I don't really get that move. I really like Brian Grant, but if there is a team he can least contribute to, it is the one he is on. 120 mil for a back-up player, with a glut for minutes at the forward positions, just doesn't make sense to me. The only thing I can think of is Allen see's this as the only way to keep him from LA, which would further spell doom for his current troup. You probably can't trade him by signing him at that price either. If I am Allen, I try to trade Grant plus someone else (Wells and/or Stoudamire) to upgrade their starting line-up. I would try to get someone like Dikembe, Iverson, Payton, or maybe a very good PG like Terrel Brandon, Armstrong or T. Hardway, who instantly gives them a more potent line-up. Maybe Grant has em by the you-know-whats, but I don't think this is a good long-term, or short-term move for Portland. ------------------ "The Rockets were ahead of the Suns by 20 late in game 2 of the series, but when the going got tough, we just Pippened . We would not be done in the series though."
Stop the insanity!!! He's a good player, but worth nowhere near that type on money. ------------------ - hoopjunkie "when you come in da HOOD... things change."
Its hard to say I feel for a guy offered that kind of money, but I do. I mean he has to decide between staying in POrtland, not as happy professionally as he could be, but rich as hell versus leaving for much less money, a chance to show he can really play, but with much less security. Personally, Id take the money. I mean, it is much more than he will be offered elsewhere and it will ensure he and his family live like Gods for generations to come--if theyre smart with it. Of course there is that side to me that says, hey, its only money, you gotta be happy, and youd still be a millionare anyways, but 120 million dollars is a little too much to pass up on! ------------------ When I die I want to go peacefully like my grandfather. Not screaming like the passengers in the back seat!
This report is bull****. The maximum length his contract could be is 7 years under the new CBA. If they are wrong about the length, why should they be right about anything else? I'm sure Allen will offer a lot, but I have serious reservations about this particular report. From the Coon CBA FAQ: LARRY BIRD EXCEPTION -- This is the best known one. Players who qualify for this exception are called "Qualifying Veteran Free Agents" in the CBA. This exception allows teams to exceed the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents, up to the player's maximum salary. The free agent in question must have played for three seasons without changing teams as a free agent. This means a player can obtain "Bird rights" by playing under three one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any combination. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Bird exception to re-sign him. These contracts can be up to seven years in length. A player can receive 12.5% raises using this exception. This exception is known as the Larry Bird exception because the Celtics were the first team allowed to exceed the cap to keep their own free agent, and the player happened to be Bird. http://members.home.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#16 ------------------ http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/ [This message has been edited by JuanValdez (edited July 06, 2000).]
Juan, the report makes reference to a 'new rule' that allows the contract to be for 10 years. ------------------ The ClutchCity 500.
Actually, according to the article, the contract is allowable : According to an earlier report by Steve Brandon of The Oregonian, the Blazers could re-sign Grant for up to seven years and about $86 million. But Ross says that a new rule will make it possible for the Blazers to sign Grant under this contract because they can exceed the salary cap as long as the owner pays a fine, and Paul Allen should have no problem affording that. Of course keeping Grant on the Trailblazers as a back-up PF isn't worth anywhere close to that amount, but kepping Grant off the Lakers is. ------------------ Who would've thought Don Nelson would pass up Olumide Oyedeji not once, not twice, but thrice? [This message has been edited by Puedlfor (edited July 06, 2000).]
How much of that contract is to make sure the Lakers don't get him? I like Grant and he is a nice player, but not worth that much. Paying him that much I wonder if Wallace is going to see more minutes at C, especially if Jermaine still wants to be traded. Lot of $$$, but I think the length & the amount is to deter the Lakers from picking up a very good PF. ------------------
The Lakers don't have a shot at Grant anyway. He's not going to play for peanuts for 3 years (to get Bird rights in LA), and Portland would never trade him there. Grant's contract would be 3x Cato's! At least Cato starts! ------------------ I Hate Every Bone in Your Body But Mine
Freak I don't know if the Lakers had a shot or not but many people were reporting that the Lakers had interest in him and Grant could play for less to get a ring. Remember Charles played for a Million a year to bring in Scottie. Cato is making 6-7 mil/year average over the life of his contract I think. I would much rather have one Grant than 2 Cato's any day, yeah Cato may start but Grant at least hustles and plays with heart. But neither player is worth what they are getting paid (Cato) or what they are being offered (Grant). ------------------
The "new rule" referred to is the luxury tax, which has nothing to do with contract length. You can't have a ten-year contract. No way, no how. This was a major issue in the CBA negotiations, 'cause owners didn't want to get blackmailed by players (e.g., Larry Johnson signing a 12-year deal, Donyell Marshall a 9-year deal). There is simply no way any "new rule" would quietly undo this. Either someone snowed the Portland radio host, or he just made it up. ------------------
Yeah, I don't know what this 'new rule' could be. The 7 year limit was set in the last contract with the union and they couldn't have passed any new rules since then -- it would have to be negotiated with the players' union. Reading the article, it sounds like oregonlive is not taking responsibility for any of the report, only passing on information deduced/made-up by the radio host. ------------------ http://www.gaffordstudios.cjb.net/
Brian Grant was not at full strength last year and he was still a hell of a player while on the floor. When he's at full strength is most definetely deserving of that contract. A lot of you seem to think that Brian Grant was actually going to Zenville. Here's why BG WON'T go to LA: (Besides the little 120 million dollar contract factor) Grant can get on half the teams in the NBA and get twice as much money as he would in LA. Why does Grant's opting out of his contract mean that LA must be his destination? If he went to LA, he would take a HUGE pay cut and the length of his contract would be drastically reduced. And going to LA is no lock for a championship either. Shaq has gotten injured every year except last year; if he goes down even for a few weeks, the Lakers will suffer. Grant's value will plummet if he signs for an exception and plummet even further if he gets injured in LA. Detlef Schrempf. Det is the wild card. If he retires, then all of a sudden, Grant is THE backup PF and O'Neal is THE backup center. It all makes sense. But with Pippen playing major minutes, Det gets his time at the 4 and 3, and Grant's time shrinks. If Det retires, it just increases the presently favorable chances that Brian is a Blazer for the next 10 years. About Jermaine: Of course, if players want out, we'll have to make the best possible moves to be successful. Basically, I think we have a great chance to win it all if we can keep everyone we have. The problem last year was that we didn't have consistency on offense, and a great deal of that came from the "feeling out process" with all the new players. This year, there should be much less of that. We know that Rasheed is our main man, our primary scorer, and so does he. Pippen knows that he's needed to run the offense, anchor the defense, hold Sheed back when he goes after refs, and all the other stuff he does. Smith knows that he's usually the second option, and is prepared to step it up in crunch time. Damon,if he's still around, knows that he is put on the floor for quick burst of offensive energy. And on it goes. We had only a little team cohesiveness last year and we were an eyelash away from the title, which is pretty good. I think we owe it to this squad to keep the roster as intact as possible and make another run at the title. But damn, imagine being financially capable of paying NBA players' salaries with your spare change.That's Fu*kin scary.
Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, and Shawn Kemp have never made more than $120 million from their playing contracts for their careers... COMBINED! And they're going to offer that to Brian Grant??? Give me a break. ------------------ "One who conquers others is strong; One who conquers himself is mighty" - Lao Tzu [This message has been edited by temujinphl (edited July 06, 2000).]
I am prety sure the Lakers can offer Grant the same any team not Portland, Orlando, or the Bulls (the med level FA salary for teams over the cap). If Grant does sign on his own--is dead set on making the Blazer's pay for not playing him more, the Lakers would have to be the #1 candidate. Grant would likely get a ring(s), a starting job, LA endorsements, and they have a front office with great respect (be OK with a wink, wink deal). Players have done similar things before (passed up the immediate money for long term gains or chances at rings--e.g., Barkley, Bison Williams). That said, he would have to turn down a ton of immediate money not to work through Portland (for a sign n trade, stay with the team), he would have to be really pi**ed off not to work through the Blazers given the cash thwy will throw. Again, if I were the Blazers, I would be working on a sign an trade right now, he has greater value for someone else than he does for Portland, why not use his value to upgrade a weaker element to your team (PG, C). ------------------ "The Rockets were ahead of the Suns by 20 late in game 2 of the series, but when the going got tough, we just Pippened . We would not be done in the series though."
Sir, the only sign and trade Trader Bob will even consider regarding BG will be to bring in Tim Duncan. Although we're on his top 5 list, its VERY unlikely we land Duncan. One other note about BG...for yrs he's been the heart and soul of the blazers for a while now and he is TREMENDOUSLY invlolved in the PDX community.He's stated his love for the town quite a few times this year and it would be a big surprise if he left it...and that kind of money.
1. Orlando 2. San Antonio 3. Virtually anywhere else in the NBA 4. Any team in Europe 5. Portland ------------------
Son of a... at this rate we won't be able to afford Yinka Dare. <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/blazers/index.ssf?/sports/00/07/sp070650.frame">Blazers offer Grant 10 years, $120 million</a> Paul Allen is nuts. Must be nice having that kind of money -- hey Paul, mind building us an arena? ------------------ NOTHING BUT .NET CLUTCHCITY.NET
