Pacers Listening to Granger Offers

Krapinsky · Post #1 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 12:58 am

From Steiny-Mo

Perhaps it comes as little surprise after Danny Granger earned a spot on Professor Hollinger's All-Disappointing Team, but there are some fresh rumbles in circulation that the Pacers are softening their no-trade stance on the Team USA swingman.

The Pacers have generally resisted trade interest in Granger, including feelers from Denver earlier this season about Indiana's willingness to include Granger in multiteam Carmelo Anthony trade scenarios.

One source with knowledge of Indiana's thinking, however, said this week that the Pacers -- 6-11 and fading since their big November wins over the Heat and Lakers -- have not dismissed every recent proposal that includes Granger. Another source insisted to ESPN.com that the Pacers, although they naturally would be seeking a lot in return, quietly listened to a few Granger pitches last season, as well.

It seems far safer to suggest that the Pacers would make a move before the Feb. 24 trading deadline with one of their expiring contracts, such as Mike Dunleavy or T.J. Ford, but here's another way to put it: Roy Hibbert, despite his own December fade, has emerged as the more untouchable piece in Indiana's eyes than Granger, who is shooting just 41.6 percent from the field, is going to the free throw line just 5.1 times per game as he too often settles for jumpers … and has three pricey years left on his contract after this season valued at $40 million.

http://espn.go.com/nba/dailydime/_/page ... ter-awards

Would you put Beasley in a Granger deal? Most say no.

Johnson in an Iggy deal? Most say no.

Trade the Memphis pck for Randolph? Most say no.

But, c'mon. This looks pretty nice, doesn't it?

Rubio/Ridnour
Iggy/Webster
Granger/Webster
Love/Randolph/Tolliver
Darko/Pekovic

Plus Flynn, Hayward, Ellington, Utah 1st as assets to upgrade the bench or add some youth.

B Calrissian · Post #2 » by **B Calrissian** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:00 am

I'd MUCH rather trade Wes in an Iggy trade than trade Beasley in a Granger trade.

Post #3 » by **Klomp** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:03 am

B Calrissian wrote:I'd MUCH rather trade Wes in an Iggy trade than trade Beasley in a Granger trade.

Correct. I consider Iggy better than Granger......especially for what we need here

Devilzsidewalk · Post #4 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:07 am

I like the size/shooting/defense potential we have right now w/ Wes and Beasley; I kinda want to ride that into the ground before making a rush move.

Post #5 » by **Baphomet** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:09 am

Call me crazy, but I don't think Granger is really all that much better than Beasley at this point. Their stats are more or less a wash this season, except Beasley scores a fraction more PPG on a higher efficiency, and rebounds the ball better. Granger definitely has an edge defensively, but he's by no means an elite defender himself.

When taking age and potential into account especially, I'd rather have Beas.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #6 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:10 am

if this season is an indicator of where he's at now then it's not crazy at all. Thats why I don't think its worth it between what we have already w/ Beasley, the unknown of if Granger has permanently taken a step back, plus whatever Indy's ridiculous demands are for him

Krapinsky · Post #7 » by **Krapinsky** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 1:21 am

DeltronZero wrote:Call me crazy, but I don't think Granger is really all that much better than Beasley at this point. Their stats are more or less a wash this season, except Beasley scores a fraction more PPG on a higher efficiency, and rebounds the ball better. Granger definitely has an edge defensively, but he's by no means an elite defender himself.

When taking age and potential into account especially, I'd rather have Beas.

Granger is one of the best defenders at his position in the entire game though. Beasley might be among the worst. Defense is half the game. That's similar to comparing Beasley's offense to Corey Brewer offense. The difference is, that as fans, we're only trained to see the ball go through the bucket.

I'm slightly torn here. I'm attached to Beasley and his potential, however, when I look at that roster I think, wow, might that be the best Wolves roster of all time? Who knows if the current roster will ever get there. Could it be better? Maybe, but I sort of doubt it.

I'm not throwing my cap into this sort of boston style rebuild just yet, I'm with Devils on this one, but I do think it's worth pondering, and I think if we lose this game tonight there will probably be a wave of certain knee jerk reactors that wouldn't mind further pondering such a possibility.

Post #8 » by **The J Rocka** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 2:05 am

Would hate to waste his prime if that's the only move we make. Also question his health through 82 games. I'd give up Johnson in a heartbeat, not sure about Beas. If we could get Iggy as well...hmm...maybe we make a move for Iggy first see how he plays with Beas, if it doesn't work, try to get Granger in the offseason.

shrink · Post #9 » by **shrink** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 2:29 am

Granger's also locked into a pretty sweet contract.

His offensive numbers are similar to Beasley, but his defense is far better. I don't think Granger will ever become that true #1, but there's no guarantee Beasley will be better than Granger either.

Peezo · Post #10 » by **Peezo** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 3:46 am

shrink wrote:Granger's also locked into a pretty sweet contract.

His offensive numbers are similar to Beasley, but his defense is far better. I don't think Granger will ever become that true #1, but there's no guarantee Beasley will be better than Granger either.

I'm confused by what you are saying? Granger's deal is 11 mil, 12 mil, 13 mil, 14 mil. Are you saying that is a good price for him, or a good deal for his as a player?

I tend to think players getting 15 mil at any point after the new CBA will have to be the true no. 1 type of player. Does Granger project out as that in 3.5 seasons? I'd say maybe, but probably not.

Peezo · Post #11 » by **Peezo** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 3:47 am

*Getting 14 mil, not 15.

moss_is_1 · Post #12 » by **moss_is_1** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 4:24 am

I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

Steve_Holiday · Post #13 » by **Steve_Holiday** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 6:38 am

moss_is_1 wrote:I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

my dear god. granger will look like earl campbell by the time Kevin love hits his prime in 2016.

shangrila · Post #14 » by **shangrila** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 8:10 am

I don't know. If we're adding him to the current core, then he's too old. Giving up Beasley for him would also be a no. Granger has tried, and failed, at being a #1 option and going anywhere meaningful with it. At least Beasley has youth on his side.

So, while I like that team you have there Krap, I wouldn't do it. It's basically capped out in what looks like mediocrity.

Dewey · Post #15 » by **Dewey** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 2:06 pm

moss_is_1 wrote:I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

Too old? That's exactly why I'd LIKE to deal for Granger ... we need some blend of experience/talent.

Fire Mchale · Post #16 » by **Fire Mchale** » Sat Jan 8, 2011 9:41 pm

At this point, I would much rather go after Iggy than Granger. I feel like Beasley is much closer to Granger than our other SGs are to Iggy. Iggy costs about 1M a year more, but seems like more of an overall fit for since dealing for Granger would still leave us with a hole at the 2. Iggy isn't optimal, but he's attainable, and I think he's attainable without giving up Love, Beasley, Rubio or our first next year. I've been opposed to it in the past, but depending on how things shape up prior to the trading deadline, I might consider it.

moss_is_1 · Post #17 » by **moss_is_1** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 3:47 am

Dewey wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

Too old? That's exactly why I'd LIKE to deal for Granger ... we need some blend of experience/talent.

If you do it you better be sure that it's enough to take you to a contender because it kills your flexibility.

Esohny · Post #18 » by **Esohny** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 4:42 am

moss_is_1 wrote:
Dewey wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

Too old? That's exactly why I'd LIKE to deal for Granger ... we need some blend of experience/talent.

If you do it you better be sure that it's enough to take you to a contender because it kills your flexibility.

That's going to happen in the next season or two anyway. Gotta make a move sometime.

shrink · Post #19 » by **shrink** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 4:55 am

moss_is_1 wrote:
Dewey wrote:
moss_is_1 wrote:I love Granger...I'd really like him here...but he seems to be a bit old for our core. He's what 27-28? That'd put him about 6 years older than our other main pieces. So he'd keep us competitive while the others develop and then he'd be out of his prime and we'd be effed.

Too old? That's exactly why I'd LIKE to deal for Granger ... we need some blend of experience/talent.

If you do it you better be sure that it's enough to take you to a contender because it kills your flexibility.

And your upward mobility.

One of the reasons that many people have floated the idea of trading Granger for the last couple years is that he didn't fit the Pacers. They started their rebuild-on-the-fly, and Granger was 4-5 years older than their new core. Like a lesser-Garnett, he had the ability to keep them squarely in the middle. They weren't good enough for a championship, but not bad enough to get a lottery pick. They've down OK with their middle picks, but also like Garnett, if he sticks around, it will be years before he'll be on a contender.

Can MIN offer him anything different?

That said, he's a very good player. While not a star, I think he is signficantly better than Iguodala, and many of the other non-stars we routinely talk about. If we were to add him, we'd need to commit to that path, and in that situation, I'd be more in favor of trying to trade for Iguodala. If your goal is championships, the middle is the worst place to be, and I wouldn't want to swap futures with IND.

Post #20 » by **Foshan** » Sun Jan 9, 2011 6:16 am

I think the difference for Min in going after Granger or Iggy, I think both would significantly improve the team, however a move for Granger (imo) would have to be the first move of many as I don't see him fitting all that well with the 'long term' pieces that are here, where as Iguodala would slide into that 2 spot nicely, giving a chance to see if it works before any additional moves.