I'd think the Raptors would be interested in a player like Brogdon, in exchange for one or more of their plethora of forwards. Maybe for Precious and Trent (filler). Precious is a very good defender and rebounder. Then Grant can move to SF till we find a new spot for him.
I think this team is still very raw other than Simons / Grant / Brogdon / DA / RW3 - only one of them is a forward. I think that until Sharpe becomes even better at ball handling (and he already is much better than last year), this team still needs someone a little bigger like Grant that can put it on the floor and attack the basket. So, unless Sharpe continues to increase his play at the amazing rate we have seen so far, I think we are probably keeping Grant for this year. Unless an amazing deal can be had, my gut feeling is that Simons, Grant and probably Brogdon are still around, RW3 is the most likely to be moved if you ask me, he is on a very team friendly deal which makes him easy to trade, he offers a real option to a contender that needs another good defensive big and the Blazers can get a nice portion of his production with Walker, TC on the court behind DA.
Question -- IF the Blazers had to package a future 1st to get off of Grant's deal would that be a deal breaker ?? I think for me and this year it would be a deal breaker but after this year I think it's something that would need to be considered for the future of the team. I would be ok with a trade of a future 1st IF - I was confident that getting Grant off this team would be better for the growth of this team in the long run AND pretty sure that pick would end up in the 23 or lower range . It would be a gamble for sure but right now not sure Grant helps the young guys be better but also wonder how much is tied to Billups and his style too. I am curious on how other feel on this cause it could be a legit question IF he is not traded by the start of next season.
Absolute deal breaker. Either they think/know he has value around the league, or they want to keep him around. Because they knew Dame wanted out when they signed that deal. There's no chance you offer that to him if you know you'll have to pay to eventually get off of it.
We have to have contracts on this team to hit the floor. If we have to pay to get off his salary we just keep him. It won’t hurt until Sharpe is due for his extension.
I have to say Nate your comment on Grant in your 1st response of this thread kind of got me thinking about this cause I agree with you on this point on Grant but NOW your saying it's not the case. I think your right the longer he is a Blazer and NOT traded outside the last year of the deal it will become harder to trade him cause of his contract. What has changed that has made you soften your stance or am i mistaken cause it sounds like you have kind of walked back your take to a degree.
If Grant would just reign it in and start playing within the offense a bit, he'd be ok. Wouldn't it be nice if the Blazers had a person whose role was to instruct players how to play?
I want to get assets for Grant. I didn’t want him to walk for nothing after giving up the first that ended up being Jalen Duren. But if we have send out a first to move him, fuck that. Rather just keep his salary. We don’t have to worry about his money for a few years when Sharpe is due for a payday or Ayton is due for an extension.
I agree with you but like I said in another thread, with Simons out and Brogdon coming off the bench....the offense is struggling right now and I think the game plan is for Grant to create his own shot....which is not a good idea. But other than Sharpe, who else in that starting lineup can? I think replacing Tisse in the starting lineup with Brogdon would allow Grant to do what he does best.......catch and shoot. (and cut to the basket)
I don't think we've had a real difference maker at the coaching position since Rick Adelman. (well difference for the better anyway)
They might have been wrong, though. In the world where no team wants him at his current contract (which I don't think it an unreasonable world, although who knows?), are the Blazers better off overpaying him to be a shoot-first guy who's a liability in other areas of the game, or give additional value to get rid of him? I don't know the answer. Right now, clearly we're only 4 games in, and there's no rush, but it's also tough to justify paying so much for a guy who may stunt development of the younger guys while occasionally helping us win games (diminishing the draft picks we get while we're rebuilding).
Where it has been said many times that Stotts was a good coach that took way less talented teams further than they should ever have gone.
