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

[Manocad]

In general, the Piston faithful tend to overvalue current players, but not with Grant. He's obviously not an all star, but when he's your third or better yet your fourth best player, you are talking serious post season possibilities.

This a key point moving forward in the sense of whether or not it makes sense to extend Grant relative to his fit with/cost to the team. I think people tend to jump the gun and think that yes, he can fit both in performance and cost/value or no, he can't, and forget that there's a whole year left to answer that question if necessary.

[Cowology]

In general, the Piston faithful tend to overvalue current players, but not with Grant. He's obviously not an all star, but when he's your third or better yet your fourth best player, you are talking serious post season possibilities.

Let's talk about this. What team wants an iso scorer as their 3rd/4th option? And is Grant going to accept that role? In some ways it's sorta like Tobias in Philly right now; he's not getting the touches with Harden/Embiid dominating the ball and it's guys like Maxey who are thriving. You want your 3rd/4th guys to be able to play off your best players and capitalize on the attention they draw. This just sorta turns Grant into a sub-optimal spot up shooter. I mean... sure he can do that, but it's not really his strength and you wind up losing value that way. And he's probably not really happy about it either.

Just my humble opinion, but I think he's the sorta guy that flourishes as the best or 2nd best player on a bad team. He needs the ball in his hands to be effective and he's not particularly effective playing off the ball. If he's your 3rd/4th guy then his best role is probably as a super sub where he can come in and be "the man" with your 2nd unit. Kinda like Stackhouse. I loved the guy while he was here, but we had to move him to improve.

[Sort]

I hate quoting people in terms of responses and then the thread is all huge and really there's hardly any new words on it.

But responding to Cowology, I think you're right in terms of Stackhouse embodies high point total on a bad team. I just think Grant is more flexible. He hasn't been just doing iso heavy stuff when the Pistons went on that little run of decent ball. Yet he has been able to iso score when Pistons just needed a response, a bucket to get themselves righted.

In terms of Tobias, that highlights how important your third or fourth best guy is in terms of fit with your number one and number two. We don't yet know who the Pistons can/will sign in FA (or make a trade), let alone who the Pistons will draft. You draft Smith then suddenly I think you have to consider trading Grant. Draft the "unicorn" or Ivey, and I think you probably want to keep Grant.

Either way, we should definitely learn from Philly and not sign Grant for the max. What a mistake that was...

[Manocad]

All of this is arriving at the same conclusion...this offseason is not, and should not be, considered the end of the rebuilt process. Nor should it be considered the fall back plan. It should be part of the plan.

[Kalamazoo317]

For Grant, it really depends on what we'd get back, IMO. I'm not convinced that a 10th overall pick in this upcoming draft, for instance, adds more to our win column than Grant does. When the current roster is entirely healthy and gets some cohesive minutes, I think it's solid. Since All-Star break we've been playing closer to .500 ball, especially when all of Cade, Bey, and Grant have been on the floor.

[bstein14]

Portland is putting out a really bad team on the court right now. I think they are going to put themselves in a position to have a decent chance at moving up into a top 4 pick when all is said and done. They are currently 7th worst with 27 wins on the season but I think Sacramento and Indy will each have a decent chance of passing them and they could end up 5th worst, or possibly in a tie for 5th/6th worst team. Houston pounded them tonight and plays them again tomorrow.

Portland landing a top 4 pick, plus the New Orleans pick at 10, 11, or 12 certainly puts an interesting perspective on a trade with/for Grant. If they are wanting to compete now they potentially could use both the picks and try to bring back two players.... or if a bigger name PF comes to market than Grant it could possibly push us out of a deal with Portland.


Portland obviously wants to sell Dame on the team they are putting on the court so I could certainly see them moving both picks if the players are right coming back.

[The Moose]

Detroit Pistons

The Portland Trail Blazers are expected to seriously pursue Pistons forward Jerami Grant in the offseason, sources said. Armed with the Pelicans’ 2022 first-round draft selection, the Trail Blazers will explore offering the pick should it fall between Nos. 5 and 14 in the June draft. If the pick does not fall in that range and convey to Portland this offseason, the organization’s package falls behind competing teams that are chasing Detroit’s versatile forward. Grant is eligible for a four-year, $112 million contract extension in the offseason.

Grant and Trail Blazers star Damian Lillard played together in Team USA’s gold medal run in the Tokyo Olympics last summer.

https://theathletic.com/3198951/2022/03/21/heat-a-potential-suitor-for-bradley-beal-herniated-disc-holding-ben-simmons-back-and-more-nba-news-inside-pass/

this was from Shams a few days ago

I definitely expect Grant to get moved for one of those Blazers picks. The targets JEIII keeps mentioning about the Pistons liking, Jabari/Chet/Paolo/Keegan, are all indicative of plans to be moving on from Grant.

[Rodman]

In Jeremi's last 10 games he's been both effective and efficient shooting 38% of his 3-point shots and 46% of his 2-point shots. He's thriving in a reduced role playing alongside of Cade.

[breezypeezy]

Just imagining having both our and Portland's pick

[aad]

But do we really need two lottery picks we need to be adding vets

[aad]

So if we trade Grant for Bledsoe and Portland pick from the pels do we wave Bledsoe his contract only guarantee for 4 million that will give us 15 extra in cap space

[MotownMadness]

But do we really need two lottery picks we need to be adding vets

Landing vets to fill out the roster can be done any off-season. I say take advantage of whatever young assets you can get now before we start to take off.

Then start to get off the ones that aren't working out for vets possibly.

[Cowology]

But do we really need two lottery picks we need to be adding vets

Landing vets to fill out the roster can be done any off-season. I say take advantage of whatever young assets you can get now before we start to take off.

Then start to get off the ones that aren't working out for vets possibly.

There is a point of diminishing returns.

Each young player potentially prolongs your period of non-competitiveness as you wait on their development. For example - trading Grant for a pick will net you a future asset at a fraction of the cost, but it may take years for that asset to produce at the same level Grant already is. It's a step backwards in terms of immediate/near-future productivity, with no guarantee that player will pan out. It's a gamble with immediate on-court downside.

The clear benefit is in the cost/productivity relationship. But eventually, as those players develop, you still need to pay to keep the good ones. Many a team have been torn apart in the modern FA era by their inability to retain their own players. Rookie contracts might kick that stone down the road a few years, but eventually that bill comes due. You aren't getting out of it. And in the meantime you've extended your period of mediocrity by trading productivity for potential. That means that just about the time those guys are really hitting their stride... you start losing them to FA.

Like most things in life it's all about balance.

[DetroitSho]

This whole Grant discussion is a case study into if something gets repeated so many times then it basically becomes true after so long, or at least THOUGHT of as true.

This whole "Grant is just an iso scorer"/"Grant is only effective with the ball in his hands" narrative has gotten beyond outta control. I don't understand the need to make up things just to make a point.

Like if we get Banchero or Smith, do people expect these guys to be strictly spot up shooters? Or will we allow them the ability to fully develop into what we would need them to be? SCORERS! Grant shoots better from 3 than both Cade and Bey but somehow he's not effective off the ball. Pffft.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Cowology]

This whole Grant discussion is a case study into if something gets repeated so many times then it basically becomes true after so long, or at least THOUGHT of as true.

This whole "Grant is just an iso scorer"/"Grant is only effective with the ball in his hands" narrative has gotten beyond outta control. I don't understand the need to make up things just to make a point.

Like if we get Banchero or Smith, do people expect these guys to be strictly spot up shooters? Or will we allow them the ability to fully develop into what we would need them to be? SCORERS! Grant shoots better from 3 than both Cade and Bey but somehow he's not effective off the ball. Pffft.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

You're looking at this from the wrong end. Yes, he's a decent catch & shoot guy from 3. But he's still shooting the ball when he catches it. This is a guy with a low assist % relative to his high usage. He's a ball-stopper.

The basic complaint is that while he's on the floor and being individually productive, the rest of the offense tends to stagnate. He's not helping to elevate the players around him. It's Grant playing well as opposed to the Pistons playing well.

Your argument still examines him as the recipient or beneficiary of other players as opposed to him being a catalyst.

In a vacuum that is not strictly a bad thing and has value. It's not what I want for *this* team. I want better ball movement.

[DetroitSho]

This whole Grant discussion is a case study into if something gets repeated so many times then it basically becomes true after so long, or at least THOUGHT of as true.

This whole "Grant is just an iso scorer"/"Grant is only effective with the ball in his hands" narrative has gotten beyond outta control. I don't understand the need to make up things just to make a point.

Like if we get Banchero or Smith, do people expect these guys to be strictly spot up shooters? Or will we allow them the ability to fully develop into what we would need them to be? SCORERS! Grant shoots better from 3 than both Cade and Bey but somehow he's not effective off the ball. Pffft.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

You're looking at this from the wrong end. Yes, he's a decent catch & shoot guy from 3. But he's still shooting the ball when he catches it. This is a guy with a low assist % relative to his high usage. He's a ball-stopper.

The basic complaint is that while he's on the floor and being individually productive, the rest of the offense tends to stagnate. He's not helping to elevate the players around him. It's Grant playing well as opposed to the Pistons playing well.

Your argument still examines him as the recipient or beneficiary of other players as opposed to him being a catalyst.

In a vacuum that is not strictly a bad thing and has value. It's not what I want for *this* team. I want better ball movement.

Again, a bunch of words that didn't address my actual point. All you did is point out further things you don't like about Grant. We get it.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Cowology]

This whole Grant discussion is a case study into if something gets repeated so many times then it basically becomes true after so long, or at least THOUGHT of as true.

This whole "Grant is just an iso scorer"/"Grant is only effective with the ball in his hands" narrative has gotten beyond outta control. I don't understand the need to make up things just to make a point.

Like if we get Banchero or Smith, do people expect these guys to be strictly spot up shooters? Or will we allow them the ability to fully develop into what we would need them to be? SCORERS! Grant shoots better from 3 than both Cade and Bey but somehow he's not effective off the ball. Pffft.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

You're looking at this from the wrong end. Yes, he's a decent catch & shoot guy from 3. But he's still shooting the ball when he catches it. This is a guy with a low assist % relative to his high usage. He's a ball-stopper.

The basic complaint is that while he's on the floor and being individually productive, the rest of the offense tends to stagnate. He's not helping to elevate the players around him. It's Grant playing well as opposed to the Pistons playing well.

Your argument still examines him as the recipient or beneficiary of other players as opposed to him being a catalyst.

In a vacuum that is not strictly a bad thing and has value. It's not what I want for *this* team. I want better ball movement.

Again, a bunch of words that didn't address my actual point. All you did is point out further things you don't like about Grant. We get it.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

You complained about a label and pointed out his ability to shoot the 3. I conceded the point and applied a more appropriate label in it's place; "ball stopper". What part of that was not relevant? Would it have been better for me to continue arguing that "Grant is just an iso scorer" after you make a reasonable argument? What exactly were you hoping for as an outcome??

[Snakebites]

You're looking at this from the wrong end. Yes, he's a decent catch & shoot guy from 3. But he's still shooting the ball when he catches it. This is a guy with a low assist % relative to his high usage. He's a ball-stopper.

The basic complaint is that while he's on the floor and being individually productive, the rest of the offense tends to stagnate. He's not helping to elevate the players around him. It's Grant playing well as opposed to the Pistons playing well.

Your argument still examines him as the recipient or beneficiary of other players as opposed to him being a catalyst.

In a vacuum that is not strictly a bad thing and has value. It's not what I want for *this* team. I want better ball movement.

Again, a bunch of words that didn't address my actual point. All you did is point out further things you don't like about Grant. We get it.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

You complained about a label and pointed out his ability to shoot the 3. I conceded the point and applied a more appropriate label in it's place; "ball stopper". What part of that was not relevant? Would it have better for me to continue arguing that "Grant is just an iso scorer" after you make a reasonable argument? What exactly were you hoping for as an outcome??

He just wants to argue and criticize.

[440BB]

I don't see trading Grant for a good first round pick as necessarily to acquire another rookie. As an asset, Grant only fits a handful of situations, while a good first round pick is much more liquid. Combining that pick with the additional available cap space gives us more flexibility to trade for veterans. I wouldn't be surprised to later find out Weaver had someone in mind.

It'll depend on Weaver's intentions for the next couple years. If he wants to seriously compete in '23 forward, Grant could be turned into a younger cheaper vet whose skills better fit the plan.

[Cowology]

I don't see trading Grant for a good first round pick as necessarily to acquire another rookie. As an asset, Grant only fits a handful of situations, while a good first round pick is much more liquid. Combining that pick with the additional available cap space gives us more flexibility to trade for veterans. I wouldn't be surprised to later find out Weaver had someone in mind.

It'll depend on Weaver's intentions for the next couple years. If he wants to seriously compete in '23 forward, Grant could be turned into a younger cheaper vet whose skills better fit the plan.

I'm OK with that scenario, assuming we land a reasonable player.