If their is any hope to land Granger, we better hope George pans out and really becomes the next Granger or T-mac like scouting reports indicate.
What you fail to realize is that is exactly what Toronto and Memphis did respectively until money/free agency got in the way. The fact that you don't think they are good enough doesn't change the fact that those are the best those two teams had. Do you think Kevin Martin was a "good enough to win a championship" player for Sacramento before last year when they refused to trade him? And while we are at it, do you think if Indiana looks at Memphis since Gasol, or Toronto this coming year, that they are going to say, "Gee, being like them seems like a really good way to succeed!" So yes, if Lary Bird is an epic idiot of Chris Wallace proportions (I went and looked at the Gasol trade at the time, and Wallace was talking about all the salary cap room that Memphis was going to have for free agents that they were going to sign!), maybe he'll have an infarct and while he's stroking out give us his best player for pennies on the dollar. I think it is more reasonable, however, to not bet the farm on the idea that he is an idiot of historic proportions.
I think they "refused" to trade him because Morey already had a deal in place with Petrie before hand and was just playing the waiting game in all honesty. We do have a pretty good business relationship with Kings after all.
Anybody who thinks giving up Brooks to get Granger will hurt our team and be a lateral move at best is nuts! Granger replaces the scoring lost by Brooks and is actually a good defender. <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHopzP8M1xc&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BHopzP8M1xc&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
You can certainly believe that, though it directly contradicts the available information. But people have certainly placed their faith in less plausible things.
I like Granger a lot, if we could give up some of our depth at SF and PF to get him then yes. And that includes Chase. DD
Do you guys realize that Granger replacing AB's point production isn't the problem? That's not how basketball works. You can't say that if you replace a 20 point scorer with another 20 point scorer with better defense make a better team. Where you get those points is also important. Would you trade a center who is a 20 point scorer for a wing player that is a 20 point scorer? Also, the league is becoming a point guard driven league so it would be moronic to suggest that you should trade away the most important position for a freaking wing. That's like saying you should trade away your team's QB for a WR because he runs faster, is a better blocker, and can return kicks...yeah...but he's a freaking WR. PG>SF. So until the Rockets have an actual contingency plan at point guard, trading Brooks for Granger would just be stupid(there is a reason Kyle Lowery isn't a starter and hasn't been a starter.)
Nope, I think AB for Granger is close to a lateral move, and finding a good PG is harder to find. Who knows Chase may end up being close to as good as Granger at the end of the day (Longshot I know - but it could happen). No AB....he is someone I think you keep unless you get a superstar back. DD
A team built around Granger is NEVER going to win a championship, what is the point of keeping him around while you compete for NOTHING? They can have a terrible record and miss the playoffs every year WITHOUT Granger, why wouldn't you go in a different direction? you can't be a superstar if your team is consistently at the bottom of the standings
I think I already answered that. It's the same reason that 20 teams aren't trying to trade all of their best players to the Heat or Lakers for no return this off season.
Are you serious? Nevermind, I have no doubt that you are. I would trade Brooks for Granger in a New York minute, toss in Chase, and not blink an eye. The problem is that Bird will never do it, so don't lose any sleep worrying!
Did you consider the possibility that the reason they want to fill the void at PG is to better accommodate their best player? So trading away Granger for a PG would be counter productive for Indiana. Also, if Lowry is such a great compliment to Granger you would think the Pacers would be going after him a lot more harder than they are.
That is fair enough, he just might be, but to me, he is a star player on a bad team. I would trade AB, but only for a guy that is a Superstar player, think of it this way. AB led a rag tag group of players to a 42-40 record last year in a tough Western Conference. Granger led his team to 32-50 in a much weaker Eastern Conference. I just think Granger is like Rudy Gay, a nice player, but not a great one. If Granger was great, or a truly special player, he would be leading his team to a better record. To me, Granger is overated, and AB is underated. And 20ppg PGs are harder to come by the 20ppg scoring wings. DD
16 teams make the playoffs, most of them do not consider trading their centerpieces because they feel they are close enough. Then there are teams that missed the playoffs like Houston and NOLA where their best player was injured, teams like Memphis where they have multiple young talents and finished last year on a high note, and teams like the Clippers with veteran talent and a young potential superstar in Blake Griffin. Then there are bad teams who are hoping to build around their high picks like Wall and Turner in Washington and Philly. Then there are delusional teams like New York and Golden State. That leaves team like Indiana, Toronto, Minnesota, and Detroit. Those 4 are all in the same boat. They have their best players but so what? They are not young enough to hope for a future and they are not good enough to build around (Granger, Jefferson, Bosh, whatever mess is left in Detroit). Those teams would be better suited just blowing everything up and starting fresh. So not 20 teams as you stated, more like 4 or 5.
