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

[thesack12]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

[Kalamazoo317]

I think some people have unrealistic views on what Grant’s value is.

Agreed. Some people don't think he has any value to our current roster and would happily trade him for nothing, which is not at all realistic, IMO.

Really? Like who?

I'm not keeping a journal of forum posts. I've seen plenty of posts from people who seem happy to move him for cap room.

[vege]

What kind of pick can get you a player that could realistically play a role in the Western Conference finals, and also in the Olympics?

That's the level of pick I'll take for Grant.

Top 3 and that's not guaranteed, you could draft an Anthony Bennett or a Darko there.

[Cowology]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

[Pharaoh]

Purely from a cap flexibility POV he needs to moved on Draft day to Portland or elsewhere.

In the next few years we have Bags, Grant, Bey, Hayes & Stewart all looking for extensions before we even get to Cade.

Can't keep everyone at fair market value.


Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Kalamazoo317]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm fine trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

[NYPiston]

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm find trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

Yeah, I don't think it's as simple as looking at a win/loss record with or without a player in isolation (unless it's a really big sample size) and put too much stock into it. The Grizzlies are 20-2 without Morant, are they better off without him? Context is important.

I'm not the biggest fan of Grant's fit with this team but I'm not willing to sell him off for a late lottery pick just to clear cap space for a player that likely won't be as good as Grant. I get the value of clearing enough cap to bring in a player of bigger need and, looking forward, having the flexibility to sign the young core guys but I don't think selling Grant at a quarter on the dollar just to clear cap space (or avoid an extension) is a good use of assets. I'd take the Pelicans pick from Portland but I'm going to want a solid roster player/prospect in addition, or the Portland pick depending on where it falls.
We need to remember that this is a case of Portland making a push for Grant, not Weaver pushing Grant on them so the Pistons hold some leverage here.

[Manocad]

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right?

No. This board is no different than the general populace in the sense that most people probably can't even give you a comprehensive definition of either word, much less understand the inequality between the two.

You can correlate any two things. Literally. You can graph any two sets of data for any two things and create a correlation. Taller people on average make more money than shorter people; that's 100% true. That in no way, shape or form means that taller people make more money on average BECAUSE they're taller. You can correlate income to favorite color; maybe the highest average income is earned by people whose favorite color is blue. Or maybe it's green. Or black. Now, that's an extreme example of course because in no way can you tie favorite color into causation for increased income. But to your point, it ignores every single other factor--education, age, years of experience, etc.

[thesack12]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm find trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

Other than your abstract anecdote of claiming its a correlation vs causation situation, you didn't bring anything forth here that reflects on the team being better with Jerami Grant.

[thesack12]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Yup.

Many of those same people insist on chasing Grant's performance in his first 15 games or so as a Piston. He's just not that caliber of player.

IMO, I also think that people over-rate Grant simply because he's basically the only high dollar free agent signee that hasn't been a colossal failure of a signing for like the last 10-15 years.

[zeebneeb]

So if I'm reading this correctly;(I am NOT trying to call anyone out, just understanding this Grant situation) the stats back up that the Pistons play better without Grant, the team wins more without Grant, the eye test looks better without Grant, Bey plays better without Grant, Cade runs the team fitting with him being the best player on the team better without Grant, and we're arguing Causation/Correlation?

There's a saying I'm quite fond of;

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then that duck needs to be traded.

[DetroitSho]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm find trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

Are you serious? OF COURSE it's Grant's fault. Context has no place on this forum buddy, get that outta here.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[DetroitSho]

So if I'm reading this correctly;(I am NOT trying to call anyone out, just understanding this Grant situation) the stats back up that the Pistons play better without Grant, the team wins more without Grant, the eye test looks better without Grant, Bey plays better without Grant, Cade runs the team fitting with him being the best player on the team better without Grant, and we're arguing Causation/Correlation?

There's a saying I'm quite fond of;

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then that duck needs to be traded.

Just curious what exactly does Bey do differently without Grant playing other than shoot more? He's just as inconsistent either way. In 5 games since Grant has been shut down (I'm not including OKC) he's shot over 40% from the floor in just 2 games. He does not play appreciably better without Grant. When you mention eye test, people will use their eyes for confirmation bias.

It's never discussed that when Grant went out, in comes Diallo who's a master of off ball movement and pretty much the only one on the team elite at it. So that automatically increases ball movement and assists. Yes, the ball is going to stick with a guy like Grant longer than a guy like Bey because it's way more likely that a play is going to be called to get it to Grant and get the hell out the way more than anybody on the team except Cade.

Grant gets the ball, surveys the court, makes a move and gets up a shot. That's not necessarily the best for ball movement, ok. But how is Bey catching and immediately shooting EVERYTIME he has 2 inches of space any better for ball movement? It's almost like watching Antoine Walker sometimes.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[bstein14]

I'm on team Grant as far as him being a good basketball player that helps the team.... even though the numbers don't back it up this season.

I wouldn't say trade Grant to Portland for Bledsoe and a future first round pick because Grant is more valuable than that to our team.

I would trade him for a lottery pick and Hart... or a lottery pick and an extra $21 million in cap space this summer due to Portland being able to absorb his contract into a trade exception.

But you're selling Grant short if you think the team is just better off without him.

[Cowology]

So if I'm reading this correctly;(I am NOT trying to call anyone out, just understanding this Grant situation) the stats back up that the Pistons play better without Grant, the team wins more without Grant, the eye test looks better without Grant, Bey plays better without Grant, Cade runs the team fitting with him being the best player on the team better without Grant, and we're arguing Causation/Correlation?

There's a saying I'm quite fond of;

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then that duck needs to be traded.

This tends to be a very heated debate. I pretty much stopped making the argument because there are so many strong feelings going both ways.

But it's not a fluke that Bey plays better without Grant. It's not coincidence that our entire offense flows better with Bagley in the starting lineup. Which is not to say that Grant doesn't have value or bring skills that we need. We *do* need a secondary scorer capable of generating pts when our offense stalls or when we really need a basket. That's probably obvious to most of us. But we'd better off with a player in that role who isn't also a ball-stopper.

And yes, Cade getting healthy and growing through out the season certainly contributes to our improved play. But we aren't just sitting here comparing our play beginning the season vs. our play at the end of the season. We're comparing our play with Grant and without Grant. And yeah, even Cade has played better without Grant in the lineup. *shrug*

Grant is a fine player. He's not a great fit for this team. It happens. I've previously equated him to Stack. I loved him when he was here, but he had to go for the team to grow.

[zeebneeb]

I'm on team Grant as far as him being a good basketball player that helps the team.... even though the numbers don't back it up this season.

I wouldn't say trade Grant to Portland for Bledsoe and a future first round pick because Grant is more valuable than that to our team.

I would trade him for a lottery pick and Hart... or a lottery pick and an extra $21 million in cap space this summer due to Portland being able to absorb his contract into a trade exception.

But you're selling Grant short if you think the team is just better off without him.

[the bolded]Prove it. Honestly, try and prove that. The numbers don't support that assertion, the W/L doesn't support it, nor does the play of the team support it.

Are you speaking of veteran leadership? The voice off the court? How much is that worth, when by all measurable statistics, the team is better without Grant?

Is Grant a good player? Yes. Does he fit with this team both in age, and play style? No. Grant's worth is whatever Weaver can get for him. Cade, the best player on the team already, and the cornerstone of the teams future, absolutely, and unequivocally, has to have a player exactly like Marvin Bagley to have even greater success. That type of player lives in Grant's position. This cannot be debated, as it is fact.(Cade needing a player like Bagley) Marvin, love him or hate him, has unlocked Cades playmaking, and floor leadership/vision. So if Grant is kept, that means he will be starting.

That means you have to bench either Stewart, or Bey. This Pistons team, has to have a Bagley in the starting lineup for both Cade, and the team to succeed. We have all seen it.

If the Pistons get a top three pick, and select one of the bigs(Chet/Smith/Banchero)they all start at the PF, with only Chet maybe at the C spot. How would that work? Is a 23 win team going to bring a top 3 pick off the bench? Absolutely not.

The team is better without Grant. He is going to clash directly with the cornerstone of the franchise(Cade) by taking a starting spot from a rim runner/P&R guy.

I mean, I get that some people really, really want this to work with Grant, but when everything points to that not working, and I mean everything, you have to go with Cade, and the future of the team.

[bstein14]

Part of the early losses this season with Grant was because the entire team was struggling with shooting. The young guys also got better as the season progressed.

If you'd give away Grant for nothing because you think the team is better without him you probably don't understand basketball.

Grant's one of the best defenders on the team, he's above average on league PER, he's above average on TS%. He also does have a veteran calm to his game where the kids can get a bit jittery for sure.

It's one thing to think the team is better off getting value out of Grant while we can, its also fine to think he isn't worth extending for big money, but if you think the team is better without Grant and you'd just trade him for nothing to get him off the team I think that's a pretty ridiculous take.

[Drwho17]

I want Grant gone in the offseason, but not because he's a detriment to the team. Pistons started their late season resurgence when he came back, he's a good player although I do think he impacts Bey. I think SF is his best position, I don't think it's a coincidence his best numbers were when Blake G was playing PF and he was at SF to start out his Pistons career. I just don't want to sign him to some outrageous extension, he's a bit older then the other core players, and if they can get a lotto pick for him all the better.

[vege]

Pistons are 11-36 With Grant this season
Pistons are 12-20 without Grant this season

Pistons average 102.9 PPG with Grant this season
Pistons average 107.4 PPG without Grant this season

Pistons FG% is 42.5 with Grant this season
Pistons FG% is 44.0 without Grant this season

Pistons average 22.7 APG with Grant this season
Pistons average 24.4 APG without Grant this season

In other words, the Detroit Pistons are a better team without Jerami Grant.

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm find trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

I explained all that when Grant was injured. People don't want to hear it, they must get that shinny new 1st round pick no matter what

[Cowology]

I've been making this argument for a while, but most people don't want to hear it. We had a stretch of about 3 games where Grant/Cade/Bey played well together and some people are hanging onto that pretty tightly.

I believe we are also now 4-3 without Grant post All-Star break, but some of these games have been kinda wacky. We've been trying to lose and still winning. Go figure.

Y'all are aware that there's a difference between correlation and causation, right? Grant not play correlates with a slightly worse record, but ignoring the multitude of other potential factors causing wins or losses in those different stretches seems a bit short sighted. We started the season without our best player in the line up, and when he got back he stunk it up as a shooter for his first few games. Is that Grant's fault? Bey started out really rough this season but then gradually came on as we went. Is that Grant's fault? We added Bagley to the team after the all-star break and he played well in a lot of games, including some that Grant missed. Is that Grant's fault?

We've improved as a team over the course of the season. We played well as a team when Grant came back from his injury. He didn't stop all of the other improvements the team had made. But y'all want to penalize him specifically for how poorly the team as a whole played before he went out with his injury.

Like I'm find trading him if we get a good haul, but I don't think his contributions to the team are as replacement-level as a lot of y'all seem to think, and I definitely don't think moving him just to move him is any kind of addition by subtraction.

I explained all that when Grant was injured. People don't want to hear it, they must get that shinny new 1st round pick no matter what

I've stated REPEATEDLY that I have no interest in trading Grant for a pick. I want an established vet at a greater position of need. In fact the deal I've repeatedly advocated for (Grant/Olynyk for Hart/Bledsoe) continually get's crapped on because 1) people underrate Hart and 2) It doesn't include a pick. But it gives us back an excellent 2-way guard AND free's up an additional $15 mil n cap room, putting us around $43 mil which allows us to add multiple impact FA targets by virtue of clearing Olynyk's salary in the move. I'm not trying to take a step back or run on a treadmill; I simply want pieces that fit better alongside Cade.

You can still draft BPA and chase 2+ of Brunson, Monk, Robinson or whoever else floats your boat. $43 mil goes a long way and we'll wind up with a much more balanced roster that hasn't lost any production.