Free Agent Jerami Grant 5/160

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
This front office seems to have the utmost confidence in their ability to draft. My guess is they will trade Dame to give themselves the greatest opportunities to shape this team via that vehicle.
 
Dame's request makes this signing look even more dumb. Maybe the front office will surprise me and be able to get value at some point (like it did for the dumb Payton signing), but giving him so much when there (probably) wasn't another team willing to go that high makes it more difficult. We'll see...
 
Grant signing is not an issue. We do not want a team where Scoot has to score or pass to Sharpe only - you want him to grow trusting the passes. That's still a good signing and if they decide at some point, I am sure they will be able to move Grant.
 
Why would grant want to be here?
 
andalusian said:
Grant signing is not an issue. We do not want a team where Scoot has to score or pass to Sharpe only - you want him to grow trusting the passes. That's still a good signing and if they decide at some point, I am sure they will be able to move Grant.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen one person outside of this board call Grant's deal a "good" one. The closest anyone has said that's positive about it is that the team had to do it to keep Dame happy.

He is overpaid. He's going to be old and overpaid in a few years. In a free agency period where no one is getting five years, and comparable players (Kuzma, Green) got much less money, Grant sticks out like a sore thumb as an overspend and it's just a question of whether it'll hurt us or not.

On the court: having Grant as a primary scorer when we have Ant, Sharpe, and Simons all age 24 or younger makes no sense. And it's not like he has a history of leading young teams to success... Detroit dumped him as soon as they could get some value for him, and I cross my fingers the Blazers can, too.
 
Ed O said:
I haven't seen one person outside of this board call Grant's deal a "good" one. The closest anyone has said that's positive about it is that the team had to do it to keep Dame happy.

He is overpaid. He's going to be old and overpaid in a few years. In a free agency period where no one is getting five years, and comparable players (Kuzma, Green) got much less money, Grant sticks out like a sore thumb as an overspend and it's just a question of whether it'll hurt us or not.

On the court: having Grant as a primary scorer when we have Ant, Sharpe, and Simons all age 24 or younger makes no sense. And it's not like he has a history of leading young teams to success... Detroit dumped him as soon as they could get some value for him, and I cross my fingers the Blazers can, too.
Click to expand...
I say fuck it and just back out of the Grant deal, so some of the agents won't like it, it's not like FA's will come here anyway and we will hopefully have new ownership within 5 years.
 
Ed O said:
I haven't seen one person outside of this board call Grant's deal a "good" one. The closest anyone has said that's positive about it is that the team had to do it to keep Dame happy.
Click to expand...

I linked a video of Tim Legler calling it market correct earlier in this thread.

He is overpaid. He's going to be old and overpaid in a few years. In a free agency period where no one is getting five years, and comparable players (Kuzma, Green) got much less money, Grant sticks out like a sore thumb as an overspend and it's just a question of whether it'll hurt us or not.
Click to expand...

Kuzma got $102/4, so it comes down to 25.5/year vs 32/year - and Grant is a much better defender than Kuzma.

On the court: having Grant as a primary scorer when we have Ant, Sharpe, and Simons all age 24 or younger makes no sense. And it's not like he has a history of leading young teams to success... Detroit dumped him as soon as they could get some value for him, and I cross my fingers the Blazers can, too.
Click to expand...

Gut feeling, the Blazers are going to flip Ant sooner or later. They might start the season with Scoot / Ant / Sharpe - but the FO talked long about balancing the roster, they will probably want to move Sharpe to the #2 spot.
 
Dame didn't ask for a trade until his friend got paid

disgusting

and he only wants Miami
 
Yep, I have a feeling Dame and Jerami knows Dame wants to be traded and Jerami wants to get paid before today.

Last night:
Dame: Is the ink dry?
Jerami: Yup, thanks dude
Dame: You got it bra
 
Blazinaway said:
I say fuck it and just back out of the Grant deal, so some of the agents won't like it, it's not like FA's will come here anyway and we will hopefully have new ownership within 5 years.
Click to expand...
I would bet that the contract has been submitted to the office, so it's all signed and official.

Assuming that's the case, you can't back out. It has the force of law, in addition to the force of NBA rules, etc.
 
inconceivable said:
Yep, I have a feeling Dame and Jerami knows Dame wants to be traded and Jerami wants to get paid before today.

Last night:
Dame: Is the ink dry?
Jerami: Yup, thanks dude
Dame: You got it bra
Click to expand...
Well if that was the case, screw Dame's "preferred" destination then. We'll trade him to whoever offers us the best deal.
 
Portland2014 said:
Dame didn't ask for a trade until his friend got paid

disgusting

and he only wants Miami
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was BS, but to be honest I am not as upset about it as I was 30 minutes ago. He does become a trade asset, one that we would not have had otherwise. Its not like we are going to attract free agents with cap space
 
Ed O said:
Dame's request makes this signing look even more dumb. Maybe the front office will surprise me and be able to get value at some point (like it did for the dumb Payton signing), but giving him so much when there (probably) wasn't another team willing to go that high makes it more difficult. We'll see...
Click to expand...

No, the dumb move would be to let him walk for nothing. $32 million a year in the new CBA era is not outrageous for a 3-4th option. Grant, unlike Nurk, plays a premium position in the league. We will be able to get positive value from it, and until then, he will be good for the development of Scoot and Sharpe. You don’t want to be the Rockets and have your development impeded because it’s a trash heap 1-5.
 
Freshtown said:
No, the dumb move would be to let him walk for nothing. $32 million a year in the new CBA era is not outrageous for a 3-4th option. Grant, unlike Nurk, plays a premium position in the league. We will be able to get positive value from it, and until then, he will be good for the development of Scoot and Sharpe. You don’t want to be the Rockets and have your development impeded because it’s a trash heap 1-5.
Click to expand...
Other than rumblings that Detroit MAY have been interested, there was no indication that any team was interested in him at that level. Portland bid against itself as it did for Ant and Nurk the year before.

Portland gave up a future first rounder for Grant when he was two years younger and significantly cheaper... what's he going to be worth when he's 32 or 33 and getting paid so much under a CBA that is absolutely brutal with moving big contracts? It's not going to be much, if anything, positive and in the meantime we've got a veteran shooter who doesn't rebound but MAY help us win a few games that we shouldn't be trying to win as we rebuild.

And, yes, that is WAY TOO MUCH for a fourth option, or a third option that's the level of Grant, under the new CBA. The salary cap will go up, but the overall aim of the new CBA is to spread salaries out to more folks, rather than a few massive contracts, and we saw that yesterday in every signing (either in length or average per year or both) other than Grant's deal.
 
LayneStaley said:
I bet Grant is pumped about the future of the team.
Click to expand...

I don't suspect he's long for Portland. In this landscape, the contract looks more tradeable than it did initially. He's not a building block. He's a trade chip. I expect one that will be used by the trade deadline at the very latest.
 
Ed O said:
Other than rumblings that Detroit MAY have been interested, there was no indication that any team was interested in him at that level. Portland bid against itself as it did for Ant and Nurk the year before.

Portland gave up a future first rounder for Grant when he was two years younger and significantly cheaper... what's he going to be worth when he's 32 or 33 and getting paid so much under a CBA that is absolutely brutal with moving big contracts? It's not going to be much, if anything, positive and in the meantime we've got a veteran shooter who doesn't rebound but MAY help us win a few games that we shouldn't be trying to win as we rebuild.

And, yes, that is WAY TOO MUCH for a fourth option, or a third option that's the level of Grant, under the new CBA. The salary cap will go up, but the overall aim of the new CBA is to spread salaries out to more folks, rather than a few massive contracts, and we saw that yesterday in every signing (either in length or average per year or both) other than Grant's deal.
Click to expand...

I don’t disagree that he is overpaid. The question is, will teams that desperately need a 3/4 halfway through the season give up positive value for him? I think the answer is yes. Good wings are just so, so hard to find, and the parity in the league now means that I suspect there are a lot of teams that will be thinking they are one good piece away from contention halfway through the season.
 
can/should we renege on this deal? it's not signed until the moratorium ends
 
Natebishop3 said:
I have heard that would be a massive mistake because it would piss off Rich Paul.
Click to expand...
Oooh! Save us!

Backing out of deals is in general a bad idea, although it worked for Carlos Boozer. But we can turn it into a sign and trade if we find somebody stupid enough to want Grant at that sum, right? The dream of acquiring Ben Simmons lives on!
 
Ed O said:
I haven't seen one person outside of this board call Grant's deal a "good" one. The closest anyone has said that's positive about it is that the team had to do it to keep Dame happy.

He is overpaid. He's going to be old and overpaid in a few years. In a free agency period where no one is getting five years, and comparable players (Kuzma, Green) got much less money, Grant sticks out like a sore thumb as an overspend and it's just a question of whether it'll hurt us or not.

On the court: having Grant as a primary scorer when we have Ant, Sharpe, and Simons all age 24 or younger makes no sense. And it's not like he has a history of leading young teams to success... Detroit dumped him as soon as they could get some value for him, and I cross my fingers the Blazers can, too.
Click to expand...
Old data. Those comments were all before the bigger contracts were given out. Grant's contract seems more reasonable now.
 
This isn’t technically final, right? It technically cannot be final until FA begins or am I wrong and you can finalize re-signing UFA’s previously under contract before the actual start of FA?

Could we go back on this? Would we go back on this?

Edit: I read other responses
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Oooh! Save us!

Backing out of deals is in general a bad idea, although it worked for Carlos Boozer. But we can turn it into a sign and trade if we find somebody stupid enough to want Grant at that sum, right? The dream of acquiring Ben Simmons lives on!
Click to expand...
*nightmare
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top