What kind of contract are you expecting Jerami Grant to get?

[tacosman]

Grant at 5/160 is a bad contract. Im sorry.....it just is. He just isn't that good. And yes, the moment he signed it it became a negative contract that it will take real assets to get off of.

That said, I don't think the situation is that bad......after all you *have* to spend money on someone and maybe they want Grant around to work with Scoot on the team. That said, if I'm spending that sort of money on a looooong term deal like that, I'd prefer taking on a contract that gives me assets attached. Although those deals aren't so common anymore it seems.

[mighty_duck]

Grant at 5/160 is a bad contract. Im sorry.....it just is. He just isn't that good. And yes, the moment he signed it it became a negative contract that it will take real assets to get off of.

That said, I don't think the situation is that bad......after all you *have* to spend money on someone and maybe they want Grant around to work with Scoot on the team. That said, if I'm spending that sort of money on a looooong term deal like that, I'd prefer taking on a contract that gives me assets attached. Although those deals aren't so common anymore it seems.

That is the general consensus.
BUT - assuming we front load the contract - start it off at about 32m, and have it decline every year. And with the salary cap going up every year, in a couple of years it will be either a positive contract, or a neutral one we can send to a contender for expirings. Similar to Norman Powel's deal from a couple of years ago.

Knowing what we know now about Dame, I would have just let Grant walk for nothing. But it's not the end of the world.

[DusterBuster]

Grant at 5/160 is a bad contract. Im sorry.....it just is. He just isn't that good. And yes, the moment he signed it it became a negative contract that it will take real assets to get off of.

That said, I don't think the situation is that bad......after all you *have* to spend money on someone and maybe they want Grant around to work with Scoot on the team. That said, if I'm spending that sort of money on a looooong term deal like that, I'd prefer taking on a contract that gives me assets attached. Although those deals aren't so common anymore it seems.

You're pretty much where we all are with it. It's not a good contract, but you have to pay someone. Since most of the Blazers new core will be on rookie deals anyway, overpaying Grant on average 5-7mil per year is "whatever". By the time any rooks are up for extensions, Grant will be in the final year or expired, so it doesn't hurt anything and the Blazers are not a FA destination anyway, so might as well lock up someone who's at least talented. Even overpaid, I think he'll be someone the Blazers can trade without having to give up assets in like 2 years, especially with the cap going up around 7-10% each year, so even as overpriced as he his, the percentage of a teams cap he takes up will be less and less.

[Effigy]

Grant at 5/160 is a bad contract. Im sorry.....it just is. He just isn't that good. And yes, the moment he signed it it became a negative contract that it will take real assets to get off of.

That said, I don't think the situation is that bad......after all you *have* to spend money on someone and maybe they want Grant around to work with Scoot on the team. That said, if I'm spending that sort of money on a looooong term deal like that, I'd prefer taking on a contract that gives me assets attached. Although those deals aren't so common anymore it seems.

You're pretty much where we all are with it. It's not a good contract, but you have to pay someone. Since most of the Blazers new core will be on rookie deals anyway, overpaying Grant on average 5-7mil per year is "whatever". By the time any rooks are up for extensions, Grant will be in the final year or expired, so it doesn't hurt anything and the Blazers are not a FA destination anyway, so might as well lock up someone who's at least talented. Even overpaid, I think he'll be someone the Blazers can trade without having to give up assets in like 2 years, especially with the cap going up around 7-10% each year, so even as overpriced as he his, the percentage of a teams cap he takes up will be less and less.

You have to pay someone but you don’t have to agree to overpay them for the rest of the decade. It’s a horrendous contract. Honestly it’s the worst contract in the league. The person who gave Jerami Grant that contract should be fired immediately, no other transaction even needs to be considered. It’s reprehensibly, irresponsibly, devastatingly bad.

[GreenRiddler]

I think he is a trade asset at every deadline it’s not that bad a contract and teams could use a guy like him. He also gives us stability and vet presence. The only thing is I think he could hamper the development Sharpe and whoever we get for Dame like a Jovic or something cause he gets a lot of shots up on developing teams like the Pistons.

[Effigy]

The Spurs just gave Devin Vassell 5 years $146 million. I'm feeling a little better about Jerami's contract.

[Blazinaway]

The Spurs just gave Devin Vassell 5 years $146 million. I'm feeling a little better about Jerami's contract.

yeah saw that, that seemed pretty high to me, teams better hope that the "big" new TV deal actually comes to pass, my guess is its going to be significantly less than expected, glad we got out of Dames contract and won'y be giving out any more big money for 2-3 years which should be after we get a much better idea what the new deal is likely going to be