Is Grant a goner? (Yes: Traded to DAL for second rounders)

[Who]

Grant worked hard to improve his game while here.   He is undersized and not a good athlete.    He was always going to have some limitations given those facts.   He dealt with these by being clever.    He was never good at guarding bigs other than putting a body on them.      Despite all the claims of him being good at against Giannis he has the worst defensive rating  against him.

I think Dallas will regret the signing.

I agree!!

I expect Dallas will as well. I don't think G-Will is a good fit with Luka. D Finney Smith was excellent because of his quickness, length & athleticism. That is not G-Will. He is a slow bulky short power forward. Finney Smith's superior length & quickness allowed him to cover a wider area of the floor as a team defender. Grant can't do that. He is not quick enough. It is why typically there was a drop-off in team D when he was on the floor. Not is Grant quick enough to be a high level stopper like DFS was. Grant is a good man defender rather than a great man defender. And he does best on slower bigger forwards rather than the versatility DFS gave to guard 2-4.

Grant is a good defender on Giannis but he is not so good that you want him to be your best defender on Giannis. In Boston, he was the 2nd or 3rd best defender on Giannis. Horford was our best defender on Giannis. Grant was our 3rd best defender on Durant behind Tatum and Horford. Grant has value in that role as a 2nd or 3rd defensive option on tough matchups. Far less as the primary guy. And those are matchups that he is best suited to.

So Dallas looking to Grant to be that high level man defender to replace DFS are going to be disappointed + Dallas looking to Grant to be that high level team defender to replace DFS are going to be disappointed.

If I am Dallas, I am worried about the collective lack of foot-speed with Luka and Grant. They are two of the slower forwards in the league at their respective position. Luka has had issues playing next to slow PFs in the past (M Kleber). He has benefited greatly from having a quick footed defensive forward (DFS) next to him. That helped compensate for his own lack of foot-speed. Grant does not do that. He compounds the situation with his own lack of speed.

It is not like Dallas has great athleticism in the backcourt either with Kyrie or Tim Hardaway who are both average athletes. R Holmes is not a great athlete at center either. This is a team that is often going to be a quickness & athletic disadvantage. They are also going to be at a strength disadvantage in the paint with R Holmes. These are not good things.

So yes, I agree. I do expect Dallas to regret this deal.

I think the money aspect is okay but the team-fit is wrong and the expectations of Grant defensively are wrong. That is going to cause problems.

[obnoxiousmime]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

[Moranis]

When I say Hauser is inconsistent this is what I mean.

These are his monthly shooting percentages from 3 (with his attempts)

Oct - 55.6 (3)
Nov - 46.2 (4.9)
Dec - 28.3 (3.
Jan - 31.4 (2.7)
Feb - 49.1 (5)
Mar - 42.6 (3.
Apr - 42.9 (8.
1st - 45.5 (1.9)
ECS - 20 (1.3)
ECF - 25 (1.6)

He has spurts where he shoots amazingly, but then he invariably comes back down.  He was quite simply bad against Philly and Miami and since he can't do much of anything else, he is unplayable when he isn't hitting his shots.  Boston basically has taken the approach with Hauser that Miami has used with Robinson.  Robinson was hitting his shots, Hauser was not.

Eh.  Hauser played about 40 minutes, total, against Philly and Miami.  He was never given a chance.

or the first 2 games against the Sixers he was given a chance and failed.  He played 13 minutes and he was 0 for 3 with 1 steal, 1 rebound, and 1 foul. Combined.  2 games. 13 minutes of absolute garbage.

13 minutes combined over two games is him getting a legit chance? 

But, that's what worries me about our roster.  Even if guys can play capably, that doesn't mean that Joe will play them.

That is what bench players get in the playoffs.  How many minutes do you think Tatum is going to play in the playoffs?

Eh.  Miami's 9th and 10th men (really, their 11th and 12th men due to injuries) averaged more minutes than that.

Hauser was Boston's 11th man in the Heat series by mpg though.  By mpg, Brogdon was Boston's 8th man with 18.8.  Highsmith had the 8th most mpg for the Heat at 12.9 (though he played in just 4 games) and Love was 9th at 12.3.

Boston and Miami each had 4 guys above 30 mpg and 2 more above 24 mpg.  So 6 guys played at least 24 mpg for each team.  Boston then had Rob and Brogdon between 18 and 19, while Miami had Robinson in that range and then split minutes between love and highsmith in the 12 to 13 range, but only 9 of the possible 14 games.  Pritchard had 6.6 mpg in 5 games for Boston.  Collectively, the 7-9 players for the Celtics played a lot more minutes than the 7-9 players for the Heat.  Heck we can go 10 deep to include Zeller and Hauser, and Boston's guys still played more total minutes from the 7 to 10 guys at 300 to 298 (and Zeller played more minutes than Hauser so by including them that helped Miami).

I just don't think you living in reality with this take.  The facts certainly don't bear this out.  I mean look at the Warriors when they beat Boston for the title.  They had just 6 players play in all 22 playoff games (by minutes - Klay, Wiggins, Curry, Draymond, Poole, Looney).  Porter played in 19 games at 19.5 mpg, Kuminga was 16 games but just 8.6 mpg while Lee was also 16 games and even less mpg at 7.8, and Bjelica was 15 games at 10 mpg.  Payton had the 8th most mpg at 16.9, but he played in just 12 of the 22 games. In the finals, they had 7 guys play in all 6 games (adding Porter to the other 6) and Payton played in 5 with 18.6 mpg.  Those top 8 all played at least 17 mpg, but after that the next most mpg was 5.8.

Playoff rotations are just smaller.  teams don't play the deeper bench and they never have.  Hauser was given an opportunity against the Sixers and he failed.  And he continued to fail the rest of the playoffs, which is why he didn't play all that much.  With shorter rotations, you have to perform and perform immediately.  That is reality.  Hauser, quite simply, wasn't good enough.

[gouki88]

When I say Hauser is inconsistent this is what I mean.

These are his monthly shooting percentages from 3 (with his attempts)

Oct - 55.6 (3)
Nov - 46.2 (4.9)
Dec - 28.3 (3.
Jan - 31.4 (2.7)
Feb - 49.1 (5)
Mar - 42.6 (3.
Apr - 42.9 (8.
1st - 45.5 (1.9)
ECS - 20 (1.3)
ECF - 25 (1.6)

He has spurts where he shoots amazingly, but then he invariably comes back down.  He was quite simply bad against Philly and Miami and since he can't do much of anything else, he is unplayable when he isn't hitting his shots.  Boston basically has taken the approach with Hauser that Miami has used with Robinson.  Robinson was hitting his shots, Hauser was not.

Eh.  Hauser played about 40 minutes, total, against Philly and Miami.  He was never given a chance.

or the first 2 games against the Sixers he was given a chance and failed.  He played 13 minutes and he was 0 for 3 with 1 steal, 1 rebound, and 1 foul. Combined.  2 games. 13 minutes of absolute garbage.

13 minutes combined over two games is him getting a legit chance? 

But, that's what worries me about our roster.  Even if guys can play capably, that doesn't mean that Joe will play them.

That is what bench players get in the playoffs.  How many minutes do you think Tatum is going to play in the playoffs?

Eh.  Miami's 9th and 10th men (really, their 11th and 12th men due to injuries) averaged more minutes than that.

Hauser was Boston's 11th man in the Heat series by mpg though.  By mpg, Brogdon was Boston's 8th man with 18.8.  Highsmith had the 8th most mpg for the Heat at 12.9 (though he played in just 4 games) and Love was 9th at 12.3.

Boston and Miami each had 4 guys above 30 mpg and 2 more above 24 mpg.  So 6 guys played at least 24 mpg for each team.  Boston then had Rob and Brogdon between 18 and 19, while Miami had Robinson in that range and then split minutes between love and highsmith in the 12 to 13 range, but only 9 of the possible 14 games.  Pritchard had 6.6 mpg in 5 games for Boston.  Collectively, the 7-9 players for the Celtics played a lot more minutes than the 7-9 players for the Heat.  Heck we can go 10 deep to include Zeller and Hauser, and Boston's guys still played more total minutes from the 7 to 10 guys at 300 to 298 (and Zeller played more minutes than Hauser so by including them that helped Miami).

I just don't think you living in reality with this take.  The facts certainly don't bear this out.  I mean look at the Warriors when they beat Boston for the title.  They had just 6 players play in all 22 playoff games (by minutes - Klay, Wiggins, Curry, Draymond, Poole, Looney).  Porter played in 19 games at 19.5 mpg, Kuminga was 16 games but just 8.6 mpg while Lee was also 16 games and even less mpg at 7.8, and Bjelica was 15 games at 10 mpg.  Payton had the 8th most mpg at 16.9, but he played in just 12 of the 22 games. In the finals, they had 7 guys play in all 6 games (adding Porter to the other 6) and Payton played in 5 with 18.6 mpg.  Those top 8 all played at least 17 mpg, but after that the next most mpg was 5.8.

Playoff rotations are just smaller.  teams don't play the deeper bench and they never have.  Hauser was given an opportunity against the Sixers and he failed.  And he continued to fail the rest of the playoffs, which is why he didn't play all that much.  With shorter rotations, you have to perform and perform immediately.  That is reality.  Hauser, quite simply, wasn't good enough.

Kornet played in less games, he was not ahead of Hauser in the rotation because he played 0.3MPG more in one less game played.

[Celtics4ever]

Sadly most of our bench guys last year outside of the top seven players were situational players who thrived in only certain situations.

[Moranis]

When I say Hauser is inconsistent this is what I mean.

These are his monthly shooting percentages from 3 (with his attempts)

Oct - 55.6 (3)
Nov - 46.2 (4.9)
Dec - 28.3 (3.
Jan - 31.4 (2.7)
Feb - 49.1 (5)
Mar - 42.6 (3.
Apr - 42.9 (8.
1st - 45.5 (1.9)
ECS - 20 (1.3)
ECF - 25 (1.6)

He has spurts where he shoots amazingly, but then he invariably comes back down.  He was quite simply bad against Philly and Miami and since he can't do much of anything else, he is unplayable when he isn't hitting his shots.  Boston basically has taken the approach with Hauser that Miami has used with Robinson.  Robinson was hitting his shots, Hauser was not.

Eh.  Hauser played about 40 minutes, total, against Philly and Miami.  He was never given a chance.

or the first 2 games against the Sixers he was given a chance and failed.  He played 13 minutes and he was 0 for 3 with 1 steal, 1 rebound, and 1 foul. Combined.  2 games. 13 minutes of absolute garbage.

13 minutes combined over two games is him getting a legit chance? 

But, that's what worries me about our roster.  Even if guys can play capably, that doesn't mean that Joe will play them.

That is what bench players get in the playoffs.  How many minutes do you think Tatum is going to play in the playoffs?

Eh.  Miami's 9th and 10th men (really, their 11th and 12th men due to injuries) averaged more minutes than that.

Hauser was Boston's 11th man in the Heat series by mpg though.  By mpg, Brogdon was Boston's 8th man with 18.8.  Highsmith had the 8th most mpg for the Heat at 12.9 (though he played in just 4 games) and Love was 9th at 12.3.

Boston and Miami each had 4 guys above 30 mpg and 2 more above 24 mpg.  So 6 guys played at least 24 mpg for each team.  Boston then had Rob and Brogdon between 18 and 19, while Miami had Robinson in that range and then split minutes between love and highsmith in the 12 to 13 range, but only 9 of the possible 14 games.  Pritchard had 6.6 mpg in 5 games for Boston.  Collectively, the 7-9 players for the Celtics played a lot more minutes than the 7-9 players for the Heat.  Heck we can go 10 deep to include Zeller and Hauser, and Boston's guys still played more total minutes from the 7 to 10 guys at 300 to 298 (and Zeller played more minutes than Hauser so by including them that helped Miami).

I just don't think you living in reality with this take.  The facts certainly don't bear this out.  I mean look at the Warriors when they beat Boston for the title.  They had just 6 players play in all 22 playoff games (by minutes - Klay, Wiggins, Curry, Draymond, Poole, Looney).  Porter played in 19 games at 19.5 mpg, Kuminga was 16 games but just 8.6 mpg while Lee was also 16 games and even less mpg at 7.8, and Bjelica was 15 games at 10 mpg.  Payton had the 8th most mpg at 16.9, but he played in just 12 of the 22 games. In the finals, they had 7 guys play in all 6 games (adding Porter to the other 6) and Payton played in 5 with 18.6 mpg.  Those top 8 all played at least 17 mpg, but after that the next most mpg was 5.8.

Playoff rotations are just smaller.  teams don't play the deeper bench and they never have.  Hauser was given an opportunity against the Sixers and he failed.  And he continued to fail the rest of the playoffs, which is why he didn't play all that much.  With shorter rotations, you have to perform and perform immediately.  That is reality.  Hauser, quite simply, wasn't good enough.

Kornet played in less games, he was not ahead of Hauser in the rotation because he played 0.3MPG more in one less game played.

I included Hauser as the 10th man.  Perhaps reading what I write before responding and then actually responding to the topic would be beneficial.  I bolded it for you to make it easier to find since reading is hard.

[Moranis]

Sadly most of our bench guys last year outside of the top seven players were situational players who thrived in only certain situations.

except they weren't and that was the problem.  Boston actually doesn't have any real situational players on the deep bench.  They have a bunch of jack of all trades master of none type players and that is why they can't be counted on (and they aren't any good at the jack of all trades type thing).  Hauser is the only guy that is really a specialist and he just wasn't any good at his specialty the last 2 series.

[Big333223]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

[gouki88]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

Thanks for that trauma reminder. So embarrassing!

[obnoxiousmime]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

[gouki88]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

Where has this narrative of Hauser being a weak defender come from? I'm continually very confused by it all.

From my eye test, he seems fine. Competent man and team defender, is often attacked by opposing offences and they fail to exploit him. Advanced metrics rate him as squarely between average to slightly above average.

[Neurotic Guy]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

I like Grant. He’s young, strong, and smart.  There are some maturity issues that he’ll overcome. But he’s become an excellent long-range shooter, a versatile defender, and he’s shown moves to the hoop that indicate he’s working on other aspects of his offensive game.  Grant’s not a finished product and Dallas may have a steal on their hands by the end of this contract. That said, it’s no sure thing that he effectively expands his game.  As is, he’s a useful role player - good player to have on your bench. I wish Cs had paid him, but I haven’t given up hope that there’ll be a replacement that gives us at least what Grant did.

[Big333223]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

Yeah, I basically agree with that assessment. He may well turn into a useful rotation player for Dallas. But I think championships are not won by players who just don't mess things up. You have to be good, not just not bad.

[Moranis]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

Yeah, I basically agree with that assessment. He may well turn into a useful rotation player for Dallas. But I think championships are not won by players who just don't mess things up. You have to be good, not just not bad.

No team is winning a championship because of a player like Grant Williams.  Teams win championships because of players like Luka Doncic.

[Goldstar88]

This feels a little like kicking the guy on his way out the door but I'm not going to miss Grant, honestly. For a few reasons:

1. The way people talked about his personality in the locker room always felt, to me, like they were trying not to say something mean about something that was really annoying to be around. Everyone talked about how he talked a lot and it was always spun to sound kind of endearing, like he was the team's "little brother." All the reporting I've heard claims he was well liked in the locker room but it always struck me that being around the personality a lot probably wore on guys but they couldn't say anything bad about their teammate.

2. Over the last year, I got sick to death of hearing about the Milwaukee playoff game. In that game, Grant shot .389 from 3 (7/18). For that season, he averaged .411 from 3. What that means is that, on a night when the opposition strategically left him WIDE OPEN all night long, he managed to shoot below his season average. That game is talked about like he's a hero but if someone like Hauser was getting those looks he'd probably have scored 40. Grant was given a golden opportunity and he was... fine.

3. He always seems better on paper than in realty. He can shoot and he can also put the ball on the floor, he's strong but he's also nimble. So why did I consistently forget that he was on the floor for long stretches? Why was his impact so often so minimal? He's like the opposite of Marcus Smart. There were lots of things to criticize about Smart's game but he always found ways to make a positive impact no matter what. With Grant, he had all of these theoretical skills but rarely knew how to use them to his advantage.

I think that point #1 is a little bit too conjecture-y. Also, he was at least well-liked enough to be Tatum's closest friend on the team. Now, if you want to talk about yapping on court to refs or opposing players, that's a little more tangible.

The Milwaukee game still matters to me because you can't just look at the percentage and then conclude that "player X averages this much so he could have also hit those shots." Sure, Milwaukee didn't adjust quickly enough and it cost them, but Grant also was confident enough to take those shots. We don't have evidence Hauser can do that in a playoff game. I'm not saying he can't, just saying that Grant's already done it and having a track record is better than not having one. Also, Grant could be on the floor for that long in the first place because he can play against a physical and large team like Milwaukee. If you put Hauser in that situation his lesser defense would also be impacting the game. Grant's value to me lied in his versatility and strength. The playoffs are a different animal than the regular season and Grant had the physical ability to keep up. Other players that would just be rag-dolled immediately can't even play large minutes in the playoffs at all.

Grant's a role player, not an unquestioned starter or star. Of course he has flaws. People are unhappy because he fills a need and didn't actually end up signing for a whole lot. I can understand wanting to be safe and stay under the apron, but they could have also probably moved him next year pretty easily if they just needed to get off the salary. Evidently they didn't want to take the risk.

1. Yes, it is almost entirely conjecture. And, if I'm being honest, I fear it is a little projection.

2. I agree, you can't just look at the percentage. I watched that game and I was struck by how tentative he was with the opportunity. I think that's part of his personality. The game last season where he was yapping about making the free throws and then missed both feels like part of the same quality. He doesn't rise to the moment. He was given the best opportunity to shine I've ever seen a non-star get and he was, as I said, fine.

3. It's not about him having flaws, it's kind of the opposite. He has so few flaws I feel like his impact should be much greater. He's the opposite of Marcus Smart. Smart has many more flaws in his game but his impact is infinitely greater. With all that Grant is capable of, I was always left wondering why he wasn't able to contribute more.

I would say he's more like a guy that won't totally mess up your plan on offense or defense. Like, when Hauser is in there's just always going to be some drop-off defensively based on his physical limitations. It's the same with Pritchard. Grant is solid enough to defend a lot of positions reasonably well, though he's by no means a lockdown defender. Ultimately he's still a tweener big that had enough athleticism to move his feet against guards but also maintained his strength in guarding 5s. He's not going to bother taller players' shots, get a lot of steals, or dominate the boards because he doesn't have a great wingspan. However, he will more often than not be able to stay in front of most players and force them to take a jumpshot. On offense he basically is a catch and shoot guy, but that's OK because he's not really required to be more than that based on his role.

I agree that maybe those skills are not "impactful" in a very visible way, but for what he does 13m/year is more than reasonable. The other important quality he has is durability which I think Stevens is starting to seriously underrate with some of his moves. Also, if you find a guy that strong that actually can shoot and move his feet, it's an extremely rare combination. I mean, just look at all these guys in the draft each year who might have good height or wingspans but will never be able to put on weight.

Yeah, I basically agree with that assessment. He may well turn into a useful rotation player for Dallas. But I think championships are not won by players who just don't mess things up. You have to be good, not just not bad.

No team is winning a championship because of a player like Grant Williams.  Teams win championships because of players like Luka Doncic.

The same Luka Doncic that couldn’t even get his team into the playoffs this year?