You might want to re-read my post. I NEVER mentioned Al Jefferson, nor a late draft pick. I said #16 which is 2 spots out of the lottery and 1 a past the 1st half of the draft. That's called a mid teen pick not a late draft pick.
Again, I said the trade of Love, #4 & 16, plus a 7 mil TE is something that should be considered. I also said I feel it's MORE than what the T-Wolves feel Granger is worth. I'd never give it up for Granger, but I'd sure as heck would have to "seriously consider" it if it was offered.
The T-Wolves have an opportunity to turn either the #4 or the 16 into SF that should be very good players in Johnson and George, and not have to give up Love, 7 mil TE, and keep either the #4 or 16 for another good player. Granger is a good player, but not that good to command the type of trade I've suggested.
Who's to say that Rubio would want to come play for us?
If I was trading Granger to the Wolves, I'd be getting Monroe at #4 (assuming Wall, Turner, and Favors are 1,2,3), and Johny Damon and their #16 and expiring contracts... I don't want Rubio (too many unknowns).
I know that might seem a lot, but Danny's a proven franchise guy, which don't come around very often.
If I were trading Granger, I'd want a heck of a deal in return. I would also use the trade to reduce payroll, therefore I would NOT want Jefferson in return. The TWolves have some young players and also own the #4, #16 and #23 picks in the 2010 draft.
I would probably go for something like Granger for Love, #4 and rights to Rubio. This assumes that Count55 is correct in stating that Minnesota has the cap room to absorb the extra salary.
If The TWolves would not give up the rights to Rubio, then I would still want Love, #4 and #16, but only if the Pacers could pre-arrange a deal that would involve trading the #4 and either our #10 or the #16 for a pick that would land us either Wall or Turner. If necessary, I would trade the #4, the #10 and the #16 to get Wall.
The possible outcomes would be:
1. Danny for Love and Wall, without having a first round pick.
2. Danny for Love and Turner and having a #16 pick.
3. Danny for Love and rights to Rubio and having the #4 and #10 picks.
Each of these outcomes is a pretty significant stretch... but if I could not achieve one of the 3 outcomes, I would not make the deal.
The conversation starts with Rubio, but I believe that Jefferson and the #4 pick is all Minnesota wants to part with. In any deal where the Pacers can keep the 10th and possibly move Granger, then look for Hayward being drafted.
If your going to trade Granger and the Wolves' draft picks, one of the picks need to to be used on Paul George for sure
I just don't see the logic in trading a proven player for a draft pick.
A lot of you didn't want to tank to take a chance on a high lotto pick, now some of you find it OK to deal Granger for the pick you didn't want to tank for?
Super Bowl XLI Champions
2000 Eastern Conference Champions
The only reason I would consider trading Granger is that he's already 27, and will be at least 30 before this team is worth a damn again.
Because we seem to be on a salary dump heading.... And any "3 year plan" is either the most woeful attempt at a playoff plan ever devised or it's simply a plan to be rid of several high dollar contracts at the end of 3 years so we can then START some type of rebuild. Not that at the end of 3 years we're on getting Unicorns and trophy presentations.
IOW... we're so far from mattering at this rate that Granger is going to be at the wrong end of his career (and value) before we sniff being relevant again.
Maybe a Granger trade jumpstarts something?
Maybe a Granger trade means we'll finally accept a lost season for what it is and use it for a high draft pick and a youth movement.
Of course it's absolutely stupid to be in this position because we could've had the 4th pick anyway and could've teamed our pick with Granger on the court and/or still had Granger as an asset to acquire another piece of the puzzle now or in the immediate future.
So yeah... I'd say management has painted themselves into a corner where they are d-mned if they do or da-ned if they don't... At least if they're going down this road.
Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
I understand and even agree Granger is worth more than just the #4 pick. Minnie would have to ante up a lot more than a #4 pick b4 the Pacers would even consider it. BUT if the trade was Love, #4 & 16, and 7 mil TE the Pacers HAVE to seriously consider it. A nice young player like Love on a rookie contract, a player like Johnson at #4, a player like Bradley/Bledsoe at #16, and 7 mil TE to spend on a good vet is just too good not to seriously consider an offer like that. AGAIN, I don't feel Minnie feels Granger is worth that much, and wouldn't make such an offer. Just stop and put yourself in a T-Wolves fans place, would you give up that much future of your team for Granger? I seriously doubt it. If I was an T-Wolve fan and this proposed trade I stated happened, I would do a Rumplestilskin, as a avid Pacers fan since their beginning I would do this trade. I like Granger, but I think we all at times think with our hearts as a Pacer fan and have a tendancy to over value a player wearing the blue n gold, but this proposed deal would just be too hard to pass up.
Every season this type of rumor comes up numerous times, and nothing ever happens. This is just other case of that happening. Granger is safe and all is back to normal.
This could be used to our advantage. If we could get Jefferson and #4 for Granger, 2010 #57, and 2011 2nd rounder then I wouldnt be too against it. This is when I would look to pull off the Murphy and #10 for Parker (if re-signed). Then use the #4 to draft Wes Johnson.
I think we'd look pretty good for next season. We would have a ridiculously young core with Parker (at 28) the vetern. Them main concerns here would obviously be Jefferson's knee and Parker's long-term committment to the team.
SIGN ME UP
"So, which one of you guys is going to come in second?" - Larry Bird before the 3 point contest. He won.
It depends on the entire package. I'm not particularly interested in any kind of deal for Danny, at least in this context.
However, the logic for a team trading a proven player for a draft pick is based on the thought that you can get farther with the assets you get back than you can with the player.
Are the Pacers at that point with Danny? No, probably not.
Considering the financial situation of the Pacers, and the fact that Minny is under the cap, and can take back Danny's entire salary without having to send, really, any payroll back, consider this deal:
Pacers send Danny Granger
Minny sends Jonny Flynn, #4 and #16 pick.
With no other moves this summer (including not signing their 2nd round picks), the Pacers would have a 15-man roster with a payroll at about $65.3mm, or over $3.5mm less than it would cost them if they just signed the #10 and the 2 second rounders.
Since just signing the #10 currently puts them right at the tax threshold, and adding the 2 second rounder put them $1mm over, this represents significant savings. (I'd say about $7.5mm - $3.5mm in payroll, $1mm in tax, and they'd also get the $3mm-ish payout for teams under the luxury tax.)
Going into next year, they'd have 9 players under contract:
with a total payroll of $22.9 mm.
Add #1 (which is likely to be another Top 5-10 pick), and they're at no more than $28.6mm.
Cap space is overrated, because you don't know what you're going to get for it. However, it does have a very tangible value. Under this scenario, the Pacers will be bad again this year (which they're likely to be anyway), but they'll have tons of options over the next 12 months to make moves.
They already have the big expirings (Murphy/Dunleavy/Ford/Foster), now they'd also have more young assets to go with them, which is really the way you get value out of the expirings.
There's obviously a ton of risk in such an approach, but for all the people advocating that we take the "OKC" approach (something of a snipe hunt, if you ask me), they've got to realize that Danny probably is in the way of that. He's too good to let the team be horrible, he's not good enough to make the team great, and he's already out of his rookie contract and is making big (but appropriate) money.
All in all, I'd much rather try to make it work with Danny. I'd love to see the Parker deal get done, particularly if we can get them to throw in a future 1st. However, I'd be open to trading Danny for a ton of young assets, and Minny has the assets and the cap space to put together the kind of deal I'd want. (Though, the deal I'd want would probably be #4/#16 and either Love or Rubio.)
Two completely different things.A lot of you didn't want to tank to take a chance on a high lotto pick, now some of you find it OK to deal Granger for the pick you didn't want to tank for?
I can't speak for others, but I was opposed to throwing games in order to get a high draft pick. It's sleazy.
Over the last 16 games, the Pacers went 11-5. They played Rush 33.5 minutes a night, Hibbert 28.5 minutes a night, Price got 18 minutes, and McBob got 16 minutes a night in 14 games.
They played a ridiculously easy schedule, with 11 of 16 at Conseco. They won 9 at home, over CHA, DET, OKC, WAS, UTA, SAC, HOU, NYK, and NJN - teams that had a combined road record of 119-250. The two road wins were at Detroit - who was sucktastic - and at Cleveland - who started two cheerleaders and a video guy.
Look - had the Pacers traded away Murphy and Watson at the deadline for cap relief and picks, I would have been fine with that. Had the Pacers continued to play like microwaved dog**** - it would have been painful - but I'd have been fine with that.
However, from March 15th on, DET and PHI went 4-11 each, and SAC went 3-13. WAS went 5-12. For the Pacers to stay in the bottom 4-6 records, they would have had to intentionally throw games. I can't get behind that.
For some reason, the term "tanking" has gotten some creep to include broader type personnel moves. I don't know why this is happening, but I don't agree. To me, tanking means to deliberately lose games, and that's what I firmly believe would have been necessary to finish with a record bad enough to be in the top 4-6 picks.
Last edited by count55; 06-03-2010 at 07:39 PM.
Oh, and I don't like the #4 pick either - as a slot.
I'm just about 100% sure that the first three picks will be Wall, Turner, and Favors, leaving us Cousins.
Cousins is just an insane talent, but I worry that he (appears to be) a douchebag, and I worry that he apparently was heavy ("fat" is what some said) when he showed up in Chicago. If those prove to be untrue (or at least manageable), then he's going to be a hell of a player.
I'd be way more comfortable with Favors there, who I like a great deal. I'd feel that Wes Johnson or even Greg Monroe would be safer than Cousins, but at 4, I just think he'd end up being way too much talent to pass up.
Last edited by count55; 06-03-2010 at 11:37 AM.