Question: Play out Danny's last year & "Go For It", or move him & begin life 1 year earlier without him/ being 1 year ahead come next year?
What We Need/Want: Need his salary for Paul's extension & Lance, so no "long term deals" can come back/ Want a good young player at beginning/ middle of rookie deal to build with + dump Green.
Problem: Don't see that deal out there (after taking a quick look). Anyone have any options?
Solve the above before we get going too far on this.
"Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
(Watching You Like A Hawk!)
In his interviews this season, granger has explicitly stated he's happy to accept a lesser role due to our improving young guys and you could see he was chomping at the bit to go out there and play with them. If nothing else, let's not stir the pot with some made up Granger malcontent talk.
That being said, I don't think that we could get a deal right now that would be good for business. With Granger's injury uncertainty, it's very likely that any trading partner would insist that we take on a bad contract in return. If that's the case, then we might as well let Granger's contract expire.
granger has 0 trade value right now, u think a GM would gamble with trading a good player for a player in granger who nobody has seen play in a year plus? i wouldnt be that GM and nobody on this board would either, unless u have a long term bad contract u want to get off yr hands for a one year injured granger, ie Jordan from the clippers
I find it hard to believe that Bird would really try to move Granger after his comments regarding Granger with his return to the Pacers. Keeping Granger if he's healthy is our best chance at a title. Then let the market play out to see if we can afford to keep him. It's a low risk move and we aren't getting much for him now anyway. At the very least you don't trade him now.
I don't think he has zero value, but there's no doubt it's low. His expiring contract means that he definitely has some value, even if he doesn't play a single game next year. A team that wants to tank next year and who doesn't care about his health might be interested in taking him considering that his contract will be up in a year. Any team would still probably try to force some crappy contracts on us though.
I'm sure the Hawks will take him. I think Indy is looking for a deal where we get back a young player on a small deal. Then we'll sign Cope and Landry and call it an off season. Maybe Granger and Green to Dallas for OJ Mayo? sign and trade?. Then sign Cope and Landry?
I usually try hard to avoid being insulting. It's just sports, after all.
But this one...this one, I can't resist. This is one of the dumbest things I've seen written on this board, and I've seen a LOT.
I hope that was a joke, because there isn't one shred of evidence that suggests Granger is, was, or could be a locker room "cancer." But there IS material that suggests pretty much the opposite.
"Freedom is nothing else but a chance to be better." - Albert Camus
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well." - Voltaire
Michael Pina, Red94: "There are so many different ways the Pacers can beat you. They have an All-Star scoring threat, imposing figures on the front line, steady point guard play, and most importantly, a defense that'll choke the life out of just about every offense that crosses its path."
People are people. And last time I checked, loyalty meant something in business and to people.
Danny hasn't been shown to be a negative to this franchise. He's worth more to the Pacers than any other team. And he deserves to be here.
I don't believe that Granger is being offered in trades. Bird was about as clear as one could be on that front.
I think this is pure media speculation.
It'd be absolutely idiotic to sell low on Granger. Bird implied as much.
There is little to no chance that he can stay with the team past this contract, but at least let him show that he can play, because execs have to way undervalue a person who had patellar tendonosis that didn't play last year.
The dream is that he truly earns the last year of his contract, and gives a demo of his capabilities to the 29 other teams. Maybe even win a championship with him starting. That'd be sweet.
I hope we spend our last dry powder on a backup PF, preferably Landry.
I dont' know how these rumors stick so easily that a national writer would address it. Its like no body ever heard of the freaking salary cap? You can't trade Danny Granger because you need all of this $15 million to pay Paul George next season. End of discussion.
the only possible deal is another expiring contract. So why would either team do that? They won't, it doesn't make sense. The roster they have this year will most likely be the set Roster for the next 2-4 seasons minus Granger. This is Granger's last season as a Pacer, there is just no way he resigns for peanuts, especially with West getting 12mil. Unless Lance just completely fails this coming season or completely explodes as a player and becomes amazing...Then we wouldn't be able to keep Lance would be force to try and work a deal with Granger for an extremely low amount.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
Sookie, PG really won't have control over his destination for another 5 or 6 seasons (barring singing his qualifying offer), but loyalty does matter to Paul. There is some value in loyalty that I think generally gets overlooked here.
I'm on a MAC!, there's also teams that can absorb Granger's salary. Those are teams like Milwaukee, Atlanta, Utah, Dallas, etc. They can give us combinations of young talent/draft picks that will not put us in financial jeopardy next season.
I see no reason at all to trade Danny NOW, unless somebody just gives us something we can't refuse, not likely.
If he's healthy and plays well, makes us a better team than last season, Great! we keep him go for the championship, worry about contracts after the season.
If he's injured, not the same player or not even close, then we either trade him as an expiring contract at mid season or let his contract run out at seasons end and have plenty of money for Paul and others.
"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"
It's such a refreshing experience to hear of another Danny Granger trade rumor.
I used to be a big Granger fan- he was my guy- but not so much anymore. Something about him seems more Dunleavy than Hibbert in terms of investment in the team and the city. Could be wrong but that's my perception.
I think they are trying to move him. I put no stock in Bird's comments at his presser but don't consider him a liar. Just doesn't seem like there's much for him to gain by openly saying they want to trade him at this point.
Any player can be moved, so I think it's just a matter of finding the right fit. One trade idea that a lot of people will probably crucify would be Granger for Ben Gordon now that Gordon's on an expiring. He'd give the Pacers offense off the bench. Apparently he was a douche to his coach last year, but I'd gamble he'd be on his best behavior on a winning veteran roster in a contract year. Don't know if Gordon has any injury issues, but if not, he might be a good option for what the bench needs.
Why trade Danny? It makes no sense. We need cap space next summer, not this year. If Danny is 70% than he is better than anyone we could get for him.
If Granger was traded today, I don't see how that would be a turn off to PG. The Pacers have treated Granger extremely well. If it's ever in PG's interest to leave, then he'll leave, but odds are that won't be anytime soon since it's in his financial interest to stay with the Pacers.
Granger has been a very good player, but he's not the sort of icon that you must keep at all costs. Not even Paul Pierce or Peyton Manning were at that level, and they met far more to their franchises than Granger ever has to the Pacers.
However, they would trade him if it's in their best interest, i have no doubt. But I also seriously doubt they would get a favorable deal for him at this time.
I agree, but just two years ago, the mere suggestion of Manning finishing his career someplace else would have sounded ludicrous. It was basically accepted fact that the Colts would allow the guy to play until age 45 if that's what he wanted. But then things changed in the 2011 season.
I know that each situation has different circumstances, but my point is simply that Granger is not the sort of icon that deserves untouchable status.
Damn Pacers treating Danny Granger bad by paying him 14mil a year, I hope somebody treats me that bad some day