Granger

[twslam07]

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

I can't argue with that. It is one of the reasons I suggested waiting until the trade deadline to see how Thornton, Thompson, and Evans are playing and most importantly how Granger's recovery process is coming along.

 

[bajaden]

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?

I'd rather give up Robinson than JT, simply because JT is a proven commodity, and has the size to play two positions. JJ can fill in at PF on occasion. He played PF in college, so its not foreign to him, and he rebounds well from that position. I don't know if that would dislodge Granger from Indy or not, but I could live with it.

 

[swisshh]

Bumping this because I feel Indiana's success without Granger will make him available. I still feel Thornton is the piece that would entice them, but you may be able to shed another player other than JT.

 

[KingsFanGER]

Bumping this because I feel Indiana's success without Granger will make him available. I still feel Thornton is the piece that would entice them, but you may be able to shed another player other than JT.

I dont think Indiana will be interested in Thornton, cause Vogel only plays guys, who can defend. He would be a role-player for the Pacers, used to provide some shooting and instant-offense from the bench. I doubt they would trade Granger for a potential role-player.

 

[Gilles]

Indy may look at Granger as the final edge to put them over the top.
George proved he can play SG, so Indy would rather run power Stephenson-George-Granger SG/SF rotation.

 

[jalfa]

I dont think Indiana will be interested in Thornton, cause Vogel only plays guys, who can defend. He would be a role-player for the Pacers, used to provide some shooting and instant-offense from the bench. I doubt they would trade Granger for a potential role-player.

dunno, they are the one team out there that could profit most from turning their one big asset into several smaller ones. their bench just flat out stinks. only problem is that we don't quite have the right pieces to help with that. beyond Thornton, I mean.

 

[Bricklayer]

dunno, they are the one team out there that could profit most from turning their one big asset into several smaller ones. their bench just flat out stinks. only problem is that we don't quite have the right pieces to help with that. beyond Thornton, I mean.

Thornton is a huge one though given the lack of quality SGs around the league.

Now would I do it if I were Indy? No. I take my giant Granger/George/Stephenson SG/SF combo and try to beat you into the ground with it ala Ron and Bonzi. But especially given their contract situation, breaking Granger's $$ into smaller cheaper pieces, headlined by a guy who can be at least as prolific a scorer may be just the sort of flexible pieces move you could tempt them with.

 

[ParniValjak]

Thornton is a huge one though given the lack of quality SGs around the league.

Now would I do it if I were Indy? No. I take my giant Granger/George/Stephenson SG/SF combo and try to beat you into the ground with it ala Ron and Bonzi. But especially given their contract situation, breaking Granger's $$ into smaller cheaper pieces, headlined by a guy who can be at least as prolific a scorer may be just the sort of flexible pieces move you could tempt them with.

As you suggested, the only reason Indy does this is to break Granger's contract into smaller pieces because George will need to be re-signed and at a pretty hefty price tag. West is also a free agent. It might also be because they think that Granger's knee is shot and it might be time to cash in.

I would be nervous about that deal simply given the history of knee issues and Granger's age but if that is all good, then it makes far too much sense for us to at least explore it.

 

[Gilles]

Granger was durable the last few years, but knee concerns were the reason for him to be available at #18. So it might just be that Granger has used all the mileage available for his legs.

 

[ParniValjak]

Granger was durable the last few years, but knee concerns were the reason for him to be available at #18. So it might just be that Granger has used all the mileage available for his legs.

And that is certqinly a very strong consideration here. Coming out of college, everyone knew Granger was a very good prospect but the knee concerns scared a lot of teams off. Pacers made a gamble and you have to say it has worked out for them so far. They got a bargain but the age and knee issues are most likely catching up with Granger and that would be my concern with the trade.

 

[Sac.Kings]

As everyone stated above, Granger seems like a "as close to ideal fit" at SF as we can realistically trade for, but the knees are an issue. Even if everything checks out, I would still be cautious; knees are very difficult to predict and nothing that any doctor says is a certainty.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

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.

why are there 2 undersized players in the starting lineup? time to get bigger and play bully ball

 

[Gilles]

Yeah, any plan that involves Hayes starting is a no go.

 

[funkykingston]

Two things struck me reading this thread. One is that Granger's contract, while massive at $14 mil this year, is also ending this season. So the only motivation for Indy to move him is if they don't want to try and re-sign him.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the OP labeled Tyreke as a poor midrange, poor 3pt shooter and IT as a good midrange, good 3pt shooter.

For the season, IT shot 36% from 3 while Tyreke shot 34% From 10-15 feet IT shot 41% and Tyreke 40% Finally from 16-23 feet It shot 32% while Tyreke shot 31%

That makes both guys average or slightly below average in each category.

 

[The_Jamal]

Two things struck me reading this thread. One is that Granger's contract, while massive at $14 mil this year, is also ending this season. So the only motivation for Indy to move him is if they don't want to try and re-sign him.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the OP labeled Tyreke as a poor midrange, poor 3pt shooter and IT as a good midrange, good 3pt shooter.

For the season, IT shot 36% from 3 while Tyreke shot 34% From 10-15 feet IT shot 41% and Tyreke 40% Finally from 16-23 feet It shot 32% while Tyreke shot 31%

That makes both guys average or slightly below average in each category.

%'s are fun without context.

As to the topic of the thread, I'm not sure why everyone's so anxious for Granger. He's a big-time offensive player who puts up a lot of shots and has for his whole career. He's a good defensive player no doubt, but he would be like adding a Marcus Thornton-esq scorer to the starting 5. Something we should be trying to avoid.

Although, he would make sense if we didn't resign Tyreke

 

[Kingster]

Two things struck me reading this thread. One is that Granger's contract, while massive at $14 mil this year, is also ending this season. So the only motivation for Indy to move him is if they don't want to try and re-sign him.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the OP labeled Tyreke as a poor midrange, poor 3pt shooter and IT as a good midrange, good 3pt shooter.

For the season, IT shot 36% from 3 while Tyreke shot 34% From 10-15 feet IT shot 41% and Tyreke 40% Finally from 16-23 feet It shot 32% while Tyreke shot 31%

That makes both guys average or slightly below average in each category.

Post All Star break IT shot 49% from field, 47% from 3. (That was when I checked toward the end of the season, so it could change a percentage point at year end, I dunno). The only reason he didn't shoot better in the first half is that he had neck problems from continually being jerked in the lineup for the likes of Brooks, Jimmer, and Tyreke. He's obviously a better shooter than Tyreke, and it shouldn't take stats to figure that out.

 

[Section 101]

Post All Star break IT shot 49% from field, 47% from 3. (That was when I checked toward the end of the season, so it could change a percentage point at year end, I dunno). The only reason he didn't shoot better in the first half is that he had neck problems from continually being jerked in the lineup for the likes of Brooks, Jimmer, and Tyreke. He's obviously a better shooter than Tyreke, and it shouldn't take stats to figure that out.

Let's be a little more truthful. IT was stinking it up to start the season and that's why the line ups where changing. IT's play was the reason for all the changes not the changes hurting IT.

 

[twslam07]

why are there 2 undersized players in the starting lineup? time to get bigger and play bully ball

I"m guessing you are talking about Thomas and Hayes. We had a great (sarcastic) PG core of Thomas, Brooks, and Fredette. Brooks showed throughout the year that he was the best starter with Thomas coming off the bench, but both of those guys are undersized so take your pick.

If Thompson was traded, we would have Hayes and Robinson left. I preferred Hayes starting at the time because of his post defense which would hopefully allow Cousins to pick up less fouls.

Don't get me wrong, I want to play bully ball. I want an enforcing team, but at this time our roster wasn't comprised of players that could pull it off.

 

[twslam07]

Two things struck me reading this thread. One is that Granger's contract, while massive at $14 mil this year, is also ending this season. So the only motivation for Indy to move him is if they don't want to try and re-sign him.

Secondly, I find it interesting that the OP labeled Tyreke as a poor midrange, poor 3pt shooter and IT as a good midrange, good 3pt shooter.

For the season, IT shot 36% from 3 while Tyreke shot 34% From 10-15 feet IT shot 41% and Tyreke 40% Finally from 16-23 feet It shot 32% while Tyreke shot 31%

That makes both guys average or slightly below average in each category.

You do realize that this was posted on November 9th, don't you? We were 6 games into the season by that time, and Evans was 1 for 8 from three (12.5%). There was no indication at that time that he had improved his jumpshot.

 

[funkykingston]

You do realize that this was posted on November 9th, don't you? We were 6 games into the season by that time, and Evans was 1 for 8 from three (12.5%). There was no indication at that time that he had improved his jumpshot.

Sure, and that does underscore the improvement Tyreke made this year. Hopefully it is something to build on and not just an anomaly.

That said, the bigger point to me is that the stats from the last two years show IT to be an average to below average shooter from mid and long range.

 

[Kingster]

Let's be a little more truthful. IT was stinking it up to start the season and that's why the line ups where changing. IT's play was the reason for all the changes not the changes hurting IT.

Don't tell me to be more truthful. I think I can discern the chicken from the egg. Who are you - the freaking truth arbitrator? I know he got jerked around like everybody else and when he didn't his shooting percentages shot up tremendously. And you're trying to tell me that he got more pt because his shooting shot up tremendously? That doesn't compute.

 

[rainmaker]

Malone if hired would probably play IT in a Jack type, 6th man role, which most aside from Kingster will be happy with, and where IT belongs.

IT's stats don't mean that much as it was a role the team didn't need. IT did a remarkably poor job keeping Cuz/Reke/MT involved and in the flow, which was his main job as PG and what posters like Kingster said he could do a year ago. Yet, his assist numbers are terrible while jacking up as many or more shots than Reke/Cuz on many occasions. Just not a role we needed, whether he was efficient or not.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Malone if hired would probably play IT in a Jack type, 6th man role, which most aside from Kingster will be happy with, and where IT belongs.

IT's stats don't mean that much as it was a role the team didn't need. IT did a remarkably poor job keeping Cuz/Reke/MT involved and in the flow, which was his main job as PG and what posters like Kingster said he could do a year ago. Yet, his assist numbers are terrible while jacking up as many or more shots than Reke/Cuz on many occasions. Just not a role we needed, whether he was efficient or not.

I'll take that one step further .. If we get Schlenk / Malone I'd even look for the Kings to go after Jack. GSW is a little cap strapped, and will have a hard time retaining Landry and Jack. I'm not sure they could keep either guy. I'm sure Jack would be interested due to the Malone/Schlenk relationship, and he'd actually be a decent to good fit next to Evans as a starter. Clearly knows how to play with another high profile guard in Curry.

Jack averaged 12 points, 5.6 assists, .408 from 3. He's a vet. Solid defender at times. Wouldn't be a flashy signing, but it's the kind of move that makes some sense from a few different angles. Move Thomas to the bench, trade Thornton in a deal for Granger ...

We'll see. It wouldn't shock me though, and I'd likely be ok with it depending on how the contract would look.

 

[sdballer]

Post All Star break IT shot 49% from field, 47% from 3. (That was when I checked toward the end of the season, so it could change a percentage point at year end, I dunno). The only reason he didn't shoot better in the first half is that he had neck problems from continually being jerked in the lineup for the likes of Brooks, Jimmer, and Tyreke. He's obviously a better shooter than Tyreke, and it shouldn't take stats to figure that out.

He shot 45 and 41 after the break. Reke shot 48 and 35.

 

[rhythmless]

I'll take that one step further .. If we get Schlenk / Malone I'd even look for the Kings to go after Jack. GSW is a little cap strapped, and will have a hard time retaining Landry and Jack. I'm not sure they could keep either guy. I'm sure Jack would be interested due to the Malone/Schlenk relationship, and he'd actually be a decent to good fit next to Evans as a starter. Clearly knows how to play with another high profile guard in Curry.

Jack averaged 12 points, 5.6 assists, .408 from 3. He's a vet. Solid defender at times. Wouldn't be a flashy signing, but it's the kind of move that makes some sense from a few different angles. Move Thomas to the bench, trade Thornton in a deal for Granger ...

We'll see. It wouldn't shock me though, and I'd likely be ok with it depending on how the contract would look.

Have you seen Jack play? He throws up horrible shots and frequently. Yes, he made lots of them last year, but he's also taking a lot of shots away from other players. Is that the guy you want?

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

Have you seen Jack play? He throws up horrible shots and frequently. Yes, he made lots of them last year, but he's also taking a lot of shots away from other players. Is that the guy you want?

Nope. Never saw Jack play.

Curry - 17.8 FGA
Thompson - 14.7 FGA
Jack - 10.8 FGA

Who, exactly, is Jack taking shots away from? Considering he played quite a few minutes with both those guys (and had a better FG% than Thompson, same FG% as Curry), and both averaged more shots than Tyreke Evans .. I don't see an issue. Per36 Jack has never averaged more than 14 FGA a game. He's not a chucker. Curry wants him back in Golden State, there was no issue there.

Evans - 11.8 FGA
Thomas - 10.5 FGA
Thornton - 10.8 FGA

Better defense, better passing, better shooter, veteran / leadership guy .. no room for that on this team.

 

[mac]

Don't tell me to be more truthful. I think I can discern the chicken from the egg. Who are you - the freaking truth arbitrator? I know he got jerked around like everybody else and when he didn't his shooting percentages shot up tremendously. And you're trying to tell me that he got more pt because his shooting shot up tremendously? That doesn't compute.

ROFLMAO. Yes, as always you have no problems whatsoever justifying IT's poor start to the season or performance overall to bad coaching, but for all other players it's always their fault.

 

[KingMilz]

If Portland would be willing to do it what do Kings fans think of the #7 pick + Thompson + Thornton for Batum? Portland gets 3 solid rotation players ( on a squad that had ZERO depth) and we take on a big contract from a super talented player. I don't know how it will impact our ability to sign both Cuz/Evans if somehow we can get it done. It's highly unlikely but still not a bad offer imo.

 

[funkykingston]

If Portland would be willing to do it what do Kings fans think of the #7 pick + Thompson + Thornton for Batum? Portland gets 3 solid rotation players ( on a squad that had ZERO depth) and we take on a big contract from a super talented player. I don't know how it will impact our ability to sign both Cuz/Evans if somehow we can get it done. It's highly unlikely but still not a bad offer imo.

As a Kings fan I'd do that deal (though I'd prefer Patterson instead of Thompson) but I don't see Portland being willing to part with Batum.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

i think thats giving up too much for Batum. id rather do Salmons + Thompson