Danny Granger

I like Granger, but I don't think Pacers will give up their star player for Dally + Landry/Casspi. They will probably expect our 1st round pick which most likely will be a top 5 pick.

Are we really willing to do that? Say we get Harrison Barnes in the draft. Reke + Cousins + Barnes may very well be better than the OKC trio. Granger will make us a playoff team next year, but I'm not sure thats the route the Maloofs/GP wants to take. They've said many times they will spend the cap money but have also said even more times that they are trying to rebuilt through the draft.

Just recently when asked, Joe Maloof stated that the Kings are planning on spending money on freeagency in the coming offseason. As far as Harrison Barnes goes, he hasn't shown me diddley squat yet. Granger is a star in this league. A proven commodity. Harrison Barnes is a hope and a prayer. He may well turn out to be a good player, but will he ever be as good a player as Granger is right now? Thats the question! Whats that old saying, A bird in hand....... The only player that would intice me in the draft on pure potential is Irving. And even with him there are no guarantee's. By the way, I'm not down on Barnes. He plays for North Carolina, a school that has the ability to hide all the natural talent of its basketball players. It does make it difficult to judge him however.
 
Interestingly, if we traded Landry/Casspi/1st for Granger and let Dalembert expire, we'd still be a few million below the league salary minimum next year with just a couple of slots to fill. One thing often overlooked here is that barring a major CBA change in min/max salaries, the Kings HAVE to spend 15M or so this summer just to get to the minimum. Getting a guys like Granger would be a perfect way to fill the need while still not breaking the bank. I don't think the Maloofs would be standing in the way of this. The holdup would be Indy letting him go.

I also think that once we clear Landry's minutes, Dalembert will be playing more often and he will be perceived as being more effective. I hope so anyway since I'd like to see him sign a longer term extension.

Granger is due slightly over 12 mil next season. If you let Dalembert walk, along with Jackson and all the other one year add on's, you would still have between 17 and 18 mil under the cap, based on the cap being around 59 mil, which is close to what it was last year. Its also possible that with other changes in the new CBA, such as doing away with the mid level extension, which the owners swear is going bye bye, etc. the cap might be made higher to allow teams more wiggle room financially to make moves.
 
I think owners are banking on a major CBA change, from what I've been reading. Because of that, (and other reasons), there might be less spending than in previous years. Who knows what the minimum will be? Who knows what Indy is asking for? I would offer a top 5 protected. Is there anyone of impact below #5 that would make the same sort of impact that a solid vet like Granger would?

To answer the last question, I doubt it. There may be someone that ends up being as good down the road. There always seems to be someone that ends up being better than advertised. But I'd put my money on the sure thing.
 
we need to be doing everything we can to get this deal, including storming GPs office. We've been talking too long about the type of trade needed considering our lackluster FAs and this is it. IT doesnt get any better then this. We have to jump on this
 
we need to be doing everything we can to get this deal, including storming GPs office. We've been talking too long about the type of trade needed considering our lackluster FAs and this is it. IT doesnt get any better then this. We have to jump on this

I agree 100%. I will give $100 of my own money to help pay Granger's salary
 
I have used McGee as an example of the sort of player that can produce now. This of course is based on whether we get Granger or not.

If we do get Granger, then there is really no time to wait and pin your hopes on Whiteside. By no means am I saying get rid off him. All I am saying Whiteside can still remain on the roster and develop at his pace but adding a complementary player to play next to Cousins would be important for here and now.

With Granger hitting 27 years of age, there is not a hell of a lot of time to pin our hopes on Whiteside and wait 3-4 years for him to hit his straps. By that time Granger is 30-31 and entering the decline.

Don't get me wrong, I like Whiteside and think that in the long term he could be our answer to that PF spot, a complementary player to Cousins. With all due respect to the likes of JT and Jackson, neither of them is a genuine shotblocker which is absolutely imperative to have next to Cousins if you want to be a good defensive team.
 
Just recently when asked, Joe Maloof stated that the Kings are planning on spending money on freeagency in the coming offseason. As far as Harrison Barnes goes, he hasn't shown me diddley squat yet. Granger is a star in this league. A proven commodity. Harrison Barnes is a hope and a prayer. He may well turn out to be a good player, but will he ever be as good a player as Granger is right now? Thats the question! Whats that old saying, A bird in hand....... The only player that would intice me in the draft on pure potential is Irving. And even with him there are no guarantee's. By the way, I'm not down on Barnes. He plays for North Carolina, a school that has the ability to hide all the natural talent of its basketball players. It does make it difficult to judge him however.


Thats part of the point I was making. Is it worth it to gamble on Granger or the draft. I know Maloof said they will spend money, in fact he said he would spend it all. But at the same time the decision will be made as the options comes up.

The Maloofs are really in some serious money trouble these days if anyone is following. I don't doubt they will spend the cap if the right player comes along. But is Granger worth it to them? Thats the question. They owe a lot of money and are subject to lose the Palms or the Kings, depending on how they want to play. These are the same guys that made a series of trades the last few years in order to cut cost. I know most people like Granger and want that instant boost and are pumped up. I said already, I like Granger. But I'm not sure how well will his game transfer when he is ultimately going to be the 3rd option in 1 yr. I understand there ain't many star free agents out there that we have a realistic chance to get so thats probably the main reason I would say go for Granger.

Regarding the draft, its still very very early. Remember in Reke's draft year, no one really knew Reke would be 20-5-5 so its hard to say at this point before March Madness and before any workouts who is good and who is worth it. I would bet that there will be someone in this upcoming draft that will end up a better player than Granger. The question is, who will it be and will we be the team picking him.
 
Thats part of the point I was making. Is it worth it to gamble on Granger or the draft. I know Maloof said they will spend money, in fact he said he would spend it all. But at the same time the decision will be made as the options comes up.

The Maloofs are really in some serious money trouble these days if anyone is following. I don't doubt they will spend the cap if the right player comes along. But is Granger worth it to them? Thats the question. They owe a lot of money and are subject to lose the Palms or the Kings, depending on how they want to play. These are the same guys that made a series of trades the last few years in order to cut cost. I know most people like Granger and want that instant boost and are pumped up. I said already, I like Granger. But I'm not sure how well will his game transfer when he is ultimately going to be the 3rd option in 1 yr. I understand there ain't many star free agents out there that we have a realistic chance to get so thats probably the main reason I would say go for Granger.

Regarding the draft, its still very very early. Remember in Reke's draft year, no one really knew Reke would be 20-5-5 so its hard to say at this point before March Madness and before any workouts who is good and who is worth it. I would bet that there will be someone in this upcoming draft that will end up a better player than Granger. The question is, who will it be and will we be the team picking him.

These financial concerns are overstated. The Maloofs have to be able to meet the minimum salary to own a team. If they were in such bad shape that they were not prepared to meet at least the minimum (approx 43m/year combined salaries) they would already be selling the team.

The salary commitment next year is so low (28M) that even adding Granger would not quite get them to the minimum. This is a strategic basketball decision. They won't refuse this for financial reasons. They HAVE to pony up 43M in salaries next year regardless.
 
These financial concerns are overstated. The Maloofs have to be able to meet the minimum salary to own a team. If they were in such bad shape that they were not prepared to meet at least the minimum (approx 43m/year combined salaries) they would already be selling the team.

The salary commitment next year is so low (28M) that even adding Granger would not quite get them to the minimum. This is a strategic basketball decision. They won't refuse this for financial reasons. They HAVE to pony up 43M in salaries next year regardless.

The Maloofs just missed their $400 million loan deadline for the Palms. They sold their "make money every year guaranteed business" (beer distributorship) last year so they could pay for the previous loan payment. How much worse do you think it needs to get to not be considered overstated? Of course they still have more money than any of us on this forum. But they have serious issues that they need to solve regarding the Palms which will one way or another affect their other businesses.
 
The Maloofs just missed their $400 million loan deadline for the Palms. They sold their "make money every year guaranteed business" (beer distributorship) last year so they could pay for the previous loan payment. How much worse do you think it needs to get to not be considered overstated? Of course they still have more money than any of us on this forum. But they have serious issues that they need to solve regarding the Palms which will one way or another affect their other businesses.

NBA teams are not allowed to operate under a certain salary threshold without financial penalties. Adding Danny Granger will not put the Kings over that threshold next season. Now please tell me what the Palms loan has to do trading for Danny Granger.
 
NBA teams are not allowed to operate under a certain salary threshold without financial penalties. Adding Danny Granger will not put the Kings over that threshold next season. Now please tell me what the Palms loan has to do trading for Danny Granger.

These financial concerns are overstated. That's what you said. Missing a 400m loan seems like a legitimate financial concern. Interesting how you completely changed the subject.
 
These financial concerns are overstated. That's what you said. Missing a 400m loan seems like a legitimate financial concern. Interesting how you completely changed the subject.


heh. Let's try this again: To be an NBA owner you have a fixed expense of salary at 43 million dollars. You have the option to go over that, but not under. If you do go under, you pay the difference to the league as a penalty. Next year you have 28M committed and have a chance to sign a great player for 12M. Are you saving money if you don't sign him and keep your salary below 43M? Get it now?

What would another Maloof investment have to do with meeting the 43M obligation? If the Maloofs can't even keep the franchise afloat by meeting minimum requirements, they are beyond screwed and should have sold the team already. That is not the case as of yet. It is overstating the financial despair to claim they are not prepared to spend 43M in salary next year.

Now...if you were to tell me that the Maloofs didn't want to use all their cap room or go above the luxury tax line because they were short on money because of other investments then I would agree and could see that happening. Big difference between meeting minimum required obligations and going all out and spending above the tax line.
 
NBA teams are not allowed to operate under a certain salary threshold without financial penalties. Adding Danny Granger will not put the Kings over that threshold next season. Now please tell me what the Palms loan has to do trading for Danny Granger.

I never said trading for Granger will or will not put the Kings over the threshold. I am saying the fact that the Maloofs is in a ton of debt overall as businessmen from their other businesses including the Palms will affect their decision to take on certain big salary players. Their financial troubles is not overstated. Anyone who has followed the Kings player transactions for the last few years knows that many of the moves were not to improve the team, but to cut salary. The team has even done some trades with other teams as facilitators just so they make a couple hundred grand here and there. What does that tell you?

Money is a factor in their decision and committing any big money long term will require serious thought. I believe they will spend the money if the right player is there. The question will be whether Granger is someone they are willing to pay big bucks and most likely give up our 1st round pick as a package to get.
 
I never said trading for Granger will or will not put the Kings over the threshold. I am saying the fact that the Maloofs is in a ton of debt overall as businessmen from their other businesses including the Palms will affect their decision to take on certain big salary players. Their financial troubles is not overstated. Anyone who has followed the Kings player transactions for the last few years knows that many of the moves were not to improve the team, but to cut salary. The team has even done some trades with other teams as facilitators just so they make a couple hundred grand here and there. What does that tell you?

Money is a factor in their decision and committing any big money long term will require serious thought. I believe they will spend the money if the right player is there. The question will be whether Granger is someone they are willing to pay big bucks and most likely give up our 1st round pick as a package to get.

yes, of course taking on a player like Granger will require some serious thought. And yes...there have been cutting/rebuilding moves.

Since the Maloofs are obligated to spend about 15M this summer though and if Danny freaking Granger is there for 12 and only 3 years this becomes a basketball decision. Is he worth it? is the pick worth it? Do the Pacers do it? etc. etc. My point was it has nothing to do with the Palms loan payment and trying to bring in those financial concerns to this deal in isolation is a red herring.
 
Carolija said:
With Granger hitting 27 years of age, there is not a hell of a lot of time to pin our hopes on Whiteside and wait 3-4 years for him to hit his straps. By that time Granger is 30-31 and entering the decline.

Granger is signed for 3 more years after the current one. At that point he'll 30 years old. To think that he wouldn't be productive past that is a bit of a reach. Average players production tends to drop off at age 31 or 32. And when your average, that means your probably a 10 to 14 pt's a game type player. You drop off from that and your probably down to 6 to 8 pts a game.

However, above average players tend to go a little farther. Most don't tend to drop off until age 33 or 34, and then their 20 to 25 pts a game drops to 15 to 18 pts a game. So yes, there's a drop, but even with the drop they tend to still be better than 80% of the players in the league.

So then the question is whether Granger is average or above average? I think the answer is above average. So we can assume that he'll be a very productive player, barring injury, until age 34 or 35. But I think using age as the yardstick is wrong. The real tool for measuring a players longevity is games played. Most productive players performance tends to start dropping off dramaticly when they reach around 850 games played. Not many players make it past 1000 games. Jabbar is one of those that played way past 1000 games and age 38 averaged 23.4 PPG. John Stockton is another one who at age 40 averaged 10.8 PPG and 7.7 APG. And Steve Nash is following in his footsteps at age 35 averaging 16.5 PPG and 11.0 APG.

Michael Jordan at age 38 averaged 20.0 PPG, 6.1 RPG, and 3.8 APG. Kobe is still going strong at age 31. But Kobe is rapidly approaching that 1000 game mark. And its starting to show up in little nagging injuries. Granger has played in 402 games. Remember, he didn't come into the league until he was 22 years old. At the end of his current contract he'll have played in 697 games, not counting any playoff games there might be. And he will be 30 years old. So the question at the time, would be whether we would want to give him another contract.

If you give him another 4 year contract your looking at him playing in a total of 945 games. Odds are that his production will fall off dramaticly in the last year, and maybe last two years of that contract. So another 4 year contract would have some risk. But his current contract doesn't. If we can aquire him, then I'd do it. The least of my worries is whether Whiteside will be productive enough to play big minutes at PF. Go get Granger first. Worry about everything else later.
 
yes, of course taking on a player like Granger will require some serious thought. And yes...there have been cutting/rebuilding moves.

Since the Maloofs are obligated to spend about 15M this summer though and if Danny freaking Granger is there for 12 and only 3 years this becomes a basketball decision. Is he worth it? is the pick worth it? Do the Pacers do it? etc. etc. My point was it has nothing to do with the Palms loan payment and trying to bring in those financial concerns to this deal in isolation is a red herring.


If you agree that the Kings have been making cost cutting moves, then I don't know why you don't think the Maloofs losing a lot of money with their other businesses (Palms) will make decisions about the Kings based on money.

Even though the Kings and Palms are two non connected businesses, they are owned by the same people. These people are in debt. Regardless of how or where they got that debt, they will have to address it. If it means cost cutting in other areas then so be it.

Look, I see that you like Granger a lot. I like his game also for the most part, as a 3rd option. But I’m not sure if he is the type that will succeed as a 3rd option. Will he play as hard with 2 younger guys leading the franchise? He will most likely be around a 17ppg player with the Kings when he gets less shots and possession. $12 million per for 3 yrs is worth it to you, is it worth it to the Maloofs?

What I mean by that the Kings are owned by the Maloofs, not Mark Cuban or Jerry Buss. They won’t spend big money on so many players. Probably on only one. Keep in mind players like Dalembert, Landry, Head, Jackson etc will no longer be on contract. They will have to sign more than one player to replace them on the roster.

Don't be surprise if they spend only some of the cap but not all, even though Gavin said he wants to spend all of it. Don’t be surprise if they try to operate on one of the lowest payrolls in the league again that’s my point. Money is a big issue right now. It DOES affect their businesses all across the board including the Kings.
 
Don't be surprise if they spend only some of the cap but not all, even though Gavin said he wants to spend all of it. Don’t be surprise if they try to operate on one of the lowest payrolls in the league again that’s my point. Money is a big issue right now. It DOES affect their businesses all across the board including the Kings.

I will not be surprised and in fact expect the cap space not to be all used for financial reasons. Point is they could trade for Granger AND STILL operate with one of the lowest payrolls in the league close to the minimum. Keep Pooh + Jackson, sign one or both our second rounders + add a vet min or two and we are right there at the minimum again Granger included.
 
I will not be surprised and in fact expect the cap space not to be all used for financial reasons. Point is they could trade for Granger AND STILL operate with one of the lowest payrolls in the league close to the minimum. Keep Pooh + Jackson, sign one or both our second rounders + add a vet min or two and we are right there at the minimum again Granger included.


Sure they can still be under the cap, but at the expense of depth. By your suggestion, Darnel Jackson will be the main backup at center + PF. I don't like that idea. I'm not betting on any worthwhile vet to sign with a young rebuilding team for low salaries either, though one can hope.

I wish we can get Granger and keep our 1st rounder. If we can pull that then I'm all for it. But I don't see why Pacers would be that dumb.
 
I will not be surprised and in fact expect the cap space not to be all used for financial reasons. Point is they could trade for Granger AND STILL operate with one of the lowest payrolls in the league close to the minimum. Keep Pooh + Jackson, sign one or both our second rounders + add a vet min or two and we are right there at the minimum again Granger included.

If the Kings become the main asset of the Maloofs, then it would behove them to make a profit. The only way to make a profit is to put butts in the seats of ARCO arena. The only way to do that is to put a good team on the floor. And the only way to do that is to spend money in the freeagency period. Even if they were to move to SoCal, so you think the fans down there are going to fill a stadium for a bad team? No way in hell. Why would they when they can go spend their money on the Lakers or the up and coming Clippers.

It would make zero sense for the Maloofs to go cheap again when all the fans know that this is their chance to really do something. You want to really lose whatever fanbase you have? Then go for the league minimun. The Maloofs are too competitive to do that. They want to win as badly as we do.
 
If the Kings become the main asset of the Maloofs, then it would behove them to make a profit. The only way to make a profit is to put butts in the seats of ARCO arena. The only way to do that is to put a good team on the floor. And the only way to do that is to spend money in the freeagency period. Even if they were to move to SoCal, so you think the fans down there are going to fill a stadium for a bad team? No way in hell. Why would they when they can go spend their money on the Lakers or the up and coming Clippers.

It would make zero sense for the Maloofs to go cheap again when all the fans know that this is their chance to really do something. You want to really lose whatever fanbase you have? Then go for the league minimun. The Maloofs are too competitive to do that. They want to win as badly as we do.

I hope you are right. I'm hoping for an impact player (like Granger, Favors, or maybe our 1st round pick) + resigned Dalembert. Main reason to stay on the cheaper side strategically (apart from the Maloof's finances) is that we could likely see two maxes for Tyreke + Cousins within 4 years so. We should still be able to get a solid player before then.
 
I think in order to grab a Danny Granger we'll have to give up a young big + casspi + 1st rounder (protected). I think it's a good buy if we can swing a Landry + Casspi + top 5 protected 1st (i don't think we'll get any better then granger outside of top 5).
 
I think in order to grab a Danny Granger we'll have to give up a young big + casspi + 1st rounder (protected). I think it's a good buy if we can swing a Landry + Casspi + top 5 protected 1st (i don't think we'll get any better then granger outside of top 5).


If the Pacers forums are any indication of what their front office is thinking we have no shot of trading for him. They were talking about Favors + Harris + 1st from the Nets or Eric Gordon + 1st from the Clips. They basically want at least 1 young potential star type player + a 1st. They don't seem to be interested in cap space at all.


I guess some good news is that alot of ppl are interested in blowing the team up and starting over. They are mad that they basically re-tooled to compete for the 7th/8th seed instead of starting from the bottom and building up. They look at the Blazers, OCK, Clippers, and oddly enough, our Kings as ideal rebuilding models.



Obviously it's only the fan base talking but interesting none the less
 
Granger is signed for 3 more years after the current one. At that point he'll 30 years old. To think that he wouldn't be productive past that is a bit of a reach. Average players production tends to drop off at age 31 or 32. And when your average, that means your probably a 10 to 14 pt's a game type player. You drop off from that and your probably down to 6 to 8 pts a game.

However, above average players tend to go a little farther. Most don't tend to drop off until age 33 or 34, and then their 20 to 25 pts a game drops to 15 to 18 pts a game. So yes, there's a drop, but even with the drop they tend to still be better than 80% of the players in the league.

So then the question is whether Granger is average or above average? I think the answer is above average. So we can assume that he'll be a very productive player, barring injury, until age 34 or 35. But I think using age as the yardstick is wrong. The real tool for measuring a players longevity is games played. Most productive players performance tends to start dropping off dramaticly when they reach around 850 games played. Not many players make it past 1000 games. Jabbar is one of those that played way past 1000 games and age 38 averaged 23.4 PPG. John Stockton is another one who at age 40 averaged 10.8 PPG and 7.7 APG. And Steve Nash is following in his footsteps at age 35 averaging 16.5 PPG and 11.0 APG.

Michael Jordan at age 38 averaged 20.0 PPG, 6.1 RPG, and 3.8 APG. Kobe is still going strong at age 31. But Kobe is rapidly approaching that 1000 game mark. And its starting to show up in little nagging injuries. Granger has played in 402 games. Remember, he didn't come into the league until he was 22 years old. At the end of his current contract he'll have played in 697 games, not counting any playoff games there might be. And he will be 30 years old. So the question at the time, would be whether we would want to give him another contract.

If you give him another 4 year contract your looking at him playing in a total of 945 games. Odds are that his production will fall off dramaticly in the last year, and maybe last two years of that contract. So another 4 year contract would have some risk. But his current contract doesn't. If we can aquire him, then I'd do it. The least of my worries is whether Whiteside will be productive enough to play big minutes at PF. Go get Granger first. Worry about everything else later.

I think you will find that the reason Granger dropped that low in the draft is due to some knee issues and he has missed some games due to knee soreness. If he is getting knee issues before he got out of college and has had some issues with them in the NBA, chances are that his body will break down quicker than what you think. He will not be playing at a reasonably productive level after 32 so if we do end up getting him, then we don't have the time to wait until Whiteside develops into a starter. We need to bring in someone for that spot and still have Whiteside developing but by the time Whiteside is ready, Granger is well on the decline and you don't have the big 3, you have the big 2.5.
 
If the Pacers forums are any indication of what their front office is thinking we have no shot of trading for him. They were talking about Favors + Harris + 1st from the Nets or Eric Gordon + 1st from the Clips. They basically want at least 1 young potential star type player + a 1st. They don't seem to be interested in cap space at all.


I guess some good news is that alot of ppl are interested in blowing the team up and starting over. They are mad that they basically re-tooled to compete for the 7th/8th seed instead of starting from the bottom and building up. They look at the Blazers, OCK, Clippers, and oddly enough, our Kings as ideal rebuilding models.



Obviously it's only the fan base talking but interesting none the less
When it comes to valuing their own players, fanbases have a tendency to over-value thier players greatly. They also thought that they would only trade Granger if they can get Carmelo Anthony!

Have you seen Pacer's payroll lately?! They are loaded so why would they be willing to pay luxury tax for a product that is not getting it done?!

Granger is by far their best player but by the time their other young guys get into their prime, Granger will decline so they are faced with the Jermaine O'Neal situation again. Had they traded him a year or 2 earlier they would have made an absolute killing. They waited until it was too late and they got TJ Ford who is still on their roster and no one wants to come close to his contract.

If Indiana is genuine about a real re-build, Granger will get traded and the Landry, Casspi and a our 1st rounder this year is as good a deal as they can hope for. I can't see anyone willing to go above that.

Indiana would get a to 10 pick, a talented SF in Casspi and a chance to see if Landry is their answer to PF spot which he could well be with Hibbert covering his backside on defence and Collison feeding him the ball.
 
Your consistent inability to understand why the Kings, or any team for that matter, is not enthusiastic about paying a 10ppg player $5mil a year astounds me.

exactly. Garcia has never lived up to his draft status or contract and I'd be more than willing to dump him. casspi not. Id love to see granger come
here but I'm not sure I want to give up our pick as it's probably going to be 1-3.
 
If Indiana is genuine about a real re-build, Granger will get traded and the Landry, Casspi and a our 1st rounder this year is as good a deal as they can hope for. I can't see anyone willing to go above that.

That may still be worth it from our perspective, but I do hate to give up two pieces of the puzzle (Casspi and our 1st) in exchange for one admittedly better piece.

Make it Landry, Greene, and our 1st and I'm all over that.
~~
 
Back
Top