On the Danny Granger report

A report from Sam Amico has made the rounds alluding to a purported interest by the Rockets in one Danny Granger of the Indiana Pacers.  States Amico:

Houston is one team reported to have a keen eye on Indiana forward Danny Granger. The Pacers aren’t totally against keeping the 29-year-old forward, who has missed all of the season with a knee injury. But following the emergence of All-Star Paul George, they are taking and making exploratory calls.

A deal for Granger would fit the same rationale as would one for Pau Gasol: he expires in the summer of 2014.  An acquisition of either forward would not be with the intent of landing ‘the final fit.’  It would be with the hope of upgrading the team in the interim and making it appear an attractive destination when bigger names become available.  Lebron James can become a free agent in 2014; Kevin Love in 2015.

As I’ve stated before, the Rockets have a few choices.  They can splurge now–or this summer–on the lines of Josh Smith or Paul Millsap .  Such an acquisition would upgrade the team but lock it in indefinitely with little flexibility for future change.  They can stay put and save their pennies, hoping to see what comes of their promising rookies while they wait until 2014.  Or, they can make a Gasol type rental as a placeholder until they find the player they really want.  (There is of course the Dwight Howard/Chris Paul route which is perhaps too unlikely to list as a viable option.)

Granger would seem to fit the Rockets offense beautifully.  A career 38% 3-point shooter, he’d benefit directly from the open looks created by guard James Harden.

The question becomes one of how much it would take to get the Pacers to bite.  We just saw Memphis struggle to unload a healthy, 26-year-old Rudy Gay, settling for the promise of Ed Davis.  Houston can offer Indiana savings and one of its rookie forwards.  If the Pacers asked for Chandler Parsons, Daryl Morey would likely walk away.

This seems a situation where, as always, Rockets management has gone bargain hunting, looking to cash in on other team’s financial problems.  Morey will get what he can, but he won’t overpay.  But the important thing to remember is that, if added, Granger wouldn’t be serving as “the final piece.”  He’d be a two year rental to upgrade the team until the guys they really want next to Harden become available.

View this discussion from the forum.

This entry was posted in news&links. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
Login to leave a comment.
Total comments: Merged
  • rockets best fan says 1 month ago I've soaked in all the pro's and con's and remain convinced any trade for granger is a bad move for the rockets. he is not enough of an upgrade at SF over parsons. and like phaketrash said we would be paying 12 mil more for the minor upgrade. that's not how you build winning teams. some of you want to spend our cap space so fast like it's burning a hole in our pockets. gasol, granger, KG, milsap, smith........none of them are the answer to cap space question. any of these teams would love to get their hand on the rockets young assets.I can't believe most of you want to send these assets to teams in our conf. we will never beat the elite teams if we give them top talent to restock on. we may be getting a short term fix, but the team we trade with is getting long term top talent. some of you will say I have overvalued our rooks......I don't think so. if we give any of these players away t jones, d-mo, greg smith, they may come bac to haunt us. I am against any trade that includes one of them without netting us a star for now and the future
  • phaketrash says 1 month ago

    feelingsupersonic, on 05 February 2013 - 18:54 PM said:

    I actually don't overvalue or undervalue Parsons at all in my opinion. I know all about his contract and the value there. I love his overachieving tendencies and the high motor on the court. What I value about Parsons more than anything else though is his team first mentality. His mindset and approach to team basketball is of the highest order and a crucial building block when building a winning culture (see guys like Sefolosha and Collison, Haslem, any number of Spurs players).

    Maybe, but then are you overvaluing Granger? My point was that Granger might beat out Parsons, right now in a vacuum, by a bit, but that it definitely IS close. I just don't see why he'd be obviously superior by that much (even setting aside the nagging issues of age and injuries).

    That being said, I also know you said you believe Parsons is a better fit for our team right now, etc., and we're in agreement there. This is a rather moot point I'm making haha.

    Sure would have been nice if Granger could rebound a bit more and play the 4. Or if Parsons could actually play the 4 for extended periods of time.
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Most compelling argument for Granger so far. I can't disagree with too much of what you state. Still, I think Parsons is still on an upswing while Granger is almost definitely on a downswing (and how far down is yet to be determined. He has declined the last 4 years and now has the injury to contend with. Plus, I would throw a fit if we traded Jones/motie/morris for him and they go on to bloom in Indiana.
  • feelingsupersonic says 1 month ago I actually don't overvalue or undervalue Parsons at all in my opinion. I know all about his contract and the value there. I love his overachieving tendencies and the high motor on the court. What I value about Parsons more than anything else though is his team first mentality. His mindset and approach to team basketball is of the highest order and a crucial building block when building a winning culture (see guys like Sefolosha and Collison, Haslem, any number of Spurs players).
  • Chichos says 1 month ago A couple of thoughts on Granger:

    First he is better than Parsons offensively (I compared Granger's last season stats to Parson's stats from this season using basketball reference. I broke out the frequency at which the players scored a certain number of points in any game, which is more useful for showing how a player scores over a period of time. I did not remove any outliers in minutes played.)

    Granger scores more then 12 points a game in roughly 82% of the games he played. In almost 1/3 of his games he scores 17 to 21 points and in 50% of his games he is good for 17-27 points. He also scores 27+ in 10% of his games. (His scoring histogram is actually really close to being normally distributed.)
    Parsons scores less then 12 points a game in 39% of his games this season. He also scores 12 to 19 points in 39% of his games and more then 19 in 20% of his games. (Parson's scoring distribution chart is all up and down underlining his inconsistency.)

    The takeaway is that Granger gives you consistent scoring even as the focal of the opposing team's defense. Parsons gives you a lot of inconsistency even as the 2nd or 3rd focus of the opposing team's defense.

    Granger is the primary defender of Lebron James when the Heat and Pacers play. So he isn't a minus defensively. He is not a stopper because of his offensive load, but gives quality team D. Parsons probably gets the nod on defense since he is asked to use less energy on the offensive end.

    Granger immediately gives us a borderline all star that can hit threes, drive and kick, and play small ball four for stretches. Parsons gives us less of those same things, especially the borderline all star.

    If acquired he will take even more of Lin's touches. I would way rather see Harden Granger pick and rolls over Lin Harden ones and I'm pretty sure the coaching staff would agree. More spot up Lin would be a very bad thing.

    Granger will be paid 13 mil a year until the end of next season. While it's not a bad contract, it's not exactly a discount for a 29 year old wing coming off a knee injury.

    Granger doesn't get us to a Championship. Even if we play Parsons and Granger together for serious minutes (giving us Lin, Harden, Parsons, Granger, Asik as our best 5 man unit.) I don't think we have the talent to beat San Antonio or OKC in seven games.

    Unless Indiana is taking Lin or Asik the Rockets would have to give up 3 players to make the math work. I used Delfino, Patterson and Motie (Parsons salary is so small it makes it hard to structure a trade featuring him; a Delfino, Aldrich, Parsons for Granger trade is about it). I figured Indiana would want a wing replacement (Stephenson at the 2 is garbage) and a future 4 to replace West when the time comes.

    Bottom line
    I like the trade if we keep Parsons and can talk them into taking only one of Motie/Jones/Morris. Scoring wings are the future of the league and this would give Houston two good to great ones. Losing Delfino hurts, but I think staggering the minutes so either Granger or Harden are the focal point of the offense more then makes up for it.

  • timetodienow1234567 says 1 month ago

    phaketrash, on 05 February 2013 - 18:15 PM said:


    Speaking of the Pau deal, would you do one centered around Lin? No Parsons or Asik included, but anything else could be game.

    You forgot to mention that Harden wouldn't be involved.
  • phaketrash says 1 month ago @Rahat

    Speaking of the Pau deal, would you do one centered around Lin? No Parsons or Asik included, but anything else could be game.

    edit: lol and as timetodie points out, excluding Harden too, of course :P
  • phaketrash says 1 month ago @timetodie: I had mentioned a deal for Pau centered around Lin awhile back, and it looked similar to that, except no Parsons. I walk if Parsons or Asik is included. LAL would do that deal any day with Parsons in it, but I wouldn't. I think the league and you and supersonic might be UNDERvaluing Parsons. It isn't just his skill you have to consider -- his contract matters a lot. It allows us to build a much more competitive team in 2014 (before it expires) because his contract essentially doesn't count against the cap. For what we get, at $900k, that's like filling a starting position for free. That is one of our biggest assets in making a championship caliber team.

    And Granger is better than Parsons now, but not by much imo. Let's look at the stats. Granger last regular season on 62 games, 33 mpg, shot 42% on 15 FGA; 38% 3P% on 5 3PA; 87% on 5 FTA; 5 rebounds a game, almost 2 assists, half a block, 1 steal, 2 TOs, and 18.7 PPG as the primary scorer on his team.

    Comparatively, Parsons this season at 36 mpg is shooting 47% on 12 FGA; 36% on 3P% on 5 3PA; 76% on 2 FTA; 6 rebounds a game; 3.6 APG; half a block, 1 steal, 2 TOs and 14.4 PPG as an option behind Harden.

    I have a hard time seeing where Granger is obviously better than Parsons in such a way that it'd be any significant improvement. Given the same FGA, their PPG would be more in line. A lot of stats are a wash. Granger draws fouls better and completes them slightly better, but also rebounds worse. Factor in his recent surgery and his age (vs. Parsons), and I'm already hesitant. Remember the fact that we'd be paying $12M MORE to acquire him is just....

    Maybe it is stuff he does off the ball; I don't know Granger well. I know Parsons is great off the ball, so I don't see Granger as that much better. Defense? They seem about equivalent. I hate to steal a quote from someone on clutchfans, but this Pacers fan gave a very good run down on Granger's game:

    "You all know Granger is a great shooter of course. That's where he makes his money. Jump shots, three's and Granger is decent at getting to the line. Not anywhere near someone like Harden, but he's not frightened of contact like Rudy Gay for instance.

    Granger can play the 4 no problem defensively but the problem is his rebounding. Granger certainly has the ability to rebound because of his strenth but like many poor rebounders he tends to ball watch while the opposing player gets position on him. It is why he can't spend any signifigant time at the four.

    They could run a few lineups with him at the four but not prolonged. An example of Danny's success at the four was in a game last season versus the Knicks. The Knicks had 'Melo at the 4 and he just destroyed West all game. On the other end Carmelo had the strenth and size to handle West, so the matchup ended up being a nightmare. BY the 4th the game was over. Vogel switched Granger to the 4, and it immediately turned the game around. Granger dropped 16, defended Carmelo fine, held his own on the boards and the Pacers ended up winning the game droping 40 points in the 4th. That type of thing could work. Had it gone on the whole game tho, I think the Knicks would of found a way to crash the boards and really caused the Pacers some major problems.

    Granger is a poor ball handler who likes to go right. He's sure with the ball over and will the rarely turn it over unless he gets called for an offensive foul. He likes to lead with his forearm sometimes and once smaller players are basically stiff armed in the ground officials usually call it. (you laugh but he gets away with it a lot, kind of ridiculous I think it is a foul everytime and if I was an opposing fan I'd throw a ****fit).

    Granger is also a poor passer. He'll never be the guy finding the open man. However, Granger is very unselfish and likes to get other players involved. So it's strictly a problem with him being an untalented passer versus selfish.

    Granger's defense is "good" in the strict sense of the word. He has very good footwork, long arms (he'll block a shot now and then) and quick hands. His speed is his biggest problem. He's probably the slowest SF in the league. His footwork allows him to compensate somewhat, but that's how you'll see him get beat. Either off crossovers, slow rotations, or slow recovery time to open shooters. His strength is his best asset as it keeps driving opponents from creating space and he rarely ever gets posted up. And when they do they're never successful.

    Granger is also a good 4th quarter performer having hit big shots his entire career. He doesn't have a lot of fame for this because he just never had any business being a number one scorer. He always should have been a number two, playing off of someone more dynamic such as Harden. In Houston, you'd see him hit a lot of big shots playing off of Harden. Harden would like Granger.

    Granger is no stat stuffer, just a scorer and defender. Nothing special, but a very solid asset that would make the Houston much better." --mattie

    He sounds like a MUCH more expensive, older, injured version of Parsons to me lol.
  • timetodienow1234567 says 1 month ago What do you think about Lin/Aldrich/Jones/Parsons for Gasol? I think LAL makes that move every day. They get a backup point and a quality SF who can spread the floor. I don't know if Houston makes that move though.
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Probably true....but ya never know....
  • timetodienow1234567 says 1 month ago Of that list, only Mahinmi and JJ Hickson would be available. Also Hickson is balling. They might end up keeping him. I like Mahinmi though. He could be had for cheap. Especially since he plays behind Hibbert/West/Hansborough.
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Regarding the above, I am not advocating draining our cap space for any of those guys....but if we can get one at an average to below average price I think it would help our team a lot.

    Eric Bledsoe? YES!!! My concern is what LA wants for him....probably 20 other teams willing to bid on him....it's a seller's market and I don't think Morey will push all in for him.
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago

    sircharles, on 05 February 2013 - 16:32 PM said:

    then what should we use our cap space to upgrade? if we dont want to stunt the growth of our 3 and 4.....

    thejohnnygold, on 05 February 2013 - 16:43 PM said:

    Well, I like the idea of a strong defensive SG a la Courtney Lee. I am not sold on any of our back-up PG's yet. We also don't have a great back-up center. There are a lot of young, athletic bigs out there right now on mediocre teams....one of them might be willing to ship one out if they don't fit their philosophy/scheme.

    a list of young centers I would like to pry from other teams:
    Larry Sanders
    Andre Drummond
    Greg monroe
    Ian Mahinmi
    Trey Thompkins
    JJ Hickson

    We can pick up a veteran PG to back up the starter once we get closer to contention--presuming we haven't developed one from within.

    James Anderson is not going to be a defensive star at the 2 for us...I still like him as an offensive threat assuming he figures it out, but would also like to get a 2 that can play alongside Lin/Harden and shut down his guy for 5-10 minutes at a time. Not sure who that is....Royal Ivey (ex-longhorn) has made a career out of that specialty.
  • feelingsupersonic says 1 month ago I kind of share some similar views to you rockets best fan though I wouldn't call Gasol a washed up veteran. Although like Rahat already stated I don't believe a Gasol trade is feasible. I would love to get Bledsoe in a Rockets uniform and can only imagine what some Harden/Bledsoe versus Durant/Westbrook matchups would be like.

    Back to the original point of this topic, I don't think most of us like Granger for the Rockets and in reality this trade probably won't happen right. I think another team will give up more than Morey is willing to part with.
  • rockets best fan says 1 month ago

    sircharles, on 05 February 2013 - 16:32 PM said:

    then what should we use our cap space to upgrade? if we dont want to stunt the growth of our 3 and 4.....
    just because we have cap space doesn't mean we should be in a rush to spend it. nothing that is available right now is enough of an upgrade for us to lock ourselfs in for the next couple of years. both j smith or milsap can be had at seasons end without giving up any assets. if I was going to pursue someone I would go after bledsoe from the clippers. we need help at point guard. since it appears the clippers may listen to offers for him he would be an upgrade at a position we need and fitts in with our long term growth. I am against bringing in any old past their prime washed up vets for short term help. I don't want a bandaid. we need to continue the youth movement.
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Well, I like the idea of a strong defensive SG a la Courtney Lee. I am not sold on any of our back-up PG's yet. We also don't have a great back-up center. There are a lot of young, athletic bigs out there right now on mediocre teams....one of them might be willing to ship one out if they don't fit their philosophy/scheme.
  • sircharles says 1 month ago then what should we use our cap space to upgrade? if we dont want to stunt the growth of our 3 and 4.....
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Also, remember this: if we bring in a veteran at SF or PF it will stunt the growth and evaluation of the players we are developing. To me that is a high cost for little gain. Very few players come into the league and just start lighting it up. Year 3 is when you really know what you've got and most of the roster is under that benchmark.
  • Rahat Huq says 1 month ago phaketrash: I agree in preferring Pau. But not sure that is feasible.
  • timetodienow1234567 says 1 month ago I agree feelingsupersonic, it's a risk with Granger's injuries. But we need to cash in on Parsons soon unless you think he can get good enough to shut down KD/LBJ/Melo? He's not a bad player and he could be a good role player on a championship team, but I just don't see superstar potential there. I think he can grow into a 2 or 3-time all star down the road if he continues to improve. I just don't see him as one of the core guys to win a championship. I do think Pau could really help us, but with his price tag of 19 mil it's not worth it to give up so much in assets for him. Granger would help us, but I don't think he makes us a championship contender, so it's probably better to stay put. But we SHOULD make at least a few moves. We have several expiring contracts, Cole Aldrich, Toney Douglas, Delfino(although I hope we keep him). We could get back a decent player for teams doing a salary dump since we also have several million in cap space.
  • feelingsupersonic says 1 month ago You are right timetodie in these parts Parsons gets a little overvalued and Granger is definitely better than Parsons for now. Saying all that within the context of the situation I am not convinced adding Granger is in the teams best interest long term. Sure in a vacuum Granger is better than Parsons and it's not even close but in reality Parsons is the better fit for this team in the short term and long term, just my two cents.
  • Alituro says 1 month ago 2 or 3 years ago I would have jumped on an opportunity to get Granger. Now, with Harden on board and the emergence of Asik, and the surprise, outstanding development of Parsons, I'd pass, even if just for a rental. I don't buy into, well, we have it, might as well spend it. Granger would handicap us defensively too much IMO, where we're already in the bottom of the league anyway. The choices here are a 29 year old former all star on the decline or a second year guy continually on the up and up. With the current situation we're in I'm taking the latter, if we were trying to win it all this year, then the former.
  • timetodienow1234567 says 1 month ago Granger > Parsons. I know Parsons is great dollar for dollar, but don't kid yourself that he's as good as Granger. He's getting better, though. But for this season and probably next season, Granger is a better player than Parsons. I like Parsons a lot and hope that we keep him, but I think you're overvaluing him a tad.
  • phaketrash says 1 month ago I've always liked the rental idea as much as (maybe more than?) the staying pat w/ salary cap idea, and both those ideas beat out giving up our 2014/2015 flexibility for JSmoove or the like. This fits in the Pau strategy, as Rahat mentioned, but seems to bring a little less to our team (for a little less $).

    Would Parsons be our 6th man off the bench? If the season weren't already over half done, he'd give Crawford and co. a run for best 6th man money :P Would he spend some time at the 4 and bulk up? Both?

    Not as hot on this trade now since I see it do what a move for Pau would, but for much less. SF is great already, Granger doesn't add anything to our team but $$$. At least Pau added a post game and upgrade at the 4. Of course, Pau would not be a cheap trade. If we got Granger for Delfino, 2Pat/MM, +expiring, would you do it? How about if we threw in one of TJones/DMo?
  • rockets best fan says 1 month ago danny granger...............NOOOOOOOOOOO! even though granger has had the reputation of a star for the last few years he has never appeared dominant to me(especially playing in the east aka least comf.). he (IMO) is not enough of an upgrade over parson for us to pursue him. he shoots a little better, but his defense is a couple of levels below parsons. unless we can get him for royce white I would pass. he simply doesn't bring enough to the table (IMO).
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago Rahat, your point is well stated that acquiring Granger wouldn't cost much (Morey wouldn't do it if it did) and times out well for future free agency flexibility. Yet, I am very apprehensive as Granger plays SF--a position we are fairly comfortable with at the moment. Parsons obviously is entrenched as the starter for the foreseeable future. Delfino is more efficient as a 3-pt. threat and comfortable with his role as the back-up/specialist.

    Granger's numbers have steadily declined over the past few seasons and now he carries the burden of a surgically repaired knee. Personally, I do not see the advantage of acquiring him unless we can sneak Ian Mahinmi into the deal....He is buried behind Hibbert on the depth chart, but at 6' 11" and 230 lbs that lithe frame could serve as an excellent weakside defender at the PF and receiver of easy lob pass dunks when Harden/Lin drive as well as an upgrade at back-up center over Aldrich. He has 4 years left on his contract in the $4 million range--not bad at all if he ends up being useful.
  • Red94 says 1 month ago New post: On the Danny Granger report
  • sircharles says 1 month ago im with jonnygold. i like granger but if he cant stay healthy he is no good to us. IF he is healthy id gladly take him, he would make us a lot better. His fg% has been dropping yearly but its still pretty high and he can score from anywhere. He also isnt very good on the defensive end so that would be a con. Decent rebounder. i dunno, i still like him and that would make it so he couldnt torch the rockets anymore(which he always does)
  • thejohnnygold says 1 month ago It really depends on who we part with....we don't know how his knee is going to be moving forward. Will he be as mobile? He's 29 with a bum knee....I would need to feel really good about that first. If the knee is bad he is just a spot-up 3-pt shooter that would be way-overpaid. We already have a good one in Delfino for $3 million.
  • sircharles says 1 month ago http://www.foxsportsohio.com/02/04/13/NBA-Report-Ferry-all-the-potential-trade/msn_landing.html?blockID=858721&feedID=3725

    thats the only link i found, and that was via hoopshype.

    since the rockets are well below the salary cap they wouldnt HAVE to give up the equivelant to granger as far as salary goes, they can afford to take on a big contract and give up less.
  • Rahat Huq says 1 month ago link?
  • Subscribe to our Newsletter

    To have our posts sent to your inbox, simply add your email below.


  • All-time Keepers

    A collection of our best from over the years.
  • Categories

Read previous post:
Reading the Trade Deadline Tea Leaves
The Daily Blast – February 4, 2013
Houston Rockets 109, Charlotte Bobcats 95 – Rockets made to work hard for their win