NBA Trade Value Rankings 2009 by Bill Simmons

[chatard5]

I find this article interested every year, I am a couple days late, but here is the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/st ... ons/090212

17. Danny Granger
If the Artest melee never happens, Indiana finishes ahead of Boston in 2005, we're picking No. 17 instead of No. 18, and we have Danny Granger right now. (Wait, we won the title last year? Why am I driving myself crazy with dumb hypotheticals right now?) So in a weird way, the Artest melee turned out to be GOOD for the Pacers? Kind of? Maybe just a little? Nobody made a bigger leap than Granger this season, with the possible exception of NBA-TV on Tuesday nights.

(That reminds me: We've had our first negative impact from the watershed GP/C-Webb combo. ... That's right, it's the new fad of other NBA studio talent trying to emulate them by making bad jokes, overlaughing and whooping it up like they're warming up the crowd at the ESPYS. What are the odds of Steve Smith and Cheryl Miller having an inspired moment of comedy together? Say, 200-to-1? That's not stopping them from trying. Let's nip this in the bud. Like, right now.)

I will never say the Artest melee was good for our team. Ever. 17 isn't bad, but I think there are a few others he could've been ahead of (especially since contracts are being taken into account). I think I would take Granger over Durant, but I guess Durant could be a star and is younger, but I don't know. Also, Rose is 10th and hasn't proven much. Also, could be great, and if you asked me if I'd trade Granger for the #1 pick I'd probably say yes, but then thinking about it I am not sure. I might do it because I think PGs are the most important position. Brandon Roy is good, but don't see how he is better, either. I think Yao is somewhat overrated. I guess big guys have more value, but I like Granger (I guess this one could be biased, I don't know). Other are I like Granger over Manu, Gasol makes a lot more, Pierce is overpaid, as well as Dirk. And Garnett makes the most in the league, so for the VALUE, Granger is higher. But I guess it really depends if you are rebuilding and all, it's worth it to pay Pierce and Garnett 40+ million to win a championship.

It looks like to me that he puts too many rookies in there, but a good list. I still like Kobe in the top 4, he alone can take a team to the playoffs, and the onlyother players are Lebron and possibly CP3 and Howard (I don't think he can quite yet).

[chatard5]

Here is Fantast basketball trade value, Granger #5!

http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baske ... rnba090211

5. Danny Granger, SF, Pacers: Granny Danger is the new Shawn Marion: the stud that fantasy players adore but the casual fan hardly notices. His stats are insane, and anybody who's been checking the box scores this season knows it, so he's not drastically undervalued in fantasy circles. On my personal list, however, he's No. 3. He has consistently improved, provides multi-categorical mayhem (especially that scarce combo of 3s and blocks, as well as high frequency and accuracy at the stripe. Plus he's ranked No. 1 during the past month on the Player Rater. I could go on...). To me, Granger and the player ranked No. 10 are the guys with the best chance to step into LeBron and CP3's statistical realm in the next few years.

Not bad when he's compared to Lebron and CP3... This guy really likes Granger.

[cdash]

Dont get me wrong, I love Granger, but you would be absolutely insane to take him over Durant. Not only is Durant six years younger, but that guy's ceiling is second only to LeBron. If the Thunder called us up right now and offered us Durant for Granger, I would do that deal without batting an eyelash. He's that good.

Similar story with Rose. He's going to be an elite point guard within the next two years, second only (in my mind) to Chris Paul. I think you'd have to roll the dice there too. Plus, again, he is younger and for the sake of Simmons' article, he is also on a rookie contract for the next 3 or 4 years.

Brandon Roy is one I take issue with. I'd keep Granger over him. He seems like he has shaky health, and I think him and Danny are pretty close to where that is the tipping point.

Yao is overrated. He has health issues and I'm just not a big fan of his game. I'll take Danny over him.

Due to age, I'll take Danny over Ginobili and Pierce too.

[Miller4ever]

Every time I see the word "Artest" I die a little inside. Also, Bill Simmons is the most biased ESPN guy out there, and somehow he gets away with it because he repeats that point about 5 times per article. He is really not cool.

I don't think Durant, Yao, Rose, or Roy are getting traded anytime soon.

[chatard5]

Yeah, I don't know what I was saying about Durant, that was stupid. Rose could be like Deron Williams (but better), but he could also turn out to be like Stephon Marbury or something. He'd be good, but I'd take Granger>Marbury. You'd still have to do that trade though. Last night I must've been reading too much about Granger...

I can still see Granger having a better career than Durant, but odds are with Durant. If you are going to pair one with a star, I think I'd go with Granger. He'd be like a Pippen with Kobe.

[cdash]

Every time I see the word "Artest" I die a little inside. Also, Bill Simmons is the most biased ESPN guy out there, and somehow he gets away with it because he repeats that point about 5 times per article. He is really not cool.

I don't think Durant, Yao, Rose, or Roy are getting traded anytime soon.

Really? I love Simmons. He is a complete homer, but that is what makes him unique. He doesnt pretend to be a normal member of the media, which I like. Always entertaining read/listen.

I dont think the point of the column is to speculate on people getting traded. Really, no one in his top 40 outside of Amare is likely to get traded anytime soon.

[chatard5]

I like Simmons at times, and at other times I hate him. But I really can't stand some of his Boston threads. I don't like homerism too much on something like ESPN or SI. Put it in the Boston Herald (is that what it's called?)

[DC2]

He should switch jersey numbers to No. 32 so we can call him "32AA's." When I think of the worst possible bra size, I want to think of Alexis Ajinca.

[chatard5]

OK, I kind of remember why I said Granger over Durant. I would want Granger as my Scottie Pippen over Durant (but Durant could be the MJ, just not as good, but I don't think so) and Granger would also fit well in a team like the Pacers in the 90s that is an actual TEAM instead of a team like the Cavs that are the Lebrons or whatever.

[cdash]

Here's my bold prediction: Durant has the Thunder in the playoffs next season.

[chatard5]

Durant and Green could be a great duo (plus possibly Griffen or Rubio to make it a trio). I don't see them going to the playoffs next year, though. I say it'll be 2010/11, but depends if they make any trades or win the lottery and all of that. Plus right now the West is strong. The Suns will be down next year (I just looked it up and they wouldn't even be in the playoffs if they started now) and maybe San Antonio. They will still have 8 strong teams with an average of .550ish.

[cdash]

They already have a good trio: Durant-Green-Westbrook. Russell is legit. I think they could sneak in next year, regardless, they will be competing for a spot. The Suns are on the way down, the Mavericks are on the way down, who knows what will happen with the Jazz, etc. I think Brooks is a good coach, and with another year of improvement from Durant, Green, and Westbrook, I think they will be frisky. Kind of like the Blazers last year, except the rest of the West wont be a juggernaut.

[chatard5]

Oh yeah, Westbrook. He is good, but I don't know if he can be great. Lopez, Durant, Green, and Westbook would be good, but I still don't see them making the playoffs for a couple years. Utah could get worse if Boozer is gone, but I still like D-Will to lead them to the playoffs. Dallas is older, but I still think they'd make it. Also a team like the Clippers COULD be good along with GSW. They were supposed to be a lot better but suck. Who knows. In a year I could be giving you major props on an amazing prediction, but I don't see it.

Other then Lopez there aren't many great big guys, especially that are NBA ready. And they have their PG of the future, so Rubio doesn't help. They need that #1 pick.

[cdash]

Will Dallas have Kidd? He is a free agent.

As long as Dunleavy is coaching the Clippers, they have no prayer of making the playoffs. On paper though, I agree, they are good.

GSW are an absolute mess.

When you say Lopez, do you mean Griffin?

I like the Thunder because they seem to have good chemistry, and I like what Presti has done there. I think they will get an asset for Joe Smith before the deadline (or they should), and they have a high draft pick coming (if they get James Harden or Blake Griffin, they are going to be REALLY frisky), and they have a great home court. They will be in the hunt, and I think they may very well sneak into the 8th seed.

[chatard5]

Haha yes, I ALWAYS say Lopez instead of Griffin for some reason. I don't know why... I guess there are Lopez and Griffen brothers and Stanford and Oklahoma have similar colors? Brook and Blake are close first names? I don't know, but yes, I do mean Griffin.

Dallas won't be as good if they don't have Kidd, but if they can have someone with decent production at the PG spot I still like them winning around 48 games with Dirk and Josh Howard.

Dunleavy does suck, but it's possible they're decent. GSW aren't doing well now and I think Monta Ellis had 1 good year but isn't that great. Biedrins puts up pretty good numbers, but it's a bad team.

OKC still needs to play more D and learn how to win on the road. I think they'll still be too young next year to do that, but I hope I am wrong. I can't wait to see Durant in the playoffs. I think he'll be clutch and have games like Reggie where he is just unstoppable.

[cdash]

The Thunder need to do something about their awful logo/color scheme. It's hard to take them seriously having 9 different primary colors and that joke of a logo.

[chatard5]

The Thunder need to do something about their awful logo/color scheme. It's hard to take them seriously having 9 different primary colors and that joke of a logo.

I know they just announced what their mascot will be and I remember thinking it was weird or didn't make sense for being the Thunder, I don't remember what it was, though. Teams need to copy UNC. Navy blue and light blue are a good combo and that team would sell more shorts and jerseys.

[cdash]

I want to see a team with just two colors: black and white. I know the Spurs are close, but they throw in silver, which I dont like. I want to see black and white. That would look sick.

[chatard5]

I know what you mean. I can't really picture it on a basketball jerseys, but I really like Penn State football jerseys. They are just plain Navy Blue and white. Old school and I like it.