jalfa
Starter
why would that be too much? the guy is top5 at his position.
Granger
- Thread starter twslam07
- Start date
why would that be too much? the guy is top5 at his position.
DesertFox
Starter
Batum went from good role player to 2nd/3rd glue player. As a 25 year old who doesn't use up shots, the price will be high.
A Cuz/Batum/Evans core will contend very soon. All it takes is for Cuz to grow up a little, and either Batum or Evans to take that next step to all-star level.
And honestly the value gap isn't much between MT and Salmons' expiring deal. Some teams might even prefer the latter.
I'd even offer Thornton, Salmons and IT for Granger. Indiana takes care of their 1-3 bench rotation for the next couple years at the cost of a potentially expendable piece. We get our solution at SF (provided he stays healthy), clear out our chucker problem and save $3M this year and potentially more down the road. I think with some clever roster management we could be in a better position now and in the future.
beb0p
Starter
I don't understand why so much hope is put on a guy who had two surgeries on the same knee for the same ailment within a five month period; an ailment that has the potential to end careers.
Furthermore, Granger has the kind of injury that has no definitive cure. With an ACL injury, at least a doctor knows how it can be fixed, how long the recovery, and approximately how well the reconstructed knee will hold. With a jumper's knee, it's all just guesses - let's give it a rest... doesn't work? Let's do some therapy.... still doesn't work? Let's try surgery. No dice? Let's try surgery again. Still pain? Well, maybe you should quit basketball.
Yeah, let's trade for a guy who needs 6-8 weeks rest every time his knee acts up. I'm not saying Granger's career is over, but the thing is, no one knows if or when he will be back and when he does no one knows how long he can last.
Me, I tend to stay away from guys with chronic knee issues.
Furthermore, Granger has the kind of injury that has no definitive cure. With an ACL injury, at least a doctor knows how it can be fixed, how long the recovery, and approximately how well the reconstructed knee will hold. With a jumper's knee, it's all just guesses - let's give it a rest... doesn't work? Let's do some therapy.... still doesn't work? Let's try surgery. No dice? Let's try surgery again. Still pain? Well, maybe you should quit basketball.
Yeah, let's trade for a guy who needs 6-8 weeks rest every time his knee acts up. I'm not saying Granger's career is over, but the thing is, no one knows if or when he will be back and when he does no one knows how long he can last.
Me, I tend to stay away from guys with chronic knee issues.
Last edited:
KingsFanGER
Starter
Would be a major step for the Kings. Batum is one heck of a player, can guard multiple positions and isnt ball dominant like f.e. Salmons. I would trade any King, except Cousins and Evans, to get this guy, but i doubt the Blazers would accept any offer the Kings can make.
macadocious
Starter
Why would they do that? They already have Hickson who puts up better stats than Thompson and Salmons is absolutely worthless to a contending team.
K
KingMilz
Guest
They have no intention of signing Hickson his contract is up
I think the ONLY way that happens is if Indiana is convinced that they can't or won't resign Granger after this season. As we saw last night they can clearly use more scoring punch so Thornton would bring some value (if he bought into their defensive concepts) but Salmons' ending contract wouldn't appeal since they can get more cap relief by just letting Granger walk.
Which means IF Indiana was going to consider such a deal you'd really have to wonder what their assessment is of Granger's knees and his ability to come back and play at something close to his previous level.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Not necessarily. It would just be a way for them to get the same scoring punch at half the price, and while letting George slide to a more natural position where he played while they made a run to the ECF. Granger if back is a boost, but it may also disrupt. Its the reverse of our situation with Thornton. In both cases in order to play guiys at their natural positions, you have to slide over other major guys to play a bit out of position.
I wouldn't do it if I am Indiana BTW because I am a size and defense kind of guy. But there's a definite logic and a natural fit for them in all ways. They need a scoring SG to give them the punch they have lacked, not a SF. We have a scoring SG on half the contract as their SF.
macadocious
Starter
Also, Salmons is a serviceable back up SF who still can defend small 3's and big 2's. Plus he is an ender so they aren't stuck with him after this year.
Pretty clearly just based on PER and stats from THIS season which obviously makes Granger a non-factor.
True, but you could make the same argument for Granger who is not only an ending contract but would also let you move Thornton's contract. If Granger plays great then you re-sign him, if he doesn't then you open up caproom to find someone who will.
And Brick I think Granger is an ideal fit for the Kings and Indiana definitely needs some scoring. Hibbert and George scored what, the first 25 points of the game last night? But I can't get my hopes up for this sort of thing. That said, grabbing a guy like CJ McCollum in the draft, trading for Granger and either signing a Dalembert or trading for a mid/late first for Dieng would give the Kings a starting five that could compete for a playoff spot next year, with Thompson, Isaiah Thomas & Patterson leading the bench. Enticing thought.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You forgot our new GM Chris Wallace signing Tony Allen as a FA -- wherever Chris has gone, he's brought along Tony with him.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
They are going to have a hard time giving Granger away with that contract and that knee, and as I detailed somewhere else last week, its a huge down era for SGs. There are very few out there realistically attainable who can give them consistent scoring punch. Sellers market at the moment.
Fact is he could easily have more value to them than other teams are going to offer. Except possibly us.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
We don't have the pieces to get Granger. Indiana wants an upgrade at PG. They want an upgrade over Hill. At least that's the rumor, and it makes sense as Hill is pretty up and down offensively and doesn't do that great a job running the team and creating. They sorely need a guard who can penetrate and create easier shots for George/West.
AK has a player option. If I'm Vivek, I contact him and float the idea of a larger contract than he has and being part of the rebirth of this franchise and see if it persuades him to opt out. I'm not sure with the Love dynamic and Adelman possibly retiring that Minn is as attractive an option as it was last summer. And since he has one year left if he opts in, a three year deal could be enticing and offer some security.
AK has a player option. If I'm Vivek, I contact him and float the idea of a larger contract than he has and being part of the rebirth of this franchise and see if it persuades him to opt out. I'm not sure with the Love dynamic and Adelman possibly retiring that Minn is as attractive an option as it was last summer. And since he has one year left if he opts in, a three year deal could be enticing and offer some security.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
We actually have the pieces to bolster them at both guard spots, which is an obvious need. Just depends on how much we value those guys ourselves.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
Not enough. I don't think IT or MT have as much value as some around here.
Similar threads
- ClutchPoints | San Antonio Spurs News
- Kings News Links
