Because I covet Granger, I like to dream up ways to land him. Might Amare Stoudemire be a worthy substitution for him? If so, then I'd suggest a deal in which Amare goes to Indy, Granger comes to us (along with the terrible contracts of Murphy and Tinsley), and Phoenix gets RLEC, Outlaw, Batum, and Freeland (along with our 1st rd pick). Obviously we do the deal, and I think Indy would, so I guess the main question would be, is that enough cap space and young talent for PHX to make that deal?
Uh no. For one, Granger is worth more than Stoudemire. Second, Suns and Indy would just cut Portland out of the deal and the Suns would grab Granger. (That is assuming Indy covets Stoudemire more than Granger, which they don't)
Phoenix won't be trading Stoudemire unless they want to tremendously remake their roster from a financial perspective. I don't think that the Pacers are a team that they can deal with that will allow them to do that. If it's not about dollars and cents, the Suns will just keep Amare. Ed O.
The reason that both Indy and PHX would want us involved would be our ability to give RLEC to PHX, while taking Murphy/Tinsley from from IND. Those two, and the approx $45M they're owed over the next 2.4 years more than make up the difference in value between Amare and Granger.
Granger is a better player than Stoudemire, plus he's locked in for the next few years whereas Amare could easily bolt in 2010. Indy isn't giving up their franchise player just to dump Tinsley. BTW, Murphy is a useful player, even if he's a bit overpaid. Think of it this way: If Raef had 3 years left on his gargantuan contract, would you trade Roy just to dump him? (And keep in mind, Tinsley's contract isn't as bad as Raef's in this situation) And then, Phoenix wouldn't do it. You're going to have to add at least Rudy to get them talking.
Also, the Pacers are recovering from their own "jailblazer" era, and so they aren't going to want to replace good-guy-granger with not-exactly-sweet-little-Amare. I'd love Granger, but I don't think he's going anywhere. barfo
Better comparison might be Zach, if he were still on our roster but not playing (since Tinsley has basically been given the Terrell-Owens-in-Philly treatment); and to make the situations comparable, Rudy would have to have had a few years in the league and have proven himself capable of starting (as Dunleavy has for Indy). So, IF all that were true, and I could trade Roy and Zach for an inferior-to-Roy-but-still-perennial-all-star player in his prime at my team's greatest position of need--Harris at PG, perhaps?--then I'd seriously consider it. If I had to choose between a Blake/Roy backcourt, or a Harris/Rudy one, and the latter saves my team money, then I probably take door #2.
Well, Harris doesn't have the chance to bolt like Amare does. Anyways, I wouldn't consider it. And history shows that you'd be best served keeping your franchise player.
How about J-Smoove? http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...795&teams=22~22~22~1~22~21~21~21~21&te=&cash=
This would be like the birth of Jesus, but with Jesus on steroids, and I mean the really good steroids.
I think that's a pretty clear case of false choice. The team is in no way restricted to either Harris/Rudy or just Blake/Roy; KP has options. I'm guessing that if the Blazers were really committed to getting a decent upgrade to Blake/Sergio/Bayless at the one, then they do have the combination of expiring contracts and young talent to go out and get somebody to improve the back-court to at least some degree -- the cost would vary depending on the target, but for instance, if they really wanted to make a play for Ramon Sessions this summer (a restricted FA) they are going to have somewhere around 8-15 million of cap room to make him an offer; while it's no guarantee you'll get him or that the Bucks won't match, he'd be worth a shot. Plus, there will always be trade opportunities this summer to take back more salary than the team sends out so teams that are looking to shed superfluous guys (like Hinrich perhaps?) so opportunities to improve might come up through that avenue too. But under no circumstances should Roy be considered tradeable, unless the first name of the player coming back has "LeBron" or "Dwayne" in it.
Make it so! That is not only a really nice balance offensively and defensively, it also still leaves us with a seriously good bench that can score and defend.
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...3025~2753~1026&teams=30~30~30~22~22&te=&cash= (pipe dream since the Bobcats would almost certainly not go for it).
http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...1981~3028~3030&teams=4~4~4~22~22~22&te=&cash= not sure if bulls would like it
