I'd say Paul just because he's a better player. And because he presents such a huge mismatch when we face the Lakers. Granger's game probably fits a little bit better in Adelman's offense though (at least the way Adelman's offense is supposed to run).
I don't know why Rockets fans keep thinking Granger's on the market. He's the only good thing the Pacers have had since the Artest debacle. They would rather tell fans to go **** themselves before trading Granger.
To backdoor what I said....NJ backed out because of the salary. Indy wasn't all hyped up for Devin Harris, but they wanted #3 to get Favors.
You know that both would help. You could argue that our 3s are not good but some here say other positions should be improved upon. Its perception.
I was going to write something about this today. I think it's going to be tough to make a trade for CP3. There's no question we have assets to make this trade but does NO really want Brooks when they have Collison there? Brooks will demand a hefty pay raise while Collison is on the cheap as of right now. That's where I think it's going to be tough. Sure Houston could probably take Okafor but I can promise you that NO would rather want K-Mart then Brooks. Collison could make a killing having K-Mart on his team. NO really needs a wing player but if Houston were to trade K-Mart, I think they take a step back. Houston needs a player like K-Mart on this team with Yao and company. I think he's very important for this team. My other concern about CP3 is how would he fit with Lowry? CP3 plays heavy minutes and he dominates the ball more than Brooks does. I can't see Adelman playing both Lowry and CP3 at the same time. With AB, Lowry plays the point while Brooks plays the SG. You wouldn't have the same thing with Lowry and CP3. Either way, I would support getting CP3 but there are some reds flags/concerns with this move. As for Granger, Bird wants a PG. I can see us trading Brooks to acquire Granger but would Bird take either Ariza contract or Shane's expiring contract? You certainly would have to trade one of those guys. With Indiana only having $18 Mil committed for next year, Picks would be very important for Bird. I don't see him wanting Hill because they have enough young bigs on that team with Hibbert and Hansbrough. The great thing about making a trade with Indiana, Granger is set to make close $11 Mil. Houston wouldn't have to send that many players under contract to them. So picks would mean more to them then anything. One thing that Indiana has in their favor are those expiring contracts they have. Murphy, Dunleavy Jr., Ford, Foster, and Jones contracts expire this upcoming season. Bird has some pieces to work with. My main concerns with trading for Granger is health and how he could fit with K-Mart and Yao. Having a starting line up of Lowry, K-Mart, Granger, Scola, and Yao would surely be a kick ass team on paper but can they mesh? Defense would be a big concern because you would only have two players that play defensive in Lowry and Scola. I can't count Yao because he would be in foul trouble if Granger and K-Mart can't keep their player infront of them.
I like both guys. I think Granger would probably help this team more because the NBA is dominated by Wing players.
Your Paul arguement is kinda weak since Brooks owns Fisher and Blake and does not require the ball as much as Paul to be effective. Nor do we have to give up any players to put Paul on the roster. That said, Granger would probably cost us Brooks, and I'd rather continue to be strong where the lakers are weak. I personally prefer Iggy since he might be acquired with the lowest hit to the rotation. If Morey takes adavantage of CP3 desire to be traded, I suspect it will be in a multiple team deal with CP3 going somewhere other then Houston. Hard to fathom how that would look though, since none of CP3s prefered destinations has much that we would want.
Granger is a better fit with this team's system, but we desperately need a player like CP3 who can make things happen.
Although I do think there is a chance AB can develop into that kind of player who creates for himself and takes over a game, so who knows. But if we had an opportunity to choose between CP3 and Granger + Brooks, I'd still pick CP3 right now, reluctantly.
The better player is Paul, but I think the better fit fot the Rockets is Granger. I think it comes down to what position needs the most upgrade, PG (Brooks) or SF (Ariza)? Hands down, it's SF. Not many people were impressed by what Ariza brought to the Rockets, including myself.
Ariza was asked to do far too much when he came here. He played much better after Martin arrived. I think he'll be even better with Yao back. With Paul? Look, CP3 is a top-5 player when healthy. I really believe that. I definitely think the difference between Paul and Brooks is greater than the difference between Ariza and Granger. Edited to add: Just because I know a lot of people are down on Ariza, I thought I'd offer this: Ariza Pre-KMart trade: 15.6ppg 5.5rpg 3.6apg 2.3tov 38% FG 32% 3P Ariza Post-KMart trade: 13.1ppg 6.0rpg 4.4apg 2tov 43% FG 38% 3P Obviously there's some sample size issues (just 21 games), but overall I thought Trevor's performance after we acquired Martin was very promising.
This debate is mute. If you look at the history of the NBA of the elite players that lead their teams to championships, almost all of those players lead their teams to the playoffs or had some sort of playoff success from early on in the career. Yes, there are a few examples of elite players who landed in great situations and may not have the deadweight around them handicapping others, but more commonly a truly elite player is one that still leads his team to the playoffs and maybe makes some noise. Paul, when healthy, has done that with an old, inconsistent Hornets team that was predicated on the JVG style (slow down, defend, rebound, let your superstar bail you out on offense). David West is there, but is he even in anyone's Top 10 PF list at the moment? You may say that Collison put up similar numbers and did very well last year in that same system. That is true, but did he win? Did he elevate his team to get to the playoffs? No, he did not. Granger is a good, solid, all around player. He is stuck on an Indiana team with no help. But there is a reason he has not been able to get his team to the playoffs since Stephen Jackson, Ron Artest, and Peja were there. I know you normally factor more highly in the favor of a wing player versus a PG, but we are not talking about equivalent talents here. Paul is a no brainer.
GMs are drafting in this order 1.Center - Towering player above all 2.Point - good floor general or arguably 2.PF - good rebounding big man 4.Small Forward - for scoring Last. Shooting Guard
While that is true, that is misleading. An Elite SG/SF is always drafted high. Evan Turner is an example. There just have not been many elite SG/SF in the past few years. In the draft, teams always overvalue size because it "cannot be taught." So an equally flawed Center or PF that "has potential" will be drafted over the SG who is just as flawed (or even less so), even if the SG is more of sure thing. However, that is beside the point of this debate, as both players we are discussing are backcourt players.
