I wouldn't give up Brooks for Granger straight up (The money doesn't match anyway). We need a quality PG to win and Lowry is much better as a backup. We should try to give up picks and young assets like Patterson, Budinger, Hill, Taylor, etc plus fillers for him and if that doesn't work, then we have to say no. Keep: Brooks, Yao, Martin Trade: Anyone else to get a star
Granger would be great on this team. There are really no weaknesses in his game. He basically makes the same amount of money as Kevin Martin, but unlike Martin, Granger is a multi-dimensional basketball player with very few flaws in his game.
Why not? They aren't winning WITH him, and they haven't made any significant moves to get better. They might as well rebuild with young prospects/expirings. They'll only be mediocre with Granger on the team.
They are also prepared to lose them as they just possibly drafted his replacement in Paul George. His game according to nbadraft.net is similar to Granger's. http://www.nbadraft.net/players/paul-george Brooks/Price Battier/Rush Dunleavy/George/Budinger Murphy/Hill/Jeffries/Hansborough/McRoberts Hibbert/Foster/Hill
For whatever reason, Indiana seems most dedicated to filling the void at PG. Whatever deal is cut for Granger will most likely have to begin and end with filling that void. If you are left with Granger and Martin, Lowry becomes a great compliment. And you can use MLE money on a suitable replacement at PG.
I think Bird really covets Budinger and since they need a point guard, we can offer them Brooks. A trade centered around both of them and including a couple of expiring and good locker room vets like Battier and Jeffries could get the conversation started. Battier could be a nice mentor to someone like Paul George.
Acquiring Granger by giving up Brooks just creates another gaping hole in the roster. It would be useless. Adding him to the current starting lineup would be fantastic and would in fact be a great fit, but giving up multiple starters for him doesn't make sense. I would be willing to give Both NYK picks along with some combination of young guns Taylor/Ariza/Budinger/Lull, expiring contracts Battier/Jeffries, or something else.
You gotta give up talent to aquire talent. Giving up Brooks for Granger will actually improve our team.
He's a hardworking wing who has an all around game. I think Pacers were gonna draft him but ended up taking Hansborough in the end. Plus, he's white. :grin: Just kidding.
No, it wouldn't. It would create a giant hole at the PG position, a position that is more important than SF. He is not good enough to gut your starting lineup to acquire him.
People in this board like Granger too much He is a very solid player, he is a upgrade compared to Ariza and Battier, no doubt, but would you trade him for 1, 2 or maybe 3 guys of our rotation??? I mean, our starting five would get better, but we would destroy the very young backup lineup we have People act like Indiana would trade him for Battier/Jefries (expirings for salaries to match) and Lowry (S&T) and a draft pick, when in fact they wont, they would demand another young guy, making our extensive roster, better in the starting five, but lacking players in the backup And another thing, you would then have Ariza, (7M) on the bench, and after this trade, CP3 is impossible, because we would have no assets for trade I guess that our trades will happen closer to the deadline (unfortunately because you always want to upgrade the roster sooner rather then latter), wen non playoff teams are rebuilding the rosters, and were our expirings, are very very valuable PeAcE
I have to day that Granger is a better all around player than Brooks. As much as you love his game, Granger makes up for his scoring, but without the loss of defensive presence. Lowry's +/- last year was unbelievable, so if you think Brooks has reached his peak as an asset, that is a sacrifice I willingly make for an overall upgrade.
I bet Bird would be more intrigued by Blake Ahearn. The guy from our summer league team. Sign and trade Ahearn, Buddinger, Andersen, and Battier should get it done for Granger.
how can any moves the teams makes be predicated on the whereabouts of another player who is under contract and even loss movable than the one proposed?
