Danny Granger : the Final Piece

i think he would be a perfect fit for this team.

Im warming up to Ariza, but adding Granger would put us in the top 3 teams in the league easily. He can drive, shoot, and somewhat play defense. His youth and athleticism also are reason to go for him. No doubt that he should be "The Final Piece" we have been looking for.

 

Unfortunately, I agree.

So, where do we get an upgrade?

Philly.....Iggy (possible, Ariza and Lowry for Iggy)

Charlotte.........Wallace (dream'n)




Or...............

What about Lowry, Andersen, and Jeffries for Dunleavy, Ford, and Indy's 2011 #1?

Don't laugh yet.


Dunleavy is better than Ariza. Better shooter. Better bball iq. He's a better player.....period.

And Dunleavy is expiring. T.J. Ford is expiring. And another pick. Let T.J. backup Brooks until the deadline. Then swing the big trade for Paul.

Saves

 

32-50 in the Eastern conference, a nice player, but not a leader or a superstar.

DD

 

Would give up Ariza and Brooks for him.

Lowry
Martin
Granger
Scola
Yao

Champs ^_^

 

Id looooove to have this guy on our team, Martin/Battier for Danny swap would be nice

 

how do you know hes not a leader? hes on an inept team and is their best player I know when he was killin us at Toyota Center he sure looked like that leader who would be great on an actual team, hes better than Martin and I luv Kev from day 1.. hes not a superstar? hes in a small market therefore he doesnt get exposure but I bet 100 bucks each player in the NBA know hes a superstar.. I dont understand ur logic or basis in that statement

 

we'd have to give up Ariza.

 

A lateral move....would not be championship contenders that makes us much weaker overall as a team.

DD

 

Lateral move and makes us weaker? Anyway, I am a believer in Lowry being a successful starting point guard. I may be wrong but I believe that DG/KL > AB/TA.

 

Ok, I disagree.

DD

 

What? It's a much stronger defensive team and arguably a better offensive team. Granger can D up and is a pretty elite scorer.

 

I like Granger, but I always look at the overall impact on the team....it is the same argument with Bosh, if you are giving up quality at one position and making it weaker and then improving another, but only incrementally, you are not improving the team, IMO.

DD

 

you could get him for cheaper.

 

If you give up Lowry & Trevor or Shane for him that would make a much bigger impact towards making the team better.

Backup or redundant players for a starter....

But this is a waste of time, they are not offering him as far as I am aware, are they?

DD

 

Yeah, but I'd still be willing to give them up.

 

Granger would be much more than an incremental improvement at the SF. I don't think Lowry's much of a dropoff at all at the point, especially when you look at the defensive side of the court. But you're right, they probably aren't looking to trade Granger at all so the point is moot.

 

Lowry is a massive dropoff from Brooks and it changes EVERYTHING about the way the team plays.

With Lowry, you would need to put finishers around him and mobile guys.

It would change the starting rotation and the team dynamic immensely.

Brooks = Mike Bibby's role in Sacremento.....a scoring PG...the team has been built around Brooks for this upcomming year.

DD

 

Agreed. Brooks has approximately double the impact of Lowry on this team.

 

I'm really afraid of the defensive sieve that is the Rockets' backcourt. Aren't you?

 

Granger/Martin/Scola/Yao aren't finishers? I don't mind changing the team dynamic if it means upgrading our defense, while losing no offense.