If we trade a lottery pick for Jerami Grant we are truly stupid.

[SharpesTriumph]

I don't agree with it either, but if he's the best talent available for pick 9-10 it's kind of hard to justify not trading at least one of them for some immediate help given our timeline (Dame).

Timeline for what, to be a play in team?

Trading our best young draft assets in nearly a decade for Grant isn't going to get the Blazers anywhere close to contending. I agree with the OP; if its an allstar talent maybe there is an argument it is worth the risk of youth. However, the shitty Detroit Pistons have won more games without Grant than with him. I'm not sure Grant is even worth his current salary, much less the huge max contract he wants, plus you want to give up a lottery pick?

That strategy or roster building and terrible talent accumulation basically guarantees this Blazers team will be farther away from contending then if they do no trades at all. Dame's timeline doesn't matter when the roster needs multiple move, and likely multiple years, to acquire talent in order to win.

The answer to the problem of little winning talent on Dame's timeline, is certainly not to lose talent in bad trades. Maybe the Blazers won't contend if they keep their lottery picks. However; they certainly won't contend by giving lottery picks away for aging veterans with limitations to their games on huge max contracts.

 

[illmatic99]

Most of those seem to either be transition plays or recoveries after he had been beaten or picked off on the perimeter. Honestly not the greatest indicator of the kind of defense I'm really looking for out of a forward we might acquire with a lottery pick.

By almost every defensive metric, grant is either average or below average. I think he's a theoretical 3&d wing more than that guy in reality.

I wanna trade that second pick, but for someone better than JG.

 

[Mediocre Man]

No. Maybe 14ish

 

[Predator]

I keep seeing this on different threads—the idea that if we have 2 lottery picks we should trade one for Jerami grant.

This would be a huge mistake.

Grant is not a star. He is a good role player nearing 30.

And if anything is to be learned from the Olshey era, it’s that you should not trade first round picks, let alone lottery picks or multiple picks, for role players.

If it gets you over the edge to get a star, fine. The Celtics traded the 5th pick (Jeff Green) for a 30 year old Ray Allen. That’s fine. If we can get a current all-star under 32, trade the pick. But you do not trade a top 10 pick for a role player like Jerami Grant.

That is all.

If anything, that provides a case for exactly WHY we should trade the pick for Jerami Grant.

Go back and look at that draft. Most of those teams (if not all) would’ve been better off trading the pick for a player of Jerami Grants caliber.

Now that said…

I don’t think we should do it, at all. If Jerami Grant is the best you can do, it’s better to roll the dice and try and get lucky in the draft

 

[Predator]

I don't agree with it either, but if he's the best talent available for pick 9-10 it's kind of hard to justify not trading at least one of them for some immediate help given our timeline (Dame).

Jerami Grant and immediate help… don’t go together in the same sentence.

 

[Predator]

the poll doesn't have enough options. A #1 pick is a lottery pick; so is a #14 pick. Pretty significant difference in value between a #1 and a #14 pick

personally, I wouldn't trade a top-10 pick for Grant. An 11-14 pick? That's probably acceptable. If Portland has their own pick and it's top-6 or so, and the Pels pick is 9-10, I'd consider trading the Pels pick for Grant providing they accept Bledsoe rather than the TPE

13-14 I might consider for Grant.
Personally I’d rather roll the dice and find try and find the next Giannis.

I might be lower on Grant (and his willingness to go back to a 4th option) role than others.

 

[Kell]

Feel like there might be better options available come draft night, not sold on Grant. Remember how Covington was supposed to be a game changer on defense and that was very hot and cold. Get the same vibe about Grant….

 

[KSF-ERIC]

Feel like there might be better options available come draft night, not sold on Grant. Remember how Covington was supposed to be a game changer on defense and that was very hot and cold. Get the same vibe about Grant….

Yep. Me too.

 

[Predator]

Jerami Grant can at least dribble a basketball unlike Covington.

 

[Predator]

Or Aminu, for that matter.

 

[blazerfan11]

In a one-on-one situation driving to the hoop to get a basket Jerami Grant would be our second best option after Damian Lillard.

It seems that people here are comparing Jeremy Grant to a level of perfection or Kawhi Leonard.

The type of player that these people want to get we'd have to trade Anfernee Simons or Damian Lillard.

I am all for getting such a player but please be aware of the cost and tell what you'd give up to get that player.

 

[wizenheimer]

Feel like there might be better options available come draft night, not sold on Grant. Remember how Covington was supposed to be a game changer on defense and that was very hot and cold. Get the same vibe about Grant….

with RoCo there were at least some statistical reasons for hope:



I do not criticize his defense as a Blazer as much as some others do. He didn't have enough fingers to plug all of the leaks.

I tend to agree on Grant. I've said before I'm a little confused about why Blazer Brass has seemed so attracted to Grant. Maybe it's deflection? Or maybe, they have noticed that Grant's best seasons in terms of offensive efficiency and defense were when he was a 3rd option and believe Dame can moderate Grant's chucking habits

Portland's best defensive teams in the Dame/CJ era had Aminu/Harkless as the starting forwards. But those two were wildly inconsistent on offense. What Portland hasn't had, at least since Aldridge, is 2-way players, especially in the front-court. Good on both ends of the floor. Maybe that's what Blazer management sees in Grant. I just hope they recognize that Grant is nowhere close to the level of a PG13 or Kawhi or Butler...or even a Siakam. And they don't overpay for him

 

[blazerfan11]

Feel like there might be better options available come draft night, not sold on Grant. Remember how Covington was supposed to be a game changer on defense and that was very hot and cold. Get the same vibe about Grant….

Better options like who?

 

[blazerfan11]

with RoCo there were at least some statistical reasons for hope:

View attachment 46035

I do not criticize his defense as a Blazer as much as some others do. He didn't have enough fingers to plug all of the leaks.

I tend to agree on Grant. I've said before I'm a little confused about why Blazer Brass has seemed so attracted to Grant. Maybe it's deflection? Or maybe, they have noticed that Grant's best seasons in terms of offensive efficiency and defense were when he was a 3rd option and believe Dame can moderate Grant's chucking habits

Portland's best defensive teams in the Dame/CJ era had Aminu/Harkless as the starting forwards. But those two were wildly inconsistent on offense. What Portland hasn't had, at least since Aldridge, is 2-way players, especially in the front-court. Good on both ends of the floor. Maybe that's what Blazer management sees in Grant. I just hope they recognize that Grant is nowhere close to the level of a PG13 or Kawhi or Butler...or even a Siakam. And they don't overpay for him

Grant is also nowhere near the cost (if they were available) to get a Kawhi or Siakam.

 

[blazerfan11]

Grant is a player that can be called upon to defend the other teams best player and also called upon to hit a game winner if he is being defended by one player.
He has done both successfully this season with Detroit.

 

[PCmor7]

I don't agree with it either, but if he's the best talent available for pick 9-10 it's kind of hard to justify not trading at least one of them for some immediate help given our timeline (Dame).

I can't buy into this.

If the best talent you could get that's already in the league is only worth the 15th or 16th pick, why would you give up the 9th or 10th pick to get him?

This sounds like the rationale that brought us RoCo for two first-rounders at the edge of the lottery and Larry Nance Jr. for a first rounder at the edge of the lottery. I don't like the way either of those played out.

 

[TBpup]

@wizenheimer ...it may be that Cronin isn't that high on Grant, but instead, there are rumors because he fits the TPE, and Dame has expressed interest. It seems like most of us are hoping Joe can do better. That is a lot of money to pay a guy who doesn't rebound, can't shoot, and doesn't play D anymore.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

In a one-on-one situation driving to the hoop to get a basket Jerami Grant would be our second best option after Damian Lillard.

It seems that people here are comparing Jeremy Grant to a level of perfection or Kawhi Leonard.

The type of player that these people want to get we'd have to trade Anfernee Simons or Damian Lillard.

I am all for getting such a player but please be aware of the cost and tell what you'd give up to get that player.

Grant expects to be paid like Kawhi or Siakam, and expects to be on team on which his role is like that of Kawhi or Siakam. This is why that is the standard against which he is being compared; because that is the level of player like which he expects to be treated.

If it is understood that he is not actually that level of player, then it makes sense for people not to want to acquire him.

Furthermore, the concept of "opportunity cost should not be disregarded. The trades from last month were made under the auspices of "creating flexibility to build a contender around Dame". If one doesn't believe that Grant can/will contribute to the building of a contender, then it makes sense not to commit resources toward his acquisition, because those resources would no longer be available for deals that might actually contribute to building a contender.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I think Grant would be the best 1-on-1 defender on the team. Or tied with Nassir Little.

Is his defense that good? Rebounding is part of defense and he is bad at that. Negative DBPM for last three years. Dtrg is 114 last two years.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Good topic. But I personally need more time. As usual about this time of the year, more and more players are emerging. I need to know who we are essentially giving away with that pick, and who we are drafting with the other lottery pick....if we end up with 2.

Ideally for me is we get lucky with the ping pong balls. If we could get a solid PF and center in this draft, I would keep both picks.

I realize that he is better than what we could get with the MLE. but is he that much better that we give up good young players?

Plus Grant is 210 lbs with a 7'3" wing. Nassir Little is 220 with a 7'2" wingspan. Is he better than Nas? Yes, but is he that much better? And before anyone brings up the injury history with Nas, This is the history for Grant last year

December 2021: Jerami Grant out with torn ligaments in his thumb
October 2021: Jerami Grant out with an elbow injury
April 2021: Jerami Grant shut down with a knee injury
March 2021: Jerami Grant misses time with a quad injury


I would rather draft a PF that is bigger than both, and then also draft Duren.

 

[blazerfan11]

Is his defense that good? Rebounding is part of defense and he is bad at that. Negative DBPM for last three years. Dtrg is 114 last two years.

So he's not a good rebounder.
Whom are you comparing him with?
There needs to be a player to player comparison when evaluating anyone.

 

[blazerfan11]

Good topic. But I personally need more time. As usual about this time of the year, more and more players are emerging. I need to know who we are essentially giving away with that pick, and who we are drafting with the other lottery pick....if we end up with 2.

Ideally for me is we get lucky with the ping pong balls. If we could get a solid PF and center in this draft, I would keep both picks.

I realize that he is better than what we could get with the MLE. but is he that much better that we give up good young players?

Plus Grant is 210 lbs with a 7'3" wing. Nassir Little is 220 with a 7'2" wingspan. Is he better than Nas? Yes, but is he that much better? And before anyone brings up the injury history with Nas, This is the history for Grant last year

December 2021: Jerami Grant out with torn ligaments in his thumb
October 2021: Jerami Grant out with an elbow injury
April 2021: Jerami Grant shut down with a knee injury
March 2021: Jerami Grant misses time with a quad injury


I would rather draft a PF that is bigger than both, and then also draft Duren.

Duren, The guy who one of his negative qualities is he's the last guy up the floor? No thank you. We need guys with 100% motor.

 

[blazerfan11]

@wizenheimer ...it may be that Cronin isn't that high on Grant, but instead, there are rumors because he fits the TPE, and Dame has expressed interest. It seems like most of us are hoping Joe can do better. That is a lot of money to pay a guy who doesn't rebound, can't shoot, and doesn't play D anymore.

Doesn't play D? Can't shoot? That's not Jerami Grant. Grant can make a game-winning shot and stop a guy like Jason Tatum from scoring on the next possession.
He may not he the best defender or the best shooter, but he definitely can shoot and defend.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Duren, The guy who one of his negative qualities is he's the last guy up the floor? No thank you. We need guys with 100% motor.

You may be right, and if there is another center that is better I am ok with that. But I would say that at least 80% of the time when a star player is knocked for their "lack of motor" in college....we never actually find that to be true in the NBA.

 

[blazerfan11]

You may be right, and if there is another center that is better I am ok with that. But I would say that at least 80% of the time when a star player is knocked for their "lack of motor" in college....we never actually find that to be true in the NBA.

It's true that player evaluation can be wrong both positively and negatively.

 

[Ed O]

Giving up a lotter pick to get a guy who's being paid what he's worth is not a good deal. Grant makes almost $20m/year, and I'd rather have a lotter pick on a rookie deal and spend that money on Ant and Little (who have upside to be better than Grant) than getting ourselves back into salary cap purgatory by getting better-than-average players on market-value deals.

I also don't prioritize doing anything to make Dame happy. Whether he's on the roster or not, we shouldn't be mortgaging our future like we have the last several years.

 

[BlayZa]

again, Brandon Clarke isnt even starting in memphis and they are spoiled for players atm - i dont think we'd have to give up as much as we would likely need to with Grant and i think BC is a better fit all around. he plays hard, runs hard, is athletic and knows his role. lezgo!

 

[BigGameDamian]

Giving up a lotter pick to get a guy who's being paid what he's worth is not a good deal. Grant makes almost $20m/year, and I'd rather have a lotter pick on a rookie deal and spend that money on Ant and Little (who have upside to be better than Grant) than getting ourselves back into salary cap purgatory by getting better-than-average players on market-value deals.

I also don't prioritize doing anything to make Dame happy. Whether he's on the roster or not, we shouldn't be mortgaging our future like we have the last several years.

Sounds like you would rather trade Dame for the highest package we can get and start over?

 

[KSF-ERIC]

In a one-on-one situation driving to the hoop to get a basket Jerami Grant would be our second best option after Damian Lillard.

It seems that people here are comparing Jeremy Grant to a level of perfection or Kawhi Leonard.

The type of player that these people want to get we'd have to trade Anfernee Simons or Damian Lillard.

I am all for getting such a player but please be aware of the cost and tell what you'd give up to get that player.

The fuck? Um Josh Hart?

 

[Pinwheel1]

Sounds like you would rather trade Dame for the highest package we can get and start over?

He can speak for himself, but I agreed with his post.
The Blazers don't need to go out of their way to make Dame happy by signing players he likes. they just need to make the team as good as possible for the short and long term. And IMO that means keeping Dame for the next 3 years. Sure one can argue that trading Dame for a player that is younger is the wise move, but you never know if that player will re-sign with Portland in 3 years. So you might as well keep him knowing that his leadership skills will help with the younger players.