Granger

[rainmaker]

There have been rumors Ind might consider moving Granger. There are also rumors Ind wants a sg, such as Gordon who they are rumored to want to go after this coming summer, to pair with Paul George. This would leave Granger as the odd man out. It's been written this year that Granger doesn't get along real well with the coach, and isn't willingly buying in to the new system. With a young stud like George looking to take over the sf position in the future, that makes Granger even more expendable.

Gordon, a RFA target of Ind is somewhat similar to Thornton. I'd give the edge to Gordon, but also think as a RFA the chances Stern doesn't match, or whoever the new owners are do not match, is pretty low. I'd think chances are greater Gordon stays in NO than goes, and doubt Ind would put all its hopes in acquiring a RFA, where you're never sure of the outcome.

So here comes my proposal.

Sac outgoing:
Thornton
Thompson

Ind outgoing:
Granger

Why do this? From Indianas point of view, they clear up the starting sf spot for George who's stuck at sg for the time being. They add a similar sg to Gordon(a RFA target of theirs) next to George, for a considerable amount less than Gordon would take, who was rumored to be looking for 55-60M from NO over 5yrs.

They also get a good backup pf/c, who adds more depth to their West/Hibbert/Hansbrough frontline. Aside from those three, they only have Amundson and Foster on the bench, who see spot minutes at best, as Amunson just really isn't that good, and Foster is 35 and not what he used to be. This in effect lets Ind take a flier on JT. If you like him, you retain his right as a RFA, if not, let him walk, and have an extra 5M in cap space for the summer where they'll be active, as Granger is due 13M next year, and Thornton is due about 8M.

So Ind get Thornton, a young high scoring sg to pair with Collison, frees up George to take over the sf spot, get a flier on JT, and if they don't like him get 5M in cap space they wouldn't otherwise have this summer.

As for why we go after Granger, it's been discussed a fair amount. Legit NBA sf, outside threat, good defender, can pass, good rebounder, good spot up shooter, and without Thornton immediately becomes one of our main three, so he'll still get his shots.

In this scenario, yes our frontcourt loses a key piece, but we do have Hayes coming back. I would move Salmons to the 2 until the end of the year, and then amnesty him.
Could also pair Reke with Cisco or one of our rooks, bench Salmons, and amnesty him this summer anyway. This fills a huge need for us at sf, and leaves enough cap space to acquire another sg/big man, plus we'll still have a high draft pick.

Ind:
Collison
Thornton
George
West
Hibbert


Sac:
Tyreke
Salmons(for now)
Granger
Hayes
Cousins

I seriously think this helps both teams, significantly.

 

[Uncia03]

I think the main assumption here is that Thornton is close to Gordon.
When you look at both players and what they bring, I do think that they are very similar players, with Thornton being under-rated due to his being the 43rd pick in the draft.
And though I was hoping to pick him up for a million or so less a year, for what he brings to the table he certainly on a good contract.

The one thing I really hate about this year is that it's such a deep draft and unfortunately we might be bad enough to be able to draft an impact player. This draft is filled with potentially elite SFs. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Harrison Barnes, Perry Jones III, Terrance Jones (3/4 or 4/3), ect.

With that said, I'd do the trade. Granger would finally shore up our SF position, and if we have a month to watch them play which would give us time to evaluate who would be the best fit for us in the draft.

Of course the perfect situation would be to land Granger then get the #1 pick and take Anthony Davis to pair with Cousins. (That thought gives me the chills)

Granger is really having a down year this year, so though I don't know if Indiana would actually make the trade, I'd be for it.

 

[Arkitect]

I would do a Thornton - Granger swap in a heartbeat. Granger is a full sized SF, something we haven't had since Artest. Swap the position we have the most guys in for a position where do don't even have a legitimate starter. Young enough that he will be around for a while. I would throw in Hickson before I threw in Thompson though.

 

[bajaden]

I'd do this trade, but I'd include Hickson instead of Thompson. Thompson is the better player right now.

 

[Bricklayer]

Would Indiana actually sstill be interested in doing this sort of thing in the middle of the season they're having though?

 

[Nighthawk1]

It might be easier to get this type of trade to happen in a 3 way where each team (indiana) is gauranteed to get the player they want (Gordon). I would do this, or any other trade/pick-up (W. Chandler) that brought a legit full sized 3 to the team to start.

 

[Bricklayer]

It might be easier to get this type of trade to happen in a 3 way where each team (indiana) is gauranteed to get the player they want (Gordon). I would do this, or any other trade/pick-up (W. Chandler) that brought a legit full sized 3 to the team to start.

Its the sort of thing that could be looked at to balance the lineup and add defense (which Granger has been focuing on more this year -- he's more valuable to us as an Iggy type player than the 21ppg low percentage gunner of the past). Reke can take the best guard, Granger the SF, and Hayes the best big and that would just have to stiffen us up defensively, esepcially if Granger came in preaching D. But Indiana is winning. A lot. Its hard to see them shaking the boat up right now. I thought the trade Granger stuff was more in the offseason because of the Paul George hype than it is something in season with them near the top of the Eastern Conference.

P.S. as a side note, reuniting Thronton and Collison might make that more attractive to the Pacers given how prolific they were in New Orleans in their year together. Certainly if they asked Collison what he thought he might say yes. Also, we do have a long history of trades with the Pacers. Not always to their benefit, so who knows.

 

[Kings Faithful]

I'd do this trade for sure. However if Indiana is so high on Gordon...why wouldn't they just swap Granger with Gordon. Why is it so hard to build a team where each position is played by a decent player? One year we have no PG...then we have no C, then no SG, no PF, now no SF... I'm sick of it.

 

[ParniValjak]

I'd do this trade, but I'd include Hickson instead of Thompson. Thompson is the better player right now.

I am of the same opinion. I would do the trade as it addresses the SF position and thins out the gunners in the backcourt. However, I would much rather include Hickson simply because of the "fit". Hickson is more talented than JT but JT is a much better role player. He is the energy guy coming off the bench and can be a solid spot starter. He is the type of player that you look to recruit as your 3rd big which can hold down both positions. Sure everyone wants studs but if you look around the league, JT is as good a 3rd big in the rotation as you could get.

Hickson is either a starter or nothing and right now, he is not a starter on a good team but does not play well coming off the bench and playing as role player. Thornton and Hickson for Granger, I would be all over that.

 

[swisshh]

I worry Granger's game has already peaked, but he's still young enough that I don't worry terribly about it. This would have to be a off-season trade I think. Indy is doing well and may not want to make a move yet. Also, Gordon would have to be fully healthy.

 

[Glenn]

I wanted Granger last year and I think there were rumors afloat last year also or I certainly wouldn't have known about it. Granger doesn't seem to do well as a #1 or #2 guy and has been asked to do that. We wouldn't need that from him. I don't know who I'd trade. Thornton would be OK and might solve a little ofthe Jimmer/Thornton problem as if that's a problem. Maybe better put it wouldn't leave us with two under 6'2" rookies as guard backups.

As to Hickson, I'm not sure we know how he will fit yet with us. He could be quite a contributor although I haven't seen it yet. There is something predictable that I like about JT but that may be because he has been here far longer than JJ.

As to when the trade might happen, a rumor lingering now into its second year may mean they'd do it now.

I know I haven't added anything but now that I think about, I have just added another SF to our mix. I presume Salmons slides to the SG position and gives us a very large backcourt. I see problems there that might need a preseason to sort out.

Whatever. On come the Kings.

 

[rainmaker]

If we could do it with JJ instead of JT, I'd me all for it. However I think Ind knows JT is better as well, and that's why I think he'd be needed to get it done.

 

[VF21]

Would Indiana actually sstill be interested in doing this sort of thing in the middle of the season they're having though?

Not if you read the comments from Pacer fans. They're quite fond of Danny Granger.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

JJ before JT anyday of the week. JT has his moments and is more consistent in the energy than JJ