Grant is good. Rockets cannot afford him on the FA market. Rockets have nothing Portland wants. Maybe a three-way. But i doubt it. Other teams have eyes too. I believe. ------------------ Save Our Wizard Step up and shoot it! [This message has been edited by CriscoKidd (edited May 01, 2000).]
Actually, like aelliott said, he has an out clause, meaning he will be a Blazer next year unless he declares himself a free agent or is traded(highly unlikely). He is set to make $10 mil next season, so don't count on him going anywhere. ------------------ We're going to miss you Chuck! Thanks for all the memories!
I also really like Brian Grant. I think he's both a great player and a great guy. After watching him against Malone last year, I couldn't think of anyone I wanted more to be a Rocket. As far as the injury prone argument; I've heard both sides--and I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. My take is this though. Grant is gonna cost us some money while KT is still under his rookie contract. KT is already a good starter, and he will probably get better; he could become better than Grant--most of all, he's cheap. I too would rather spend any money we have in the direction of a big, strong, fast, athletic small forward and just be happy with KT starting at the four. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
A PF who averages less than 10 points AND 10 rebounds is NOT a good starter... He needs to produce one way or the other... preferably in rebounds, due to the composition of our team. I'm a KT fan... I think he can be a 13/9 guy, which would be fine with me... but he's *not* a good starter RIGHT NOW. ------------------
Pass First ... wrote: "..... You are answering in circles..... " Okay. How do you propose I answer several circular issues? ".....People are using OBJECTIVE indicia of injury (missed games, etc.)" That was my point. I did not feel the criteria for establishing "injury prone" was objective. If it was games missed than there are other players that also have lost several games but are not considered "injury prone". If it was minutes played as someone postulated, then I retorted somewhat that there are other players with similiar records that are not considered "injury prone". ".... you are either guessing or relying on "inside information" (coaches hiding him on the IR)." One does not need to "guess" or rely on "inside information" to logically assume that in general, it is an accepted NBA practice to hide players on IR to make room for others on the roster, and, in particular a team as deep as Portland would most certainly do such a thing. Don't need any crystal balls here. In any event, he is hurt now, and he was hurt last year and the year before. Ah. The meat of the contention. Does that constitute he is "injury prone"? As noted, there is a list of players on several teams that have the same frequency,yet do not get saddled with that (in my opinion) over-used description. As you correctly surmised, "...it's clear that you REALLY want Brian Grant ...". I do. And I may be blindly holding on to something here, but I surely hope he is not passed over because of any impression that he is "injury prone". Because as you can tell I stubbornly disagree. Cheers.
