Trade Idea with Pacers.

[moiso]

I'm sticking by my wild guess that Rondo gets traded to the Pacers.  Some crap package like:

Boston sends:
Rondo + Lee (bad contract) + Bass (bad contract)
or...
Rondo + Wallace (bad contract)


Indiana sends:
Granger (expiring contract)
George Hill (maybe we can flip him to a 3rd team)
A couple scrub youngins like Solomon Hill and Lance Stephenson
+ a couple unprotected 1sts from Indiana (which would obviously be late 1sts)

Everyone will throw a fit here, but I think that's as good as it will get if Rondo is traded.

I'd hope to get a little more from Rondo.  I'd hold on to him if that's the best we can get. 

[BballTim]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

[gpap]

Don't see Indiana doing this.

They already have too many power forwards (West, Scola) so they don't need Bass and if they deal Mahimmi, they're left with only one center in Hibbert.

You could possibly deal Rondo for a package of Hill, Stephenson and Granger, but that doesn't really do much for me.

I personally wouldn't deal Rondo to Indiana unless you can somehow get Paul George in return.

[Lucky17]

Granger out for three weeks to "rest his calf":

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/230452/Granger-Out-Three-Weeks-With-Strained-Left-Calf

[bdm860]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

[BballTim]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

  It's not really that similar to PP. The level of players added to our offense was significantly better than the level of players like West or George or Hibbert (2 seasons ago). The Celts scoring improved in spite of PP shooting less and Paul had (up to that point) his most efficient scoring season of his career. Granger's scoring went down, his shooting got worse, he's getting to the line less often in each of the last 4 seasons and the Pacers offense hasn't been getting better over that time period.

[Moranis]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

  It's not really that similar to PP. The level of players added to our offense was significantly better than the level of players like West or George or Hibbert (2 seasons ago). The Celts scoring improved in spite of PP shooting less and Paul had (up to that point) his most efficient scoring season of his career. Granger's scoring went down, his shooting got worse, he's getting to the line less often in each of the last 4 seasons and the Pacers offense hasn't been getting better over that time period.

sure KG and Allen are better than West, George, and Hibbert, but it still doesn't change the fact that West, George, and Hibbert are far greater than Dunleavy, Murphy, and Collison.  Granger's per36 shots are just about the same, his percentage dropped a bit (as did his minutes), but so did the entire offensive scheme.  He really isn't that much of a different player than he was.

[BballTim]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

  It's not really that similar to PP. The level of players added to our offense was significantly better than the level of players like West or George or Hibbert (2 seasons ago). The Celts scoring improved in spite of PP shooting less and Paul had (up to that point) his most efficient scoring season of his career. Granger's scoring went down, his shooting got worse, he's getting to the line less often in each of the last 4 seasons and the Pacers offense hasn't been getting better over that time period.

sure KG and Allen are better than West, George, and Hibbert, but it still doesn't change the fact that West, George, and Hibbert are far greater than Dunleavy, Murphy, and Collison.  Granger's per36 shots are just about the same, his percentage dropped a bit (as did his minutes), but so did the entire offensive scheme.  He really isn't that much of a different player than he was.

  Collison wasn't on the 08-09 team, TJ Ford was. The West/Hibbert/George group combined for 37.7 ppg on 54% TS%in 11/12, the Dunleavy/Murphy/Ford group went for 44.3 ppg on 56% TS% in 08/09. Granger's shots might not have dropped per36 but his scoring dropped by over 20% while the team's offense worsened. His TS% is going down every year. That kind of drop in production (when other players aren't picking up the slack) is far from usual when a player's in his mid-20s.

[chambers]

Good trade in theory.
I doubt they give up Mahinmi in any deal.
I also don't know if the Pacers would work well with Green and George as the starting duo.
Perhaps if you made Stephenson the starting SG and Green came in as 6th man to guard Lebron and score against weaker units.
They might be susceptible to losing Grangers 3 point shooting and defense on quick wings.
Granger is simply a better player than Green- even though he's injured they're better off taking the risk that he's healthy.

They'd be giving up a whole lot for a trade that may actually make them worse, whilst also losing a pick.
Can't see Pacers coming to the party unless we included Bradley or Brooks and even then it's probably a no.

[BballTim]

Good trade in theory.
I doubt they give up Mahinmi in any deal.
I also don't know if the Pacers would work well with Green and George as the starting duo.
Perhaps if you made Stephenson the starting SG and Green came in as 6th man to guard Lebron and score against weaker units.
They might be susceptible to losing Grangers 3 point shooting and defense on quick wings.
Granger is simply a better player than Green- even though he's injured they're better off taking the risk that he's healthy.

They'd be giving up a whole lot for a trade that may actually make them worse, whilst also losing a pick.
Can't see Pacers coming to the party unless we included Bradley or Brooks and even then it's probably a no.

  If Brooks could help facilitate any deal Danny wanted to make I'd expect him to be in that deal.

[fitzhickey]

Danny Granger injured again. Maybe he is slightly injury prone, and I don't want to give up Rondo for nothing.

I think we could get more back for Rondo

[Moranis]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

  It's not really that similar to PP. The level of players added to our offense was significantly better than the level of players like West or George or Hibbert (2 seasons ago). The Celts scoring improved in spite of PP shooting less and Paul had (up to that point) his most efficient scoring season of his career. Granger's scoring went down, his shooting got worse, he's getting to the line less often in each of the last 4 seasons and the Pacers offense hasn't been getting better over that time period.

sure KG and Allen are better than West, George, and Hibbert, but it still doesn't change the fact that West, George, and Hibbert are far greater than Dunleavy, Murphy, and Collison.  Granger's per36 shots are just about the same, his percentage dropped a bit (as did his minutes), but so did the entire offensive scheme.  He really isn't that much of a different player than he was.

  Collison wasn't on the 08-09 team, TJ Ford was. The West/Hibbert/George group combined for 37.7 ppg on 54% TS%in 11/12, the Dunleavy/Murphy/Ford group went for 44.3 ppg on 56% TS% in 08/09. Granger's shots might not have dropped per36 but his scoring dropped by over 20% while the team's offense worsened. His TS% is going down every year. That kind of drop in production (when other players aren't picking up the slack) is far from usual when a player's in his mid-20s.

Granger was still over 24 a game in 09/10, which is why I started in that year and not his 25.8 year of 08/09 (though that was his peak).  Also in 08/09 Indiana was nearly 7100 shots as a team, in 09/10 they were just over 6800 losing more than 250 shots on the season.  Dropped another 50 or shots in 10/11.  In the shortened season they dropped another shot per game and were on pace for just 6678 shots.  Last year they dropped again all the way down to 6525 (in large part because Granger by far their best scorer wasn't there).  So not only did Granger's teammates get better but the Pacer's total shots dropped significantly.  All easily explaining why Granger's totals dropped.

[BballTim]

No way the Pacers do that.

Take out Mahimi and it isnt all that bad. Pacers get three good role players who have played with playoff caliber legends. Green is better than Granger just due to health reasons alone. We get a boatload of cap space due to Granger and Humphries expirings.

Puts us in complete tank mode but really isnt all that bad.

Granger is a significantly better scorer than Green and that is what they need (Granger is also a better passer, better shot blocker, better steal generator, and they are similar rebounders).  And I'm confused where this notion that Granger is always hurt comes from.  Sure he only played 5 games last year, but aside from that he has been pretty darn healthy.  And it isn't like Granger is old as he is just 28.  Couple in their salaries and Granger is a far more valuable player than Green, and I don't think it is close.  The only way Green even sniffs Granger is if Granger doesn't recover from his injuries and regresses, something no one will really know until they really get going this year (the Pacers are being very cautious with Granger in the preseason, but he has played ok when out there).

  If you think that Granger's always been healthy, what do you attribute his fairly significant decline in production over the last few years to? Everything I've always heard said that it was health related, I'm pretty sure it was his knees. I mean, from looking at his numbers, he's already regressed quite a bit, wouldn't you agree?

I've seen this said before, but I've never really understood it.  Could you elaborate on this production drop?

I mean I always felt that his production drop seemed to be correlated to their wins and the addition/emergence of guys like Roy Hibbert, David West, and Paul George, along with a coaching change.

Per 36, as of 2012 he was still doing 20ppg, 5rp, 2apg, with his shooting numbers looking pretty consistent to me.  Nothing that I would call a significant decline.  I just always saw this similar to 2008 Pierce, when your team gets better, you get better teammates, your individual numbers may go down.

  It's not really that similar to PP. The level of players added to our offense was significantly better than the level of players like West or George or Hibbert (2 seasons ago). The Celts scoring improved in spite of PP shooting less and Paul had (up to that point) his most efficient scoring season of his career. Granger's scoring went down, his shooting got worse, he's getting to the line less often in each of the last 4 seasons and the Pacers offense hasn't been getting better over that time period.

sure KG and Allen are better than West, George, and Hibbert, but it still doesn't change the fact that West, George, and Hibbert are far greater than Dunleavy, Murphy, and Collison.  Granger's per36 shots are just about the same, his percentage dropped a bit (as did his minutes), but so did the entire offensive scheme.  He really isn't that much of a different player than he was.

  Collison wasn't on the 08-09 team, TJ Ford was. The West/Hibbert/George group combined for 37.7 ppg on 54% TS%in 11/12, the Dunleavy/Murphy/Ford group went for 44.3 ppg on 56% TS% in 08/09. Granger's shots might not have dropped per36 but his scoring dropped by over 20% while the team's offense worsened. His TS% is going down every year. That kind of drop in production (when other players aren't picking up the slack) is far from usual when a player's in his mid-20s.

Granger was still over 24 a game in 09/10, which is why I started in that year and not his 25.8 year of 08/09 (though that was his peak).  Also in 08/09 Indiana was nearly 7100 shots as a team, in 09/10 they were just over 6800 losing more than 250 shots on the season.  Dropped another 50 or shots in 10/11.  In the shortened season they dropped another shot per game and were on pace for just 6678 shots.  Last year they dropped again all the way down to 6525 (in large part because Granger by far their best scorer wasn't there).  So not only did Granger's teammates get better but the Pacer's total shots dropped significantly.  All easily explaining why Granger's totals dropped.

  Your decision to ignore his peak year when looking at his decline over time because "he was still pretty good the next year" seems awfully convenient to your argument and I don't see any other reason for it. All your discussion of the Pacers offense does is to confirm that the reason for Granger's decline isn't other players picking up the slack. When you talk about Granger's teammates getting better remember that he hardly played last season so we're looking at the seasons up to 11/12, George and Hibbert (about 12 ppg each) were hardly offensive juggernauts at the time.

  We're still looking at a player who's stats declined (on a per minute basis) pretty significantly when he was in his mid-20s at a time when no other above average scorers had really emerged on the team. Again, that's fairly unusual for top scorers.

[GMitchell]

I Like the trade, definitely think both teams make out well. Maybe we throw in Hump to help even it out.

[GMitchell]

I really like this deal, maybe take out the Indiana 1st rounder. Then swap Bradley for McLemore. Then trade Wallace and Hump for a late 1st.

Rondo
McLemore
Granger
Sully
Mahinmi

with Olynyk, Brooks, Pressey and Vitor off the bench. Not to mention your 1st rounder which would be atleast top 10. Then you'd have the pick you get for wallace and hump and brooklyn's which could be packaged to move into the top 3 if possible. Sounds solid to me. Add a solid free agent and you're back to a contender.