Granger worth more at the trade deadline?

[8305]

I'm sorry, not seeing it.

Yes, Danny will be a large expiring contract but how is a large expiring contract leveraged at the trade deadline? To get a better player back in return you would have to take back an equal contract that extends for a longer period of time. And, as we have all said over and over to those who post Granger trades, Indiana can't take back a contract that extends beyond 2014 because then we have cap issues in the resigning of George and Stephenson.

Or, is everyone thinking of some sort of supertrade that returns an elite player? Something along the lines of Granger and Hill for a Derron Williams or Rajon Rondo? That's the only scenario I see where a large expiring contract does anything.

The type of package most of us look for is something that returns a reasonable expiring contract belonging to a lesser player than Granger, cap space and a young asset. For this type trade to happen at the deadline Granger would have to come back strong proving he's worth acquiring for the last two months and the playoffs. And if that happens and we are good team ourselves would you disrupt anything?

What am I missing that everyone who comments on the trading of Granger knows?

[Wizop]

he's worth more at the deadline because then it will be clear if he is healthy. taking that risk off the table increases his value or should I say defines his value. even if he can't play, what teams should want him will be clarified.

but that does not mean we should be locked in to trading him at the deadline although it might mean there is no hurry to trade him now. our best chance to win it all is a healthy Granger. he gives us both another scorer and another defender. then we face the really hard question next summer when we have to decide whether to pay luxury tax to keep the top six together.

if he isn't able to play, letting him expire will probably be as valuable to us as to anyone else.

[Grang33r]

For a team that is expected to be a contender next season, i don't think it's too wise to make such a significant move that late in the season. We're all banking on Granger being the starter and then we mess chemistry up and trade him? Not a chance. In a situation like this, you cut your loses and if you do deal him, you are willing to get less value as long as it means better for the team.

[8305]

he's worth more at the deadline because then it will be clear if he is healthy. taking that risk off the table increases his value or should I say defines his value. even if he can't play, what teams should want him will be clarified.

Ok assume he's healthy and its the trade deadline. What could we expect back for him that would be of any use to us? At that point he's a very short term rental.

[8305]

For a team that is expected to be a contender next season, i don't think it's too wise to make such a significant move that late in the season. We're all banking on Granger being the starter and then we mess chemistry up and trade him? Not a chance. In a situation like this, you cut your loses and if you do deal him, you are willing to get less value as long as it means better for the team.

I agree if he comes back and is playing well (assuming we haven't otherwise experienced a plague of injuries) we are probably crusing toward home court advantage in the playoffs. You don't mess with that chemistry.

I think an arguement can be made for trading him before the season starts. The package has to make sense but I don't think you need current value to be equal as long as you've salvaged some cheap value that could extend beyond 2014.

[Jake0890]

Healthy at the deadline will always be more valuable than unproven before the season starts.

[8305]

Still waiting for someone to paint a scenario where we are getting remarkable value for Granger at the trade deadline. Sure healthy is better than injured. But, trading during the off season is also better than trading at the deadline. At the deadline a healthy productive Granger isn't a whole lot more valueable than a disgruntaled Ben Gordon.

[xBulletproof]

Healthy at the deadline will always be more valuable than unproven before the season starts.

I'm not arguing with that as truth, but who would be interested in a half a season of Granger being healthy with an expiring contract? Most likely the teams interested would be contenders. We expect to be contenders ourselves. Would we really want to ship Granger off to a team that could bite us in the ass in the playoffs?

We are contenders and need a large expiring contract at the end of the year. I think we fit the category of team that should be interested in him, which is why we should just keep him and sort it out in the offseason.

I think we should be able to keep Lance or Granger, but not both. Results next season and contract demands should sort that out, so I'd just hold on to him and figure it out at the end of the season next year.

[8305]

Healthy at the deadline will always be more valuable than unproven before the season starts.

Is having a good player for an entire season better than having him for less than half a season? There is certainly risk if the player is coming off injury but is the haircut for that risk more than the haircut you would attribute full season of use vs less than half season of use? I 'm not so sure.

[Scoot McGroot]

There's certainly plusses and minuses to "hold and trade at deadline". For one, you certainly know exactly what Granger should be valued at, as you'll know if he comes back healthy or not. Some of the negatives, though, probably outweigh it. Trading a player mid-season almost always kills team chemistry. Another, like you said, is that pretty much only teams that are in championship contention will want Granger, and they won't want to trade solid value guys that are in the rotation for him. Other teams wanting Granger will solely want him for his expiring contract, and will want to dump long-term or big money guys on us that we simply cannot afford. Also, teams that want Granger for his production will negatively value him because he's an expiring and they would rather want him for a couple years (hate to lose him for nothing when you give up good pieces for him).

Ultimately, if you think you're going to deal him, it's best to do it before training camp. It gives all the players involved the chance to acclimate to their new coaches, teammates, and environments with minimal emotional conflicts.

I, for one, am of the mind that we hold onto Granger throughout the entire season, so long as he's healthy. I would, however, explore deals of Granger + Hill for a massive PG upgrade, or possibly Granger + Lance + Green deal for a long-term SG upgrade. Those are the few deals I could possibly see Indy make where we take on future salary in some form in a Granger deal. the kind where it would be silly not to make it, and where we move at least some future salary (Hill, Green, or Mahinmi), or future likely salary commitment (avoid Lance's future salary demands, especially since he will NOT be a restricted free agent, and we won't be able to match a deal for him, possibly losing him for nothing).

[Wizop]

another possibility is to trade Stephenson after you are sure Granger is healthy. Lance's value should be pretty high after the playoffs. gee you could even make a case for using him to trade up in next week's draft. I'm not sure what the numbers would look like but say you could resign Granger and West both in the 10 to 12 range and could replace Lance and Tyler with rookie contracts or veteran roll players (see Miami). does moving Lance and avoiding his salary bump allow you to keep Danny without going into tax land?

[8305]

another possibility is to trade Stephenson after you are sure Granger is healthy. Lance's value should be pretty high after the playoffs. gee you could even make a case for using him to trade up in next week's draft. I'm not sure what the numbers would look like but say you could resign Granger and West both in the 10 to 12 range and could replace Lance and Tyler with rookie contracts or veteran roll players (see Miami). does moving Lance and avoiding his salary bump allow you to keep Danny without going into tax land?

Timely post, was just listening to the noon sports talk show and the point was being made that more than likely neither Granger or Stephenson would be back after next year. Too much money when you already have approx 50 mil tied up in West, Hibbert, George and Hill. His point was the Pacers need to get something from this draft but, you wonder does he know more than us. Maybe if the general public understands the likely loss of Stephenson a draft day trade wouldn't blow everyone's mind so much. Its just us doing what San Antonio did in the Leonard/Hill trade.

[Scoot McGroot]

another possibility is to trade Stephenson after you are sure Granger is healthy. Lance's value should be pretty high after the playoffs. gee you could even make a case for using him to trade up in next week's draft. I'm not sure what the numbers would look like but say you could resign Granger and West both in the 10 to 12 range and could replace Lance and Tyler with rookie contracts or veteran roll players (see Miami). does moving Lance and avoiding his salary bump allow you to keep Danny without going into tax land?

Yeah, I'm relatively ok with moving Lance in the right deal.

To me, Lance will always be a bit of a knucklehead. We've avoided it so far. Also, he's really at his highest value in his career thus far. He's super cheap for another year, has shown a TON of promise, and legitimately has reasons for low numbers for most of the year being the 5th starter, and really being groomed long-term. If you can move up and get a long-term piece on a rookie contract at SG, you have to do it, especially with the way our salary structure is set up. If you could also get Granger to agree to a $6-8m contract, you could feasibly re-sign him after this as well, though it would be AWFULLY tight to the tax. If we can move Green in the deal, too, all the better.

[SmashMouthRod]

Granger's value at the deadline would be better determined based on his health. I would roll with him for the season and let him walk for nothing. I hope they can resign Stephenson early to about 5-6 a year. Without Stephenson the team doesnt get past the Knicks in game 6. Nor do they push Miami 7 games. If he comes back with an improved jumpshot he's a complete player and on the level with the elite 2's in the game. And he's only 22. In no way do I let him leave if im GM. They could replace George Hill's production with a guy like Jarrett Jack or maybe even draft a guy on a cheaper deal. The team would need some good Luck finding Stephenson's rare combination of skills in the draft again anytime soon.

[23artest23]

I really like Stephenson as he is one of my favorite Pacers but I can't see myself choosing Lance over PG, Roy, or DWest. If Hill gets out of his funk against Miami, add him too. That just doesn't leave much significant plausibility in Lance staying long-term.