Let's assume two things:
1) Granger will get dealt, and the one year remaining at $14M comes off the books for whichever team takes him.
2) Gerald Green's contract is dealt with him.
The cap aspect of Granger's contract is an asset in and of itself, so stashing Green with him (unless the Pacers think he can bounce back to the production he had at Brooklyn/New Jersey) with Granger is likely at the tip of their tongue in any trade discussion.
To me the Pacers need a shooter off the bench, which Granger could be, AND a back up point guard who could bring length to the court like GHill and play alongside of him too. This is where I think dealing him makes sense.
I guess some of this too depends on how much the Pacers like Orlando Johnson.
Which way do you go with it?
Pacers trade: Granger, Green
Atlanta trades: Kyle Korver (sign/trade, $5M per for 3 years), John Jenkins (young shooter) and #18
Pros: Plenty of cap space, healthy Granger would start for them for sure and still have cap space for 2014. Could probably get Green the minutes where he could play with confidence and thrive.
Cons: Likely delusional enough to think they'll land CP3 and DHoward
Pacers definitely get the shooters they need off the bench. Depending on how they view OJohnson, they could move Jenkins in a separate deal. They actually get a little cap relief in this deal, some of which gets soaked up in giving David West a bit of a raise, which could help with that back up PG.
Pacers trade: Danny Granger
New Orleans trades: Eric Gordon
Normally I've been against this type of thinking. For one, the rumored deals shot down for Granger told me they had a much higher opinion of him than I would, and Gordon has been injury prone. (Still might be, but so might Granger.) Gordon is on the books until 2016, and while the Pacers will eventually need to sign PGeorge to a long term, that would just put the Pacers in cap Hell for two years.
New Orleans' consideration:
Pros: They still believe in the Austin Rivers pick. This would give them a chance to show confidence in him, but they'd still have cap room to sign a veteran. If they don't like Granger after a year, they can let him walk, and they may have overpaid for Gordon.
Cons: I can't really think of any unless they feel Gordon is healthier than Granger. They have a huge hole at the SF spot.
Let's say the Pacers sign West for two more years at $12M, he'd be on contract until 2015.
So in 2015 they'd have Hibbert at $15M, Gordon at $15M, West at $12M, and George ~$14M (first year of 2nd contract), Hill at $8M
2016: Hibbert at $15.5, Gordon at $15.5, George at $15M, Hill at $8M. They'd have to account for the development of a PF
2017: Hibbert and Gordon would both be done. Leaving their only major commitments to George and Hill.
What if the Pacers didn't sign West?
Pacers trade: Granger ($14) and Green ($3.5)
Portland trades: Hickson (sign/trade at $8M), Matthews ($7M) and Maynor ($3M)
Portland can be flexible with Batum, and they can even go small (at times) with Aldridge at center and Granger and Batum at forward spots. Again, Portland gets some cap relief if Granger doesn't work out.
The Pacers get a starting PF in Hickson, can then keep Hansbrough at the backup PF, get a good guard prospect to push Stephenson or come off the bench at SF and SG, giving them a diverse lineup, and they get a very good backup PG.
The question is, what makes Hickson (aside from "deep stats") such a tough sell on a winning team? He's probably not a great defender, but with Hibbert behind him, as long as he can cover ball screen reads he'd be OK. He's only a secondary offensive option, meaning he'd probably only score on drop offs and offensive rebounds. He can't put out worse effort on defense than Granger has up to now.
Conventional wisdom would be keep Granger and let his contract slide of the books, but if they can get two+ low risk players or a better name at SG from a team looking to get or keep cap space in 2014, it's a great trading chip to have.