Granger

[twslam07]

This post is almost a revision of my early trade post which talks about us trading for George. I even said myself that I wasn't sure the Pacers would give up George. After following the Pacers for the past week and doing some research on their forums, it seems that Granger is the one that the Pacers would be willing/looking to move. He has been involved in many trade rumors the past 2 years, but is still with the team. The census with their fans is that they want to move Granger so George can slide over to his natural position at SF. They would be looking to get young pieces back that can fit into the nucleus they have. This brings me to my trade proposal.

The Kings Get:
Danny Granger

The Pacers Get:
Marcus Thornton
Jason Thompson

There is a trade restriction on Thompson which prevents us from trading him until January 15th. Granger has been diagnosed with patellar tendinosis which will keep him out 3 months at the least which puts his estimated time of return around early to mid February.

Why the Pacers do this:
The Pacers have been looking to move Granger for quite some time. They would ideally like to free up the SF position for George so he can settle into his true position. They have PG covered with Hill and Augustin, they have SF covered with George, and they have C covered with Hibbert. SG and PF is where they are looking to upgrade. With George being moved to SF, they have Stephenson, S. Young, and O. Johnson as SG options. I think it is safe to say they are a below average group of SGs. At the PF position, they have West, Hansbrough, Plumlee, and Pendergraph. It's a pretty decent PF group. There are obviously no stars in the making, but I think they can get the job done. However, West is 32 years old and his contract expires at the end of the season leaving us with the question, who will be their PF of the future?

This is where the Kings come into the equation. We have two good SGs (Evans and Thornton) and two good PF pieces (Thompson and Robinson). Thornton would probably be their best scorer immediately, but it's possible George and Hibbert can get close to his level if they keep developing. They don't lose 3pt shooting from trading Granger for Thornton so they should still be able to space the floor very well. Thompson will be their role playing big who can do a little bit of anything. He should be a nice compliment to Hibbert, and their size (6'11" and 7'2") should be a handful for their opponents. The Pacers were also looking for young pieces to grow with their team. Both Thornton and Thompson are young and on long, affordable contracts. This would be their core starters for the future:

PG - Hill (6'2" and 26 years old)
SG - Thornton (6'4" and 25 years old)
SF - George (6'9" and 22 years old)
PF - Thompson (6'11" and 26 years old)
C - Hibbert (7'2" and 25 years old)

I think that is a pretty solid team with lots of youth, potential, size, and talent.

Why the Kings do this:
As most of you know, we are overloaded with guards which causes a minute crunch for our players. As most of you know, we need a SF who can play defense and shoot the 3 ball so Evans and Cousins can have more space to work with. This trade for Granger can solve both of those problems. This year, I was hoping to see an improvement in Evans jumper. Unfortunately, we haven't seen that improvement we have all been hoping for (or at least we haven't seen it yet). If Evans doesn't have a jumper that he can add to his arsenal, I don't think he can be a second option on a good team. I still think he could be a third option though. By trading for Granger, he can come in and immediately be the second option for us behind Cousins while pushing Evans to be our third option. With Thomas and Granger's 3pt shooting in the starting lineup (both shoot around 38% from three), it should open up the floor for Evans and Cousins to go to work. We're not sacrificing defense for 3pt shooting with Granger. He is no slouch on defense. He has all the tools to keep up with the best SFs in the game. Johnson might be a better defender than Granger, but I would argue not by much.

Overall, we get a SF with actual SF size who is a good 3pt shooter and defender, we add a second option scorer to our lineup, and we reduce the log jam at the guard positions which allows Evans to log all of his minutes at SG.

What about our big man situation?
We do lose Thompson in this trade that leaves us a little thin at PF and C. We still have Hayes and Robinson to log the PF minutes, but we don't have a backup C with C size. I suggest we sign Kenyon Martin to the veteran minimum for 1 year, and we sign Fesenko to the veteran minimum for 2 years. After these signings, our lineup will look like this:

Thomas/Brooks/Fredette
Evans/Salmons/Garcia
Granger/Johnson/Outlaw/Honeycutt
Hayes/Robinson/K. Martin
Cousins/Fesenko

When the draft roles around, it could be our chance at adding a shotblocking big. McAdoo, Noel, Mitchell, Adams, Len, Christmas, Austin, Gobert, Leslie, Roberson, and Dieng could all fit the bill. One of these guys could be the player we have been searching for to play next to Cousins. Obviously, this rookie might need a year or two to get established, but again, it could be the final piece to establishing a winning and competitive lineup.

Our lineup going into next year if we extend Evans and Johnson will be:

Thomas/Brooks/Fredette
Evans/Salmons
Granger/Johnson/Outlaw/Honeycutt
Robinson/Hayes/Rookie Shotblocker
Cousins/Fesenko

I think this is the best direction we could take our team right now.

 

[Sac.1989]

interesting. If we can ship off one of our SFs (anyone but JJ) that would be grand

 

[Chupacabra]

this also depends on how much indiana values david west. Im pretty sure Thompson would play behind West. With that being the case its less likely that Indiana would agree to this.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

granger is injured..

 

[spudfan]

No thanks. I rather like having the consistency that Thornton and Thompson bring to two different positions. And our big man struggles, as you mention, would be magnified by this. Having a bit of stability in the roster for awhile to see what we have would be nice too!

 

[DesertFox]

I like it, but since Hayes' value is peaking, would much rather see his name then JT. JJ can take some of the backup PF minutes, and the team really isn't losing any size. And they can sign another min vet with the possibility of playing time, who at the same time will not be relied on for more than 15 min.

The salary in addition to Thornton shouldn't have to be a great piece, as the downgrade from George/Granger to Thronton/George isn't that great. For the Kings the move is huge, because they've got 3 scorers with PG size, and because of Thornton's talent demanding PT have been playing a combo guard at SF.

The 3 guard and 3 big rotations are set, with Granger/JJ taking SF and some PF minutes. Then Jimmer and a FA big will have openings for spot minutes, at the same time they won't be a big part of the rotation unless they earn it.

 

[MANoICE]

Other than Granger being injured, I would do this trade with a little tweaking.

If we send MT & JT, then I would want a first rounder (unprotected) for this off-season or the next.

Would rather send MT & Salmons/Hayes for the straight 2-for-1 deal.

 

[spudfan]

I don't really have a problem with getting rid of Thornton + Thompson, and getting Granger. But a lot of other moves need to be lined up and carried out for this too work. Need to get more bodies, need to get rid of people. Need to figure out more contracts and spend more money. All of which is a lot to accomplish during the season. Especially with an organization like ours. Which leads to the stability problems I mentioned. Rotating players/coaches like we have been for years is tiresome!

 

[beb0p]

No way, Granger has patellar tendinosis, an ailment that can linger for years, sometimes a lifetime. Of course there are people who did recover after a lot of rest, treatment, and PT; but you don't know which group Granger falls into.

And even for people who did recover, they are prime candidates to have recurrence. I don't know if Granger will ever recover, but I would not take that chance.

 

[twslam07]

this also depends on how much indiana values david west. Im pretty sure Thompson would play behind West. With that being the case its less likely that Indiana would agree to this.

It's possible Thompson plays behind him this year, but he is getting up there in terms of age. He'll be 33 years old and a free agent come next year. Lastly, Thompson contract is very affordable. He stays in the 5-6 million range throughout the duration of his contact. West is earning 10 million this year. How much would he demand next year?

 

[twslam07]

granger is injured..

Yep. I made a note of that in my post in case you didn't see it. This trade would be closer to the trade deadline (February 21st). With the trade limitation on Thompsons contract, the earliest we could do this trade would be January 15th. If Granger recovers in 3 months, he should be back early to mid February.

 

[twslam07]

No thanks. I rather like having the consistency that Thornton and Thompson bring to two different positions. And our big man struggles, as you mention, would be magnified by this. Having a bit of stability in the roster for awhile to see what we have would be nice too!

Fair enough. I think many would argue that we do have a lot of talent, but our talent is not balanced on our team. This trade solves that in my eyes, but I see your point.

 

[twslam07]

interesting. If we can ship off one of our SFs (anyone but JJ) that would be grand

Without including anyone from Indiana's side, the only players that would still allow the trade to work are Outlaw or Honeycutt. If we could get rid of Outlaw as well, that would be grand

 

[twslam07]

I like it, but since Hayes' value is peaking, would much rather see his name then JT. JJ can take some of the backup PF minutes, and the team really isn't losing any size. And they can sign another min vet with the possibility of playing time, who at the same time will not be relied on for more than 15 min.

The salary in addition to Thornton shouldn't have to be a great piece, as the downgrade from George/Granger to Thronton/George isn't that great. For the Kings the move is huge, because they've got 3 scorers with PG size, and because of Thornton's talent demanding PT have been playing a combo guard at SF.

The 3 guard and 3 big rotations are set, with Granger/JJ taking SF and some PF minutes. Then Jimmer and a FA big will have openings for spot minutes, at the same time they won't be a big part of the rotation unless they earn it.

Including Hayes instead of Thompson would definitely be ideal, but the Pacers are looking for young pieces back in return for Granger. I mean Petrie can try it, and if it works out, great. I just don't see that trade happening, but that's the strategy of negotiating. You start high and hope to end up in the middle.

 

[twslam07]

Other than Granger being injured, I would do this trade with a little tweaking.

If we send MT & JT, then I would want a first rounder (unprotected) for this off-season or the next.

Would rather send MT & Salmons/Hayes for the straight 2-for-1 deal.

This trade would most likely happen when Granger is ready to return or maybe a few weeks before he returns. Like I mentioned before, we couldn't even do this trade right now if we wanted to because of the trade limitation on Thompson.

I'm not sure the Pacers would be willing to give up an unproctected 1st rounder especially when they won't have Granger for 40-50 games this season. It's possible that they could fall pretty far down into the lottery. Again, if Petrie can pull it off, then great! But I would still be satisfied with just getting Granger in return barring any further issues with his injury.

 

[twslam07]

I don't really have a problem with getting rid of Thornton + Thompson, and getting Granger. But a lot of other moves need to be lined up and carried out for this too work. Need to get more bodies, need to get rid of people. Need to figure out more contracts and spend more money. All of which is a lot to accomplish during the season. Especially with an organization like ours. Which leads to the stability problems I mentioned. Rotating players/coaches like we have been for years is tiresome!

I understand your point, but we do need to make a move that balances out our roster and that will force us to acquire some new players. We would definitely need to sign at least 1 big man after this trade. K. Martin, Fesenko, Foster, and T. Murphy are porbably the best that are available.

 

[twslam07]

No way, Granger has patellar tendinosis, an ailment that can linger for years, sometimes a lifetime. Of course there are people who did recover after a lot of rest, treatment, and PT; but you don't know which group Granger falls into.

And even for people who did recover, they are prime candidates to have recurrence. I don't know if Granger will ever recover, but I would not take that chance.

Luckily, this trade is not happening today. It would happen closer to the trade deadline (February 21st) when Granger is expected to return. We will have much more information by that time and see how his recovery process is coming along. We'll have a much better idea if it would or wouldn't be smart to invest in Granger.

If we had to do the trade today, I would decline it. In a couple months, I'm definitely watching Granger's progression closely to see if this trade is worthwhile.

 

[Kingster]

So you lose outside shooting at the 2 and the 4, and you gain outside shooting at the 3?

No thanks.

 

[bajaden]

Ditto! I agree completely. Granger has been oft injured the last four years, and as he gets older (currently 29 yr's old) I don't see that improving. Also, his overall shooting percentage has been dropping like a rock the last 4 yrs, down to around 41%. His 3 pt percentage is still decent at around 38%. My problem is we would leave a huge hole in our front line, and take it back to being undermaned, and undersized. It would reduce our rebounding ability, and we would also lose on points per game by losing two players for one player. In other words, Thornton averaged more PPG last season than Granger did.

Sorry, but you don't trade two quality players for one quality player, thats injury prone. I like the idea of adding Granger, but not at that price.

 

[twslam07]

So you lose outside shooting at the 2 and the 4, and you gain outside shooting at the 3?

No thanks.

You're right. Let's just keep playing one 3pt shooter in our starting lineup. The spacing has been pretty good so far...

It's not about how much shooting we have. It's about where the shooting comes from. We have three good 3pt shooters that play PG (Thomas, Brooks, and Fredette), but we can only play one at a time (unless you are a fan of small ball). We lose Thornton's shooting at SG, but that is okay because we will have Granger supply 3pt shooting at SF. That gives us two 3pt shooters around Evans while he is still at the SG position. With the personnel we have currently, we can't surround Evans with 3pt shooters while he is at SG. We can do it when he is at SF (Thomas, Thornton, and Evans), but then he is playing out of position.

Thompson has a good jumpshot, but we have Cousins, Robinson, and K. Martin (if we sign him) who could all hit open jumpers. So I don't see a huge downgrade in that department.

 

[Bricklayer]

While I am of two minds on somehting like this, Granger is a very good defender and the synergy with our defensive focus should not be underestimated. You would get 48 min of defense out of Granger and Johnson, and balance the roster a bit. If Reke was able to sustain you would be well on your way to just being a strong defensive team, no gimmicks or questions asked.

Unfortunately where you wouldn't is now you have small limited PFs and no backup center at all..

 

[Kingster]

You're right. Let's just keep playing one 3pt shooter in our starting lineup. The spacing has been pretty good so far...

It's not about how much shooting we have. It's about where the shooting comes from. We have three good 3pt shooters that play PG (Thomas, Brooks, and Fredette), but we can only play one at a time (unless you are a fan of small ball). We lose Thornton's shooting at SG, but that is okay because we will have Granger supply 3pt shooting at SF. That gives us two 3pt shooters around Evans while he is still at the SG position. With the personnel we have currently, we can't surround Evans with 3pt shooters while he is at SG. We can do it when he is at SF (Thomas, Thornton, and Evans), but then he is playing out of position.

Thompson has a good jumpshot, but we have Cousins, Robinson, and K. Martin (if we sign him) who could all hit open jumpers. So I don't see a huge downgrade in that department.

So now you have an ok shooter at the 3 in Granger, a poor outside shooter at the 4 in Robinson, a poor outside shooter in Tyreke at the 3 and a good one at the 1 in IT or Brooks. Still doesn't cut it. On your second team you have Brooks at the 1, Jimmer at the 2, both good outside shooters, with Hayes (poor) at center, who exactly at the 4? and Johnson (poor) at the 3. Maybe you put Johnson at the 4 and Outlaw at the 3. That doesn't send me either.

 

[twslam07]

Ditto! I agree completely. Granger has been oft injured the last four years, and as he gets older (currently 29 yr's old) I don't see that improving. Also, his overall shooting percentage has been dropping like a rock the last 4 yrs, down to around 41%. His 3 pt percentage is still decent at around 38%. My problem is we would leave a huge hole in our front line, and take it back to being undermaned, and undersized. It would reduce our rebounding ability, and we would also lose on points per game by losing two players for one player. In other words, Thornton averaged more PPG last season than Granger did.

Sorry, but you don't trade two quality players for one quality player, thats injury prone. I like the idea of adding Granger, but not at that price.

The last two years, Granger has been very durable.

2010-2011: 79 games out of 82
2011-2012: 62 games our of 66

Given he got injured during the playoffs which is the injury he currently is suffering from.

Although I think Thompson is a good rebounder, I don't think our rebounding would suffer too much if we lost Thompson. Cousins is a fantastic rebounder, Robinson was an excellent rebounder in college and that is usally the easiest skill to carry over to the NBA, and Hayes is a good, fundamentally sound rebounder. These are the per 36 rebounding numbers for our players so far.

Cousins: 11.3
Hayes: 9.6
Robinson: 9.5
Evans: 7.0
Thompson: 7.0
Johnson: 5.3

It is a little eye opening. Although you could argue that it is a small sample size which is valid, but this just gives us a glimpse of how our players have been performing on the glass thus far.

It's possible that I'm undervaluing our players, it's possible that I'm overvaluing Granger. If we could get him for less than what I offered, then I would be ecstatic. Since you tend to think we are giving up too much and you like the idea of adding Granger, who would you replace Thompson with to make this trade more fair in your eyes?

 

[twslam07]

While I am of two minds on somehting like this, Granger is a very good defender and the synergy with our defensive focus should not be underestimated. You would get 48 min of defense out of Granger and Johnson, and balance the roster a bit. If Reke was able to sustain you would be well on your way to just being a strong defensive team, no gimmicks or questions asked.

Unfortunately where you wouldn't is now you have small limited PFs and no backup center at all..

The main setback would be not having a backup C. That's why I recommended signing Fesenko. If Cousins starts to figure out his fouling problem and plays 35-37 min a game. There would only be 11-13 remaining center minutes. I'm sure Fesenko could log most of those minutes and possibly leave a few minutes for a small frontcourt of Hayes, Robinson, Johnson, and K. Martin.

I was thinking a little bit more about the trade though. What would you think about starting Johnson at PF and then giving him the backup SF minutes behind Granger? He is 6'9",250 lbs, athletic, a good shotblocker, and he seems to be comfortable in the post (that might only be when he has smaller SFs guarding him though). Just a thought since I know you are on the shotblocker train with me, Brick.

 

[Bricklayer]

The main setback would be not having a backup C. That's why I recommended signing Fesenko. If Cousins starts to figure out his fouling problem and plays 35-37 min a game. There would only be 11-13 remaining center minutes. I'm sure Fesenko could log most of those minutes and possibly leave a few minutes for a small frontcourt of Hayes, Robinson, Johnson, and K. Martin.

I was thinking a little bit more about the trade though. What would you think about starting Johnson at PF and then giving him the backup SF minutes behind Granger? He is 6'9",250 lbs, athletic, a good shotblocker, and he seems to be comfortable in the post (that might only be when he has smaller SFs guarding him though). Just a thought since I know you are on the shotblocker train with me, Brick.

I may be on the shotblocker train, but I am never on the smallball train. Johnson gives you a physical edge at SF. Put him at PF and now you are small and weak. Obviously JJ would have to get some backup PF minutes in that scenario, and that would be fine. But do I want him checking guys like Love etc. while we get pounded on the glass? No.

 

[twslam07]

So now you have an ok shooter at the 3 in Granger, a poor outside shooter at the 4 in Robinson, a poor outside shooter in Tyreke at the 3 and a good one at the 1 in IT or Brooks. Still doesn't cut it. On your second team you have Brooks at the 1, Jimmer at the 2, both good outside shooters, with Hayes (poor) at center, who exactly at the 4? and Johnson (poor) at the 3. Maybe you put Johnson at the 4 and Outlaw at the 3. That doesn't send me either.

It's strange how you say Thomas is a "good" 3pt shooter and Granger is an "ok" one even though Granger shot better from downtown last year. I'm going to assume that you meant we would have TWO good 3pt shooters in the starting lineup.

I wouldn't call Robinson a poor outside shooter. I would say he is an inconsistent outside shooter. He has solid shooting form, and with his work ethic, he should be just as good of outside shooter as Thompson was. It might not be tomorrow or a month from now, but you can't discard him like there is no hope for his jumpshot. This is a young team. Many of our players still have weaknesses. With time, they will improve on those weaknesses and improve the team in the long run.

This is how I break down the shooting for our current starting lineup:

Thomas - Good 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter
Evans - Poor 3pt shooter, poor midrange shooter
Johnson - Poor 3pt shooter, poor midrange shooter
Thompson - Poor 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter
Cousins - Poor 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter

This is how I break down the shooting for our starting lineup after the trade:

Thomas - Good 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter
Evans - Poor 3pt shooter, poor midrange shooter
Granger - Good 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter
Hayes - Poor 3pt shooter, poor midrange shooter
Cousins - Poor 3pt shooter, good midrange shooter

As you can see, our starting lineup will have more shooting than before, and most importantly more 3pt shooting. On the second team, you have Brooks and Fredette who are good 3pt shooters, Garca and Salmons who are okay 3pt shooters, K. Martin who is a good midrange shooter, Robinson who is an okay midrange shooter, and Johnson and Outlaw who are poor shooters.

 

[twslam07]

I may be on the shotblocker train, but I am never on the smallball train. Johnson gives you a physical edge at SF. Put him at PF and now you are small and weak. Obviously JJ would have to get some backup PF minutes in that scenario, and that would be fine. But do I want him checking guys like Love etc. while we get pounded on the glass? No.

I see your point. I just thought I would throw it out there to see what you thought.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

I would not do that trade because it would require us to pretty much put all the eggs in the basket belonging to Danny Granger. And if even of the eggs fails to hatch, or gets spoiled in the process, this team will end up being in even more trouble...giving up Thornton and JT for just Danny Granger is way too risky for this franchise in its current state of mind...

 

[twslam07]

I would not do that trade because it would require us to pretty much put all the eggs in the basket belonging to Danny Granger. And if even of the eggs fails to hatch, or gets spoiled in the process, this team will end up being in even more trouble...giving up Thornton and JT for just Danny Granger is way too risky for this franchise in its current state of mind...

Fair enough. At some point we are going to need to make a move to balance out our roster and bring in another significant piece. I was hoping it would be Iguodala or Batum this offseason, but since one was traded and one was extended recently, they are most likely no longer available. The best "available" SF left was Granger. We can continue on this train we are on and look for another deal, but I could argue that this could be the best deal we could make at this time.

Come draft time in 2013, we might find a player that would be perfect for us and we can balance out our roster then, but that is still a big question mark.

I just really liked the idea of having two good 3pt shooters next to Evans and Cousins. It might make all the difference we need on offense.

 

[TyFreak Evans]

Fair enough. At some point we are going to need to make a move to balance out our roster and bring in another significant piece. I was hoping it would be Iguodala or Batum this offseason, but since one was traded and one was extended recently, they are most likely no longer available. The best "available" SF left was Granger. We can continue on this train we are on and look for another deal, but I could argue that this could be the best deal we could make at this time.

Come draft time in 2013, we might find a player that would be perfect for us and we can balance out our roster then, but that is still a big question mark.

I just really liked the idea of having two good 3pt shooters next to Evans and Cousins. It might make all the difference we need on offense.

It could very well be the best deal we could make. It could also very well be the riskiest one as well...