Granger Joins Wolves

Lifelong Pacer no more. Ballers Inc. announced Sunday night that their client Danny Granger has agreed to a 4 year contract with the Minnesota Timberwolves. The contract will total $38 million for approximately $9.5 million per season.

"This move is what made the most sense for myself, my career and my family. I want to thank the Pacers organization for an incredible nine years that I will always cherish, but it's time to begin a new chapter in my career, and I'm thrilled to do that here in Minnesota."

Granger averaged 13.1 points last season, lowest since his rookie season.

Wow. So glad I don't have to play against MIN that often.

Well done Jake. Great offseason for you.

With Bogut, nice off season. Your only concern is in 3 seasons assuming Parsons and Love get extensions/contracts. You'll have 4 guys taking up nearly all your cap and that's without a McLemore extension. A fair way off I guess though.

bt (TOR) wrote:With Bogut, nice off season. Your only concern is in 3 seasons assuming Parsons and Love get extensions/contracts. You'll have 4 guys taking up nearly all your cap and that's without a McLemore extension. A fair way off I guess though.

Yeah, you're right, finances could be a problem down the road. But in our case, our cap space was use it or lose it. We can go over the cap to resign Parsons, but we can't re-sign Parsons and then go and get free agents. This was the only way I thought we could contend with the big boys out west.

Nice pick up Minny.

Nice pickup for Minny. We were locked into a bidding war, but in the end, Granger simply wasn't willing to take any sort of pay cut to play for us and $9.5M was simply too much for us to pay.

Very nice signing Jake, gotta see how the PT situation is handled between Parsons and Granger though.

A+ offseason man.

Like that signing..
I was interested in Granger also but of course didn't have the money to sign him.
Your team looks promising Jake. Looking foward to play against you, we match up really well.

I wasn't expecting Minny to land Granger tbh.

I really think both Parsons and him deserve starting roles, so can't quite see them both sharing the minutes. I guess Danny was offered the starting position, and if that's at least +32/34 minutes it's going to be a real decrese for Parsons, who remember was named in the top5 SF this past season.

Don't get me wrong, I like both players, it's only that I would've liked to see them both as big time starters, performing as I know they're able to.

Granger would have been perfect on my roster but wasn't in my price range unfortunately. Great pickup and Minnesota is looking great!

another great addition - the bench now looks really good with Granger... Congrats on great offseason

good pickup. even at his age he still has good ratings and will be a quality player.

Jamal (NYK) wrote:I wasn't expecting Minny to land Granger tbh.

I really think both Parsons and him deserve starting roles, so can't quite see them both sharing the minutes. I guess Danny was offered the starting position, and if that's at least +32/34 minutes it's going to be a real decrese for Parsons, who remember was named in the top5 SF this past season.

Don't get me wrong, I like both players, it's only that I would've liked to see them both as big time starters, performing as I know they're able to.

I actually named Granger the 6th man when pitching to Ballers.

And too much talent is probably the best problem you can have, haha.

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:

Jamal (NYK) wrote:I wasn't expecting Minny to land Granger tbh.

I really think both Parsons and him deserve starting roles, so can't quite see them both sharing the minutes. I guess Danny was offered the starting position, and if that's at least +32/34 minutes it's going to be a real decrese for Parsons, who remember was named in the top5 SF this past season.

Don't get me wrong, I like both players, it's only that I would've liked to see them both as big time starters, performing as I know they're able to.

I actually named Granger the 6th man when pitching to Ballers.

And too much talent is probably the best problem you can have, haha.

I had a big problem with too much talent last year that cost me a good few games... Lillard and Tyreke (two dominant handlers and high usage players) could not co-exist on the court together. Their numbers were great, at some point I had Tyreke averaging 25-6-6 but this did not translate into W's for the team. Closer to the end of the season, I had to reduce Tyreke's mins to below 20 because it just wasn't working out. This helped us win some games as we knew exactly who the Big Kahuna is on the court and there were no concerns over sharing the ball etc. In a sense we needed people to play a role instead of being a star...

His efficiency and age are troubling to me, I'm surprised he got that much for that long TBH.

IND should've tried to retain him regardless IMO. They have a great cap situation and they can't afford to lose talent with LeBron now on board I think.

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:

Jamal (NYK) wrote:I wasn't expecting Minny to land Granger tbh.

I really think both Parsons and him deserve starting roles, so can't quite see them both sharing the minutes. I guess Danny was offered the starting position, and if that's at least +32/34 minutes it's going to be a real decrese for Parsons, who remember was named in the top5 SF this past season.

Don't get me wrong, I like both players, it's only that I would've liked to see them both as big time starters, performing as I know they're able to.

I actually named Granger the 6th man when pitching to Ballers.

And too much talent is probably the best problem you can have, haha.

I thought he was offered the starting SF job cause I now there were teams offering it, but I guess they didn't offer that much money and Danny might prefer the dollars to the playing time. But it doesn't change my point, cause Chandler or him are going to be moved to a second unit role/minutes, and to me it's sad to see them perform below their possibilities. I know what Parsons can do as an starter (and still improving), but a guy like Granger can still be the top scorer on a team given the chance and the minutes, so was just saying that.

But it also happen to me with my team, I wasn't trying to criticize you Jake. Myselft I had Asik play backup C minutes when we acquired McGee, and it hurt me a lot cause he's starting C material as he proved. I made him play 22+ minutes as a backup, but still wasn't feeling good about it.
Same with Budinger, and that's why I tend to use players in multiple rotations when I have what I consider a great backup, just to make him as much as I can.
I love seeing players overperform, and hate when the opposite happens, but even/specially on my own team.

I was surprised by you signing Danny, but that's all. Your explanation of having a great rotation is as legit as anyone, or even better, consider that you'll probably have a better chance of being successful with a guy like him off the bench   

Although my personal opinion might be more like what andrei explained, but I have to admit I might be biased there, cause as I just told I don't like seeing players of a certain level underperform, or maybe better not getting as much production as I personally think they could.

Jamal (NYK) wrote:

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:

Jamal (NYK) wrote:I wasn't expecting Minny to land Granger tbh.

I really think both Parsons and him deserve starting roles, so can't quite see them both sharing the minutes. I guess Danny was offered the starting position, and if that's at least +32/34 minutes it's going to be a real decrese for Parsons, who remember was named in the top5 SF this past season.

Don't get me wrong, I like both players, it's only that I would've liked to see them both as big time starters, performing as I know they're able to.

I actually named Granger the 6th man when pitching to Ballers.

And too much talent is probably the best problem you can have, haha.

I thought he was offered the starting SF job cause I now there were teams offering it, but I guess they didn't offer that much money and Danny might prefer the dollars to the playing time. But it doesn't change my point, cause Chandler or him are going to be moved to a second unit role/minutes, and to me it's sad to see them perform below their possibilities. I know what Parsons can do as an starter (and still improving), but a guy like Granger can still be the top scorer on a team given the chance and the minutes, so was just saying that.

But it also happen to me with my team, I wasn't trying to criticize you Jake. Myselft I had Asik play backup C minutes when we acquired McGee, and it hurt me a lot cause he's starting C material as he proved. I made him play 22+ minutes as a backup, but still wasn't feeling good about it.
Same with Budinger, and that's why I tend to use players in multiple rotations when I have what I consider a great backup, just to make him as much as I can.
I love seeing players overperform, and hate when the opposite happens, but even/specially on my own team.

I was surprised by you signing Danny, but that's all. Your explanation of having a great rotation is as legit as anyone, or even better, consider that you'll probably have a better chance of being successful with a guy like him off the bench   

Although my personal opinion might be more like what andrei explained, but I have to admit I might be biased there, cause as I just told I don't like seeing players of a certain level underperform, or maybe better not getting as much production as I personally think they could.

Well I think you are really hating to see that I have Hibbert off the bench for Howard hahahaha

That happens man, as Jake said, the best problem you can have while running a team is too much talent at some position while having talent at the others also.

Jamal (NYK) wrote:

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:

I actually named Granger the 6th man when pitching to Ballers.

And too much talent is probably the best problem you can have, haha.

I thought he was offered the starting SF job cause I now there were teams offering it, but I guess they didn't offer that much money and Danny might prefer the dollars to the playing time. But it doesn't change my point, cause Chandler or him are going to be moved to a second unit role/minutes, and to me it's sad to see them perform below their possibilities. I know what Parsons can do as an starter (and still improving), but a guy like Granger can still be the top scorer on a team given the chance and the minutes, so was just saying that.

But it also happen to me with my team, I wasn't trying to criticize you Jake. Myselft I had Asik play backup C minutes when we acquired McGee, and it hurt me a lot cause he's starting C material as he proved. I made him play 22+ minutes as a backup, but still wasn't feeling good about it.
Same with Budinger, and that's why I tend to use players in multiple rotations when I have what I consider a great backup, just to make him as much as I can.
I love seeing players overperform, and hate when the opposite happens, but even/specially on my own team.

I was surprised by you signing Danny, but that's all. Your explanation of having a great rotation is as legit as anyone, or even better, consider that you'll probably have a better chance of being successful with a guy like him off the bench   

Although my personal opinion might be more like what andrei explained, but I have to admit I might be biased there, cause as I just told I don't like seeing players of a certain level underperform, or maybe better not getting as much production as I personally think they could.

Yeah absolutely, I hear what you're saying. It's going to be tough finding enough minutes for all my wing players while keeping their production up, and I don't know if I can do it, but I'm definitely going to try.

And with Danny being 6'9", I may even try him out at PF (not sure how well DeShaun Thomas will work out anyway) as an undersized PF. I think he's got the ability to do that. And who knows, maybe he gets some spot shooting guard minutes.

Either way, it's extremely valuable to have a wing coming off the bench that can just as easily take over the starting role. Few teams have the luxury to do that.

Marcos_Beck (OKC) wrote:Well I think you are really hating to see that I have Hibbert off the bench for Howard hahahaha

That happens man, as Jake said, the best problem you can have while running a team is too much talent at some position while having talent at the others also.

We'll, not really hating. I guess most of the league thinks Hibbert is starting material, yourself the first  

But I bet we won't see both Roy and Dwight finishing the season with the Thunder. You just got Hibbert via trade as part of the value. Although I understand it's preferable to keep them both instead of selling anyone low in a rush  

Of course. As long as my starting 5 does not have any BIG HUGE hole, I'm not in a rush to trade Hibbert. Specially when I can package him + another start for an upgrade.. That would be very nice..

Jake0890 (MIN) wrote:Yeah absolutely, I hear what you're saying. It's going to be tough finding enough minutes for all my wing players while keeping their production up, and I don't know if I can do it, but I'm definitely going to try.

And with Danny being 6'9", I may even try him out at PF (not sure how well DeShaun Thomas will work out anyway) as an undersized PF. I think he's got the ability to do that. And who knows, maybe he gets some spot shooting guard minutes.

Either way, it's extremely valuable to have a wing coming off the bench that can just as easily take over the starting role. Few teams have the luxury to do that.

The best thing about it is that you could be even welcoming injuries, as you've got players able to step up big time  
But look out, it might be hard to sit one or the other after you see them both perform