Jerami Grant receiving a lot of trade interest- (Jake Fisher)

[vege]

This has been great for Jerami Grant. He wanted to establish that he could be more than 4th fiddle or even coming off the bench like what was happening in Denver. He did exactly that in Detroit where we gave him that opportunity to lead an offense or be a #2 option.

The Pistons got a guy who played to his contract value and in some viewpoints exceeded it. As a team we needed to tank to bring new blood into the franchise. We successfully did that for 2 years; the first year ending up with Cade and the 2nd year we have equal odds of landing in the top 3. Grant played well enough for us to have positive trade value during that time.

I mean what more were you really hoping for here?

Grant is going to get paid upwards of 30 million per year in his next contract unless the market somehow falls apart. Seems pretty good for him...

Should we be the ones who give that to him? Absolutely not. But Jerami Grants don't grow on trees and teams whose windows are closing now can leverage their future somewhat to get a guy who will instantly help them on offense and defense now at the SF position.

I agree with what you said, but just to correct you, Grant's max contract is 4 years 112 mil, that's 28 mil/year. I think he will sign around 25 mil per year to be honest.

[Invictus88]

This has been great for Jerami Grant. He wanted to establish that he could be more than 4th fiddle or even coming off the bench like what was happening in Denver. He did exactly that in Detroit where we gave him that opportunity to lead an offense or be a #2 option.

The Pistons got a guy who played to his contract value and in some viewpoints exceeded it. As a team we needed to tank to bring new blood into the franchise. We successfully did that for 2 years; the first year ending up with Cade and the 2nd year we have equal odds of landing in the top 3. Grant played well enough for us to have positive trade value during that time.

I mean what more were you really hoping for here?

Grant is going to get paid upwards of 30 million per year in his next contract unless the market somehow falls apart. Seems pretty good for him...

Should we be the ones who give that to him? Absolutely not. But Jerami Grants don't grow on trees and teams whose windows are closing now can leverage their future somewhat to get a guy who will instantly help them on offense and defense now at the SF position.

I agree with what you said, but just to correct you, Grant's max contract is 4 years 112 mil, that's 28 mil/year. I think he will sign around 25 mil per year to be honest.

Sure. I was too lazy to look up exact numbers

[DetroitSho]

That's to much for me still, I would let him walk for nothing before re-signing him.

I would like to have him for a 6th man type role but he wouldn't go for that and it would be to expensive for us.

Yet one more issue - this is Peak Jerami Grant. We already saw that. He arguably got worse after his first 40 games or so when he was on fire.

31 and 32 year old Grant trying to do that same bull-dozing, euro-step stuff driving right into the guy in front of him and drawing a foul isnt going to be nearly as effective as prime Jerami, and even that isnt high dollar effective.

Its just a bad situation that didnt work out the way the Pistons or Jerami wanted.

Maybe he can find another really bad team to be the man and get paid a lot, and they can give the Pistons some 2nd round picks or something.

This has been great for Jerami Grant. He wanted to establish that he could be more than 4th fiddle or even coming off the bench like what was happening in Denver. He did exactly that in Detroit where we gave him that opportunity to lead an offense or be a #2 option.

The Pistons got a guy who played to his contract value and in some viewpoints exceeded it. As a team we needed to tank to bring new blood into the franchise. We successfully did that for 2 years; the first year ending up with Cade and the 2nd year we have equal odds of landing in the top 3. Grant played well enough for us to have positive trade value during that time.

I mean what more were you really hoping for here?

Grant is going to get paid upwards of 30 million per year in his next contract unless the market somehow falls apart. Seems pretty good for him...

Should we be the ones who give that to him? Absolutely not. But Jerami Grants don't grow on trees and teams whose windows are closing now can leverage their future somewhat to get a guy who will instantly help them on offense and defense now at the SF position.

This is a great post

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[edmunder_prc]

This has been great for Jerami Grant. He wanted to establish that he could be more than 4th fiddle or even coming off the bench like what was happening in Denver. He did exactly that in Detroit where we gave him that opportunity to lead an offense or be a #2 option.

The Pistons got a guy who played to his contract value and in some viewpoints exceeded it. As a team we needed to tank to bring new blood into the franchise. We successfully did that for 2 years; the first year ending up with Cade and the 2nd year we have equal odds of landing in the top 3. Grant played well enough for us to have positive trade value during that time.

I mean what more were you really hoping for here?

Grant is going to get paid upwards of 30 million per year in his next contract unless the market somehow falls apart. Seems pretty good for him...

Should we be the ones who give that to him? Absolutely not. But Jerami Grants don't grow on trees and teams whose windows are closing now can leverage their future somewhat to get a guy who will instantly help them on offense and defense now at the SF position.

I see what you are saying, but disagree.

Grant was supposed to show he was a #1 or #2 guy and he spent his prime with a bottom feeder that got the #1 pick.

We'll see what we get for Grant if hes traded, but probably it wont be what we hope for. I do not see anyone jumping at paying Grant $28 million a year, plus the talent they have to trade for him.

Grant was hoping to be the man and he sucked at it, except for the first 40 games here. The Pistons wanted to team Grant up with talent and have a decent team. Pistons have been very bad since he arrived. The team got better instantly once we took the ball out of his hands and gave it to a rookie and Bey.

Grant left MVP Jokic and every year playoffs to show how good he is - that was a failure. Aaron Gordon has been playing poorly who was the Nuggets swing at replacing him and Grant is better than him.

In the sense that we spent $20 million on a guy that is probably worth around $20, thats a win? The team still was very bad to awful. Pistons could have easily not done that, took on Horford or some other contract and gotten some picks from it instead.

Is Grant better than Plumlee and KO signings? Yes. But our signing so far have left the Pistons bottom 5 teams in back to back years.

[Invictus88]

Is Grant better than Plumlee and KO signings? Yes. But our signing so far have left the Pistons bottom 5 teams in back to back years.

This basically says it all as it points to the fundamental misunderstanding you have regarding the Pistons the last few years.

The Pistons goal has been to replenish a complete void of talent left from SVG. It was always going to be a multiple year process. It was always designed to have us losing a lot the first couple of years.

The fact that you don't see that makes it easy to see why you have the viewpoint you have.

But trying to get competitive in the first few years through free agent signings was always going to be a fool's errand.

The best we could hope for was that our players outplayed their contracts such that we could get back additional value in return. We did that with Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles. We are hoping to do it with Grant.

But you won't see that in a positive light if your idea of success these first few years is winning basketball games. That comes after/next.

[vege]

The best we could hope for was that our players outplayed their contracts such that we could get back additional value in return. We did that with Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles. We are hoping to do it with Grant.

You understand that Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles were salary fillers right? Bagley was traded for the 2 2nds we sent out in that trade. They had no value at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

[Invictus88]

The best we could hope for was that our players outplayed their contracts such that we could get back additional value in return. We did that with Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles. We are hoping to do it with Grant.

You understand that Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles were salary fillers right? Bagley was traded for the 2 2nds we sent out in that trade. They had no value at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

I know that Sacramento didn't value MB3 much, but Jackson and especially Lyles were at least serviceable players for what they were being paid. Their contacts were also crafted such that they could be flipped later; which they were.

These were guys that Weaver didn't have to give assets/ vslue for and he got back positive value in return. I don't think 2 2nds alone nets Bagley (a former #2 overall). But then again we are talking about Sacramento so who knows...

[vege]

The best we could hope for was that our players outplayed their contracts such that we could get back additional value in return. We did that with Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles. We are hoping to do it with Grant.

You understand that Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles were salary fillers right? Bagley was traded for the 2 2nds we sent out in that trade. They had no value at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

I know that Sacramento didn't value MB3 much, but Jackson and especially Lyles were at least serviceable players for what they were being paid. Their contacts were also crafted such that they could be flipped later; which they were.

These were guys that Weaver didn't have to give assets/ vslue for and he got back positive value in return. I don't think 2 2nds alone nets Bagley (a former #2 overall). But then again we are talking about Sacramento so who knows...

The asking price for Bagley LAST season was 2 2nds, when he had 2 years left on his contract, so yes, 2 2nds alone would net him, and that's not me saying, it was said by a Sacramento fan a week or so before the deadline. Josh Jackson was out of our rotation. Lyles was not bad, and he got decent minutes and produced well for the kings, but the only reason he was on the deal was to make the numbers work.

[Invictus88]

You understand that Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles were salary fillers right? Bagley was traded for the 2 2nds we sent out in that trade. They had no value at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

I know that Sacramento didn't value MB3 much, but Jackson and especially Lyles were at least serviceable players for what they were being paid. Their contacts were also crafted such that they could be flipped later; which they were.

These were guys that Weaver didn't have to give assets/ value for and he got back positive value in return. I don't think 2 2nds alone nets Bagley (a former #2 overall). But then again we are talking about Sacramento so who knows...

The asking price for Bagley LAST season was 2 2nds, when he had 2 years left on his contract, so yes, 2 2nds alone would net him, and that's not me saying, it was said by a Sacramento fan a week or so before the deadline. Josh Jackson was out of our rotation. Lyles was not bad, and he got decent minutes and produced well for the kings, but the only reason he was on the deal was to make the numbers work.

Man. I don't have a way of validating this or disproving this and truly wasn't following the situation closely. It seems shocking to me that he could have been had for 2 2nds the previous year. He wasn't THAT bad for Sacramento. But sure. I guess JJ and Lyles ended up being trade filler.

[mattao313]

Still hope this guy is traded no way I want to be stuck with 28mil/yr for grant. Grant is a good role player 28mil is a bad contract.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

[Drwho17]

You understand that Josh Jackson and Trey Lyles were salary fillers right? Bagley was traded for the 2 2nds we sent out in that trade. They had no value at all.

I agree with everything else you said.

I know that Sacramento didn't value MB3 much, but Jackson and especially Lyles were at least serviceable players for what they were being paid. Their contacts were also crafted such that they could be flipped later; which they were.

These were guys that Weaver didn't have to give assets/ vslue for and he got back positive value in return. I don't think 2 2nds alone nets Bagley (a former #2 overall). But then again we are talking about Sacramento so who knows...

The asking price for Bagley LAST season was 2 2nds, when he had 2 years left on his contract, so yes, 2 2nds alone would net him, and that's not me saying, it was said by a Sacramento fan a week or so before the deadline. Josh Jackson was out of our rotation. Lyles was not bad, and he got decent minutes and produced well for the kings, but the only reason he was on the deal was to make the numbers work.

Asking price was Saddiq Bey last year.

https://www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/kings/nba-rumors-kings-tried-trading-marvin-bagley-pistons-saddiq-bey

[vege]

I know that Sacramento didn't value MB3 much, but Jackson and especially Lyles were at least serviceable players for what they were being paid. Their contacts were also crafted such that they could be flipped later; which they were.

These were guys that Weaver didn't have to give assets/ value for and he got back positive value in return. I don't think 2 2nds alone nets Bagley (a former #2 overall). But then again we are talking about Sacramento so who knows...

The asking price for Bagley LAST season was 2 2nds, when he had 2 years left on his contract, so yes, 2 2nds alone would net him, and that's not me saying, it was said by a Sacramento fan a week or so before the deadline. Josh Jackson was out of our rotation. Lyles was not bad, and he got decent minutes and produced well for the kings, but the only reason he was on the deal was to make the numbers work.

Man. I don't have a way of validating this or disproving this and truly wasn't following the situation closely. It seems shocking to me that he could have been had for 2 2nds the previous year. He wasn't THAT bad for Sacramento. But sure. I guess JJ and Lyles ended up being trade filler.

Maybe later if I have patience I'll find the information and post it here.

[Manocad]

Still hope this guy is traded no way I want to be stuck with 28mil/yr for grant. Grant is a good role player 28mil is a bad contract.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

The Pistons don’t have to be stuck with him. He’s still an expiring after next year and worst case is that the Pistons let him walk for nothing. As I’ve said before it’s not the optimal outcome if the plan was to sign Grant as a flippable asset, but it doesn’t hurt the team to let him walk. IMO people put WAAAAY to much importance on getting him traded for equal value.

[theBigLip]

This has been great for Jerami Grant. He wanted to establish that he could be more than 4th fiddle or even coming off the bench like what was happening in Denver. He did exactly that in Detroit where we gave him that opportunity to lead an offense or be a #2 option.

The Pistons got a guy who played to his contract value and in some viewpoints exceeded it. As a team we needed to tank to bring new blood into the franchise. We successfully did that for 2 years; the first year ending up with Cade and the 2nd year we have equal odds of landing in the top 3. Grant played well enough for us to have positive trade value during that time.

I mean what more were you really hoping for here?

Grant is going to get paid upwards of 30 million per year in his next contract unless the market somehow falls apart. Seems pretty good for him...

Should we be the ones who give that to him? Absolutely not. But Jerami Grants don't grow on trees and teams whose windows are closing now can leverage their future somewhat to get a guy who will instantly help them on offense and defense now at the SF position.

This is a great post because it agrees with everything I think

Seriously, this has worked out really well. And I'm sure Grant has helped our young core grow up a bit as well as his contribution on the floor.

All that being said, I think he is a very tradeable asset, doesn't perfectly fit our Cade window, and I'd hate to see us overpay him. So whether we trade him before the draft, or wait until the 2023 trade deadline, we should flip him if we can get any reasonable return.

[mattao313]

Still hope this guy is traded no way I want to be stuck with 28mil/yr for grant. Grant is a good role player 28mil is a bad contract.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

The Pistons don’t have to be stuck with him. He’s still an expiring after next year and worst case is that the Pistons let him walk for nothing. As I’ve said before it’s not the optimal outcome if the plan was to sign Grant as a flippable asset, but it doesn’t hurt the team to let him walk. IMO people put WAAAAY to much importance on getting him traded for equal value.

Nah if we could have traded him for asset but instead let him walk that's just bad asset management.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

[ComboGuardCity]

Even if we were to extend Grant to just under his max, I don’t think he’s a negative asset. In fact, if we end up with a Guard in the draft, I’d like to extend him. He’s a valuable piece that will have trade value throughout his next contract. If we draft one of the 3 4s, then maybe we let him go due to the logjam.

[Manocad]

Still hope this guy is traded no way I want to be stuck with 28mil/yr for grant. Grant is a good role player 28mil is a bad contract.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

The Pistons don’t have to be stuck with him. He’s still an expiring after next year and worst case is that the Pistons let him walk for nothing. As I’ve said before it’s not the optimal outcome if the plan was to sign Grant as a flippable asset, but it doesn’t hurt the team to let him walk. IMO people put WAAAAY to much importance on getting him traded for equal value.

Nah if we could have traded him for asset but instead let him walk that's just bad asset management.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

BS. If you let a guy walk as a free agent because he’s worth less to your team than another player who you sign as a free agent for the same, less or even more money, that’s GOOD asset management.

[Invictus88]

The Pistons don’t have to be stuck with him. He’s still an expiring after next year and worst case is that the Pistons let him walk for nothing. As I’ve said before it’s not the optimal outcome if the plan was to sign Grant as a flippable asset, but it doesn’t hurt the team to let him walk. IMO people put WAAAAY to much importance on getting him traded for equal value.

Nah if we could have traded him for asset but instead let him walk that's just bad asset management.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

BS. If you let a guy walk as a free agent because he’s worth less to your team than another player who you sign as a free agent for the same, less or even more money, that’s GOOD asset management.

There's room in between these stances which is where I am at; but it's a really fine line.

I think Grant has plus value to a bunch of teams out there this year. If we don't believe he is worth signing to an extension then we should find a way to work a deal with those other teams.

However, if for some reason we can't (the logistics don't work, the market is weaker than we thought, etc) then the correct course of action at that point is to not double down. Let him walk and move on.

I just think that there's too much friction between his play style and the rest of the offense to dedicate a large portion of our salary to him for the next 4 years. (my personal only) I also think that his trade value is as high as it will get for us given his age. If we can't work out a deal now I don't have confidence we will later; him being older and having a heavier contract attached.

P.S. I think I misread Manocad's post when I wrote this. I think he's basically saying the same thing.

[tmorgan]

Glad we made it to the right place here and I don’t have to type it.

Move Grant, but no hurry. Find a decent deal. Do not take unmovable garbage (except perhaps expirings) back in the deal because you don’t have to. Worst case, he walks. Do not give him 28mil a year, because he won’t have a role on the team big enough to earn it. Then he’s unmovable himself, which is what we’re trying to avoid.

[Cowology]

There is definitely a point where it's better to let Grant walk than to sign him to a bad extension, but I'd really hope we don't get to that point.