Jerami Grant, yay or nay?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Should we trade for Jerami Grant?

  • Yes, he's a very good player, and I provide evidence below

    Votes: 11 12.8%

  • Sure if it's not for much - I wouldn't give up the Pelicans' first rounder though

    Votes: 47 54.7%

  • No, he's overpaid and inefficient

    Votes: 25 29.1%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 3 3.5%
  • Total voters
    86
Wait...is Grant really a good defender?

"Detroit's longstanding willingness to discuss Jerami Grant could provide a window for Phoenix to nab a versatile frontcourt defender in return."

Trading Ayton for Grant would be a MASSIVE overpay by Phoenix, even if you include the Pistons pick.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
I AM OKAY WITH THIS!
Click to expand...


Im not even anti Grant but that’s only a good deal for Detroit. Ayton is a lot better player than Grant even with the holes in his game. Grant would be a good fit for Phoenix but idk, doesn’t seem like fair value.
 
"There's a stronger sense among league figures that Phoenix brass simply does not view Ayton, or any center, as a player worth greater than $30 million annually.

The Suns romped through seven-straight games with Ayton sidelined in mid-January. Veteran journeyman centers JaVale McGee and Bismack Biyombo capably filled that 7-foot hole in Phoenix's lineup.

If the Suns could sign Biyombo midseason to just a veteran minimum deal and Chris Paul could steer him into a serviceable rotation player, could Paul not have the same success with a big man far less costly than Ayton's next deal?"

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...z-intel-on-deandre-ayton-zach-lavine-and-more

that sure looks like James Jones (and Monty) being ahead of the curve, again. High paid C's don't accomplish anywhere close to what they used to. They very often end up with negative value. Just ask Utah

Ayton at 30-35M/year would be a disaster
 
How many teams could theoretically take on Grant without sending any money the other way?

Also, do we have a future first to trade? I assume we do, but im not sure.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Sounds like someone is trying to up the value for Grant by making it look like there are multiple suitors.
Click to expand...

yeah, a high rate of all the rumors we hear at the trade deadline and going into off-seasons seem agent-driven....when it isn't just bloggers and columnists simply speculating and wrapping it in some bullshit like "league sources"
 
Scalma said:
How many teams could theoretically take on Grant without sending any money the other way?

Also, do we have a future first to trade? I assume we do, but im not sure.
Click to expand...

Milwaukee's pick and Portland's 2028 first. If the Blazers could work out a deal with Chicago to lift protections that could more of their own firsts' to trade
 
julius said:
Wait...is Grant really a good defender?

"Detroit's longstanding willingness to discuss Jerami Grant could provide a window for Phoenix to nab a versatile frontcourt defender in return."

Trading Ayton for Grant would be a MASSIVE overpay by Phoenix, even if you include the Pistons pick.
Click to expand...
I think this is more PR coming out of Detroit to pressure Portland to up the ante...
 
Scalma said:
How many teams could theoretically take on Grant without sending any money the other way?

Also, do we have a future first to trade? I assume we do, but im not sure.
Click to expand...
we effectively can't trade a future first until that CHI pick conveys, or we provide them some sorta compensation to change protections.

Minor issue, but I'm sorta glad it's there to prevent Cronin from over-committing.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
I think this is more PR coming out of Detroit to pressure Portland to up the ante...
Click to expand...

Portland should respond with "if you can get Ayton, go for it. We won't match"
 
This is annoying and concerning…

Cronin proved that he is dumb enough to trade a top-10 pick for Grant.
 
BigGameDamian said:
If we get Ayton, bye bye Nurkic.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I don't see why we're interested in Ayton. Nurk is one of two folks on our team that are actually dependable and proven starters. Giving up assets and/or a lot of money to (maybe?!?) upgrade over Nurk doesn't make sense to me.

If Dame were 10 years younger, then it would make sense, but part of Ayton's allure is his youth, and that's not relevant given the current Cronin/Dame timeline.
 
Ed O said:
Yeah... I don't see why we're interested in Ayton. Nurk is one of two folks on our team that are actually dependable and proven starters. Giving up assets and/or a lot of money to (maybe?!?) upgrade over Nurk doesn't make sense to me.

If Dame were 10 years younger, then it would make sense, but part of Ayton's allure is his youth, and that's not relevant given the current Cronin/Dame timeline.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can assign the term dependable to a player that misses like half of the games since he's been here. The best ability is availability, as they say. On top of that he isn't dependable when it comes to finishing in the paint when he is healthy. He isn't really dependable to hold onto the ball either, he has way too many turnovers for a post player and doesn't have enough assists to justify them. I'm hoping that Chauncey can finally help Nurk pull his head out of his ass, so he'll stop trying to do things he's not capable of. I will say that dependable is a great adjective for him when he's playing on the defensive end.

Don't get me wrong I like Nurk and I'm not against keeping him on a reasonable deal. At the same time Ayton isn't (maybe?!?) an upgrade over Nurk, he's a very obvious upgrade but I don't know what he'd cost our team. If getting him means giving up Hart and any chance of adding any other starting quality players to what we currently have then the upgrade isn't worth enough to justify the cost.
 
Ed O said:
Yeah... I don't see why we're interested in Ayton. Nurk is one of two folks on our team that are actually dependable and proven starters. Giving up assets and/or a lot of money to (maybe?!?) upgrade over Nurk doesn't make sense to me.

If Dame were 10 years younger, then it would make sense, but part of Ayton's allure is his youth, and that's not relevant given the current Cronin/Dame timeline.
Click to expand...
What? Dependable? What!?!?
Dude is glass!
 
blazerkor said:
I don't think you can assign the term dependable to a player that misses like half of the games since he's been here. The best ability is availability, as they say. On top of that he isn't dependable when it comes to finishing in the paint when he is healthy. He isn't really dependable to hold onto the ball either, he has way too many turnovers for a post player and doesn't have enough assists to justify them. I'm hoping that Chauncey can finally help Nurk pull his head out of his ass, so he'll stop trying to do things he's not capable of. I will say that dependable is a great adjective for him when he's playing on the defensive end.

Don't get me wrong I like Nurk and I'm not against keeping him on a reasonable deal. At the same time Ayton isn't (maybe?!?) an upgrade over Nurk, he's a very obvious upgrade but I don't know what he'd cost our team. If getting him means giving up Hart and any chance of adding any other starting quality players to what we currently have then the upgrade isn't worth enough to justify the cost.
Click to expand...
I said it with like six words but yeah what you said.
 
I voted "other" as in....trade who or what for Jeremy Grant? As it is I think that wink wink deal was done before we knew we had a 7 pick....I think it'll be Bledsoe and a young project like Johnson though ...not the 7 pick which I think we'll use in another trade for another vet wing plus the Bucks 2025 pick....Joe said he wanted to win soon and get bigger vets and two way players...now let's see him do that..I know players come to Portland and get better more often than not. I think Grant will play better with Nurk and Dame and Hart than he does in Detroit. I'm really hoping Joe succeeds this summer and puts us in a position to win 50 games and make some noise. Winning fixes everything and we've got some assets now.
 
blazerkor said:
I don't think you can assign the term dependable to a player that misses like half of the games since he's been here. The best ability is availability, as they say. On top of that he isn't dependable when it comes to finishing in the paint when he is healthy. He isn't really dependable to hold onto the ball either, he has way too many turnovers for a post player and doesn't have enough assists to justify them. I'm hoping that Chauncey can finally help Nurk pull his head out of his ass, so he'll stop trying to do things he's not capable of. I will say that dependable is a great adjective for him when he's playing on the defensive end.

Don't get me wrong I like Nurk and I'm not against keeping him on a reasonable deal. At the same time Ayton isn't (maybe?!?) an upgrade over Nurk, he's a very obvious upgrade but I don't know what he'd cost our team. If getting him means giving up Hart and any chance of adding any other starting quality players to what we currently have then the upgrade isn't worth enough to justify the cost.
Click to expand...

Not that your criticisms of Nurk are wrong, but I look at this more as the ability of the team to best upgrade positions and the cost to do it. By default Nurk is possibly the second best player on the team, and the only quality rotational player along with the guards of Dame/Hart/Simons.

So the Blazers need to add a mix of maybe 4 or so rotational players including 2 competent starting forwards to have any chance to win. Going from a replacement level player to above average at another position makes more sense to improve the team. That should have a lower cost and larger benefit than the small upgrade from a proven (Nurk) to slightly superior starter (Ayton) at a huge cost.

If the Blazers do spend a bunch of cap space and other assets to add Ayton, they will still need starting forwards, but then would not have cap space nor other assets to go get them. So in a sense its a comparison of having starting forwards & Nurk traded for Ayton.

Does a Dame, Ayton, Simons, Hart roster filled out with scrubs get this team in a better position to win? I'd say most certainly not. Although sadly either road with Nurk or with Ayton appears likely to fail.
 
Last edited:
Grant is an inefficient volume scorer on one of the worst teams in the league - an absolute black hole on offense.

Again - FUCK NO
 
Fez Forthright said:
Grant is an inefficient volume scorer on one of the worst teams in the league - an absolute black hole on offense.

Again - FUCK NO
Click to expand...

Being on one of the worst teams in the league tends to lead to a "black hole" description for a lot of players. But once they move to
a different team with vets, it often changes. I am not completely sold on him for various reasons, but being a black hole on a shitty team is not one of them.

I want to keep #7 unless we trade it for someone better than Grant. But I still want to add Grant too.
 
Last edited:
Pinwheel1 said:
Being on one of the worst teams in the league tends to lead to a "black hole" description for a lot of players. But once they move to
a different team with vets, it often changes. I am not completely sold on him for various reasons, but being a black hole on a shitty team is not one of them.

I want to keep #7 unless we trade it for someone better than Grant. But I still want to add Grant too.
Click to expand...

Forget that he’s overrated for a second - why he isn’t worth a first rounder:

He’s a FA next summer - unrestricted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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