Granger Trade Idea

[Piston Pete]

SF Danny Granger
SG Gerald Green

for

PG/SG Rodney Stuckey
PF Jonas Jerebko
SF Kyle Singler


Indiana improves their bench Stuckey > Green as far as being a guy who can backup both PG and SG and is a better slasher/scorer than Green and they drafted Hill and signed Copeland as a FA -- making Granger expendable.

We get a 'potential' upgrade at SF in Granger - if he can remain healthy, and Green is at least a capable backup SG.

Knight / Billups / Bynum / Siva
KCP / Green / Middleton
Smith / Granger / Datome
Monroe / Smith / Mitchell / CV
Drummond / Monroe / Kravtsov

[DocRI]

The value is good and we're not really giving up anything, but why would we do this after signing Smith? Unless this is your prelude to a Moose for Rondo deal and you were just being considerate and easing the rest of us into yet another thread about that topic ...

I do like Granger, but much like Rudy Gay, I think the ship of us trading for a SF sailed when we signed Smoove; I'd expect us to target back court players in any potential deals now.

[ImHeisenberg]

Where does Granger even get minutes in that scenario? Is he Detroit's sixth man?

I'd be cool with that, as long as Danny is.

[DetroitDon15]

I like the idea of adding Granger but unless Monroe moves out, I don't get adding Granger to come off the bench. Makes no sense.

[Spider156]

I like this trade. I think it makes sense. Smith isn't playing SF full time. Even Dumars said that. When Monroe or Dre subs out, he moves to the PF position and Granger comes in. I think it's a good trade.

[dVs33]

i think Indy would rather hang onto Granger than trade him for that. If he's healthy he'll be a huge plus off the bench come playoff time

[Spider156]

i think Indy would rather hang onto Granger than trade him for that. If he's healthy he'll be a huge plus off the bench come playoff time

He's an expiring. I think you could get more for him as an expiring than a sign and trade. Unless the Pacers plan to keep him, I think they should trade him. George is gonna get paid. They can't afford him unless they trade or let go of other players. I think that's unnecessary.

[dVs33]

i think Indy would rather hang onto Granger than trade him for that. If he's healthy he'll be a huge plus off the bench come playoff time

He's an expiring. I think you could get more for him as an expiring than a sign and trade. Unless the Pacers plan to keep him, I think they should trade him. George is gonna get paid. They can't afford him unless they trade or let go of other players. I think that's unnecessary.

Thats true, in terms of getting value back, but indy is a young contending team.
They're basically all in this year, so i think they'll worry about grangers contract situation at the end of the year unless something amazing comes around. And this trade isn't it.

[Spider156]

i think Indy would rather hang onto Granger than trade him for that. If he's healthy he'll be a huge plus off the bench come playoff time

He's an expiring. I think you could get more for him as an expiring than a sign and trade. Unless the Pacers plan to keep him, I think they should trade him. George is gonna get paid. They can't afford him unless they trade or let go of other players. I think that's unnecessary.

Thats true, in terms of getting value back, but indy is a young contending team.
They're basically all in this year, so i think they'll worry about grangers contract situation at the end of the year unless something amazing comes around. And this trade isn't it.

That's fair to say. However, I don't think Stuckey and Singler are all that bad. I really don't like Stuckey but in my opinion, I think he would be a solid player for another team. Singler did a good job as a rookie last season. I think it's a fair trade for a player that's been injured. I'm thinking Indiana will wait until the trade deadline until they decide on what to do with Granger.

[dVs33]

He's an expiring. I think you could get more for him as an expiring than a sign and trade. Unless the Pacers plan to keep him, I think they should trade him. George is gonna get paid. They can't afford him unless they trade or let go of other players. I think that's unnecessary.

Thats true, in terms of getting value back, but indy is a young contending team.
They're basically all in this year, so i think they'll worry about grangers contract situation at the end of the year unless something amazing comes around. And this trade isn't it.

That's fair to say. However, I don't think Stuckey and Singler are all that bad. I really don't like Stuckey but in my opinion, I think he would be a solid player for another team. Singler did a good job as a rookie last season. I think it's a fair trade for a player that's been injured. I'm thinking Indiana will wait until the trade deadline until they decide on what to do with Granger.

Stuckey and singler aren't bad, but imagine granger comes back to full strength. Having an All star type guy as your 6th man is huge, especially when they were so close to knocking Miami out.
i think they'll wait til the dead line too.

[Piston Pete]

Where does Granger even get minutes in that scenario? Is he Detroit's sixth man?

I'd be cool with that, as long as Danny is.

SF - Smith (12) / Granger (30) / Datome (6)
PF - Monroe (16) / Smith (20) / Mitchell (12)
C - Drummond (32) / Monroe (16)

[Redeemed]

Granger is skilled and gritty, but he seems to be a little fragile. He has been out of the lineup multiple times for injuries for the past 5 seasons. And after only playing 5 games last season, he's a huge gamble.

Green is not a capable backup at any position. His skillset is limited to participating in dunk contests. On defense dude jumps at every head fake, eye fake, and upward lip pucker. His gambles for steals consists of either slapping the offensive player or running right into him. On offense he is a highlight reel with an open lane, alley oops, or breakaway. HOWEVER if he is relied on to hit an open jumper, breakdown his man, or understand the play being executed you're in for frustration.

No thanks on both of these guys

[HotelVitale]

Granger is skilled and gritty, but he seems to be a little fragile. He has been out of the lineup multiple times for injuries for the past 5 seasons. And after only playing 5 games last season, he's a huge gamble.

Green is not a capable backup at any position. His skillset is limited to participating in dunk contests. On defense dude jumps at every head fake, eye fake, and upward lip pucker. His gambles for steals consists of either slapping the offensive player or running right into him. On offense he is a highlight reel with an open lane, alley oops, or breakaway. HOWEVER if he is relied on to hit an open jumper, breakdown his man, or understand the play being executed you're in for frustration.

No thanks on both of these guys

And the guys we'd be giving up have no flaws

I'm plus-oneing everyone who said it makes more sense for Ind to keep Granger. I'd say most of the league thinks of our three guys as liabilities or at least as non-assets. After a hot start, Singler wasn't better than the average D-league replacement-level guy for the season as a whole. Stuck has much more upside but he feel of a cliff last year and his stock is really low. Plus they already have Lance Stephenson to play his role. The league views Jerebko as a mildly bad contract-- too much $ for a nice energy big his first year and a fringe roster guy his second. Only a team that desperately needed exactly what he offered would try to trade for him, and they'd offer a 2nd if they did.

If Granger is healthy he's a great shooter and solid passer, can create on his own, get to the line some, play a defensive scheme well, and take care of the ball. No big holes in his game, big asset for 30 minutes a night.

The only way it makes sense to trade him is if they KNOW he's not going to be healthy for most of the season. In which case we don't want him either...

[HotelVitale]

Thats true, in terms of getting value back, but indy is a young contending team.
They're basically all in this year, so i think they'll worry about grangers contract situation at the end of the year unless something amazing comes around. And this trade isn't it.

That's fair to say. However, I don't think Stuckey and Singler are all that bad. I really don't like Stuckey but in my opinion, I think he would be a solid player for another team. Singler did a good job as a rookie last season. I think it's a fair trade for a player that's been injured. I'm thinking Indiana will wait until the trade deadline until they decide on what to do with Granger.[/quote]

Risk/reward. If Stuckey puts it together (an enormous if), do they beat Miami/Chicago? Decent back up combo guards who can't shoot and aren't positives on d don't help y that much. If Granger is healthy and regains at least part of his peak form (another big if), he projects to make a much bigger difference.

[Redeemed]

Granger is skilled and gritty, but he seems to be a little fragile. He has been out of the lineup multiple times for injuries for the past 5 seasons. And after only playing 5 games last season, he's a huge gamble.

Green is not a capable backup at any position. His skillset is limited to participating in dunk contests. On defense dude jumps at every head fake, eye fake, and upward lip pucker. His gambles for steals consists of either slapping the offensive player or running right into him. On offense he is a highlight reel with an open lane, alley oops, or breakaway. HOWEVER if he is relied on to hit an open jumper, breakdown his man, or understand the play being executed you're in for frustration.

No thanks on both of these guys

And the guys we'd be giving up have no flaws

I'm plus-oneing everyone who said it makes more sense for Ind to keep Granger. I'd say most of the league thinks of our three guys as liabilities or at least as non-assets. After a hot start, Singler wasn't better than the average D-league replacement-level guy for the season as a whole. Stuck has much more upside but he feel of a cliff last year and his stock is really low. Plus they already have Lance Stephenson to play his role. The league views Jerebko as a mildly bad contract-- too much $ for a nice energy big his first year and a fringe roster guy his second. Only a team that desperately needed exactly what he offered would try to trade for him, and they'd offer a 2nd if they did.

If Granger is healthy he's a great shooter and solid passer, can create on his own, get to the line some, play a defensive scheme well, and take care of the ball. No big holes in his game, big asset for 30 minutes a night.

The only way it makes sense to trade him is if they KNOW he's not going to be healthy for most of the season. In which case we don't want him either...

True our guys have flaws. My argument isn't based on seeing our assets as being without reproach. What I'm saying is Granger's contract is sizable. It is so big and he is now at the early part of 30 whereas you start questioning how long he's going to last. multiple injury plagued years in a row...played 5 games last year...team progressed further without him. He doesn't move the meter in Indiana anymore. The mantle of "the guy" has been passed on to Paul George.

At this stage in Granger's career he can't help a team like the Pistons who need so much. Granger is moving into solid backup and his contract is for a franchise star...not a good investment. As for Kyle Singler, I think you undersold his value. He wasn't a superstar or star, but he was a solid rotation player who more often than not played out of position and yet gave solid contributions. On a playoff team Singler represents a capable glue guy who always makes the smart play. That's what we saw from him. Smart basketball! Kyle shoots it with range. Kyle defends his position well (3 & 4) and he moves around and gives effort at the other positions. Comparing his contract and health to Granger, I'd rather have Singler.

Nice dialoguing with you.

Take care

[Joe Berry]

good trade idea, i'd start Granger at SG, its not like he would be the only guy playing out of position next season, certainly a better gamble than to try Stuckey at SG again

[HotelVitale]

The mantle of "the guy" has been passed on to Paul George. At this stage in Granger's career he can't help a team like the Pistons who need so much. Granger is moving into solid backup and his contract is for a franchise star...not a good investment. As for Kyle Singler, I think you undersold his value. He wasn't a superstar or star, but he was a solid rotation player who more often than not played out of position and yet gave solid contributions. On a playoff team Singler represents a capable glue guy who always makes the smart play.

Just a couple quick comments. George is the pacers' first option, but he's a very inefficient first option. If Granger came back at the level he was at a few years ago, he'd instantly be their best possession user. That's unlikely, but the pacers aren't good at scoring/creating and Granger represents their best chance at improving that.

I guess I'll just have to disagree on Singler. He doesn't create, didn't shoot very well last year (he was never projected as a sniper), doesn't take care of the ball well, etc. Last year, he was one of the worst wing players who played more than 25 minutes per game. I see him being a minor liability on a playoff team, someone who won't kill you but whom you'd rather not play unless you had no better options.

Also, yeah, Granger's contract is too big now, but he's expiring and we'd be giving up equal salaries. We're not messing with our future cap or anything.

I should add that I wouldn't love this trade for the pistons. Granger would be a one year stop gap and we'd miss out on any development the younger three guys might make. I was just trying to make the point that the trade isn't smart for a near contender like Indiana.

[Redeemed]

The mantle of "the guy" has been passed on to Paul George. At this stage in Granger's career he can't help a team like the Pistons who need so much. Granger is moving into solid backup and his contract is for a franchise star...not a good investment. As for Kyle Singler, I think you undersold his value. He wasn't a superstar or star, but he was a solid rotation player who more often than not played out of position and yet gave solid contributions. On a playoff team Singler represents a capable glue guy who always makes the smart play.

Just a couple quick comments. George is the pacers' first option, but he's a very inefficient first option. If Granger came back at the level he was at a few years ago, he'd instantly be their best possession user. That's unlikely, but the pacers aren't good at scoring/creating and Granger represents their best chance at improving that.

I guess I'll just have to disagree on Singler. He doesn't create, didn't shoot very well last year (he was never projected as a sniper), doesn't take care of the ball well, etc. Last year, he was one of the worst wing players who played more than 25 minutes per game. I see him being a minor liability on a playoff team, someone who won't kill you but whom you'd rather not play unless you had no better options.

Also, yeah, Granger's contract is too big now, but he's expiring and we'd be giving up equal salaries. We're not messing with our future cap or anything.

I should add that I wouldn't love this trade for the pistons. Granger would be a one year stop gap and we'd miss out on any development the younger three guys might make. I was just trying to make the point that the trade isn't smart for a near contender like Indiana.

Interesting insights. I actually see Hibbert as the emerging first option. His size and his comfort level with it gives him a distinct advantage over most bigs in the league. I see George as a Pippen type. He's emerging as that guy but as more of a facilitator.

As for Granger, his offense was pretty inefficient when he played. At one point he was shooting 30% from the field and his shot selection often times seemed to interrupt the flow of the game. Granger seems more like a gunner or volume scorer than a player known for his offensive efficiency.