at all but it may factor in. I probably would do the second deal though. Iggy is vastly overpaid, but that's what it takes to get semistars in this market. It'd be nice to grab Meeks or Speights too.

[JMillott]

I think people have been vastly underrating Danny Granger on this board for a while now. He may very well not be the equal of a Paul Pierce or a Ray Allen at their peaks but we're talking about a 28 year old Granger vs a 32 year old Ray Allen.

Its not like Granger has underachieved given the talent around him on the Pacers, hell he's consistently taken 20-25 win rosters and won 30+ games. I know people think that Collison, Hibbert, etc aren't bad but face facts they aren't good either.

If you take a real honest hard look at that Pacers team its fairly obvious that Granger is the only consistent difference maker.

Collison is a solid PG and will likely continue to grow into a good one but he'll never be great and right now he basically gives up everything he gets at the other end and turns the ball over too much.

Hibbert gave up more then he got and unlike almost all other 7'2 centers he actually hurt his teams on court off court splits defensively. That isn't a typo and it isn't a mistake either, he can't run, he can't cover the weakside, he can't come out of the paint to challenge shots and he doesn't shut people down in the paint.

Dunleavy was the only other true difference maker the Pacers had and he was only a difference maker when he played next to Granger not when he took over for him. Why? Because he is the only guy the Pacers have put next to Granger who can shot, dribble, pass and has a basketball IQ over the last few years. In other words Granger doesn't need much next to him but he does require at least a Dunleavy caliber guy which isn't difficult to get.

The Pacers were a +121 with this five man rotation, Collison, Dunleavy, Granger, McRoberts and Hibbert. They struggled to so much as break even with any other group but that group was well above average.

Granger is the only difference maker in that group and yes his numbers were down last year but only because he had two very bad months in December and March when he was a banged up. You guys knock him because his numbers suffered a little last year, well wake up that is the reason why you might be able to get him without having to over pay.

The idea that you'd hesitate to trade for a Danny Granger because Michael Beasley is already on the team is laughable. You have Kevin Love, if you want to keep him and not waste his career on lottery teams you need to put actual players around him like a Danny Granger not mental midgets who don't play defense and chuck like they're allstars.

Granger and Love would easily be one of the best forward combos in the NBA and not just in raw production like Beasley and Love but in terms of actual efficiency and production differential.

[moss_is_1]

^ I'd be happy if we traded for him, and I also would agree that Beasley being equal to Granger is laughable, Beasley is not close. Stats aren't everything. I just have a hard time swallowing Granger being our #1 option cuz look where he is with Indy.

[JMillott]

^ I'd be happy if we traded for him, and I also would agree that Beasley being equal to Granger is laughable, Beasley is not close. Stats aren't everything. I just have a hard time swallowing Granger being our #1 option cuz look where he is with Indy.

At his best Granger can be the #1 scorer on a very good team but that is at his best which i'm not trying to tell or say to anyone that he can be counted on to be again. I'd still trade anything other then Love, Rubio or the #2 overall pick for him and i'd try to keep Wesley Johnson out of the deal too if I could.

That being said, Granger has played with some pretty average to poor PG's during his time in Indy and regardless of the quality of the PG's he was in Jimmy O'Brien's system which isn't conductive to making PG's effective to begin with. In fact I think Obie's system only makes sense for the Mike Bibby, Derrek Fisher, etc type of PG's anyway so i'm not understanding why the hell they traded for a TJ Ford and Darren Collison with that system in place anyway?

My line of thinking is that if they trade for Granger they'll get a legit 18-21 PPG, 5-7 RPG, 2-3 APG, 2.5 TPG, 1 SPG, 1 BPG give or take a little on around 14-17 shots at minimum to go with at least solid defense and he's capable of better at both ends if they can coach it out of him.

Then you hope that Rubio is a trancendent passer who can either get more then that out of both Granger and Love or that he can get them to their numbers more efficiently while getting more out of Millic, Wesley, Webster and in my hope Kanter.

You try and get Granger with some combo of Beasley, Pekovic, Ellington, the #20 pick and the future Jazz pick and even offer the right to swap picks in say 2013. If you absolutely must you give up Wesley or Webster.

PG Rubio - Ridnour - Flynn
SG Wes - Webster - Granger
SF Granger - Webster - Wes - Hayward
PF Love - Randolph - Tolliver
C Kanter - Millic - Love

[moss_is_1]

^ yeah, obviously if the offer is right I'm not going to turn it down because he's more of a #2 scorer. You improve your team anyway you can. Granger and Love to me are both #2 scorers, although Granger could still go back to the form of a #1 guy, he had that one season where he averaged like 25 PPG.

Problem is, he's not overly athletic, hes a good shooter, not great, and doesn't have a great handle. He struggles to consistently get good shots, we'd still need a #1 go to guy at SG.

[JMillott]

^ yeah, obviously if the offer is right I'm not going to turn it down because he's more of a #2 scorer. You improve your team anyway you can. Granger and Love to me are both #2 scorers, although Granger could still go back to the form of a #1 guy, he had that one season where he averaged like 25 PPG.

Problem is, he's not overly athletic, hes a good shooter, not great, and doesn't have a great handle. He struggles to consistently get good shots, we'd still need a #1 go to guy at SG.

My line of thinking is that with a PG as creative as Rubio that he might regain that level of production and that with the Wolves not having any need to play him out of position at PF for fairly sizeable chunks of time that he might just regain a little of that scoring edge/efficiency. I don't really believe teams need a 25+ a night guy to be honest, in fact I'm a guy that believes that scoring balance is prefered unless you've got one of the top 5 five or so players in the NBA. I'd rather have three guys capable of 18-20 a night and let the guy(s) with the best match up be the focal point on any given night.

As much as I do like Granger, he is at best in that Paul Pierce class where he can match up with anyone in a big game but can't dominate for a 100 games a year like a Bron, Kobe, Wade, Durant, etc.

That being said, the reason i've been so against trading back during this draft process is because I honestly believe that if anyone in this draft class has the potential to be a franchise player its Enes Kanter and Kyrie Irving not Derrick Williams in my eyes.

I don't buy into the Calipari statement about Kanter being Karl Malone type dominant but I could certainly see him being the Western Conference's starting center for the next decade.

[GopherIt!]

#2, #20, Utah #1 '12, Rubio, Randolph, Flynn, Pekovic, Webster, Luke for D12 & Nelson

Johnson, Wayne, Darko for Iggy

Nelson
Iggy
Beas
Love
D12

bench: Hayward, AT, cpfsf, lupus, devilz, basti, J2J, 4ho, Krap,, etc