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

[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.

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

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

[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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

[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.

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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

[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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

Luka is talented, but he’s a black hole on offense and doesn’t play defense. If those two things don’t change, I don’t see the Mav’s contending anytime soon. He also needs to shoot the ball better. Just under 34% career from 3pt and 74% from the line… Not great. A lot of parallels between him and Westbrook. I’m also not sure other star players are interested in teaming up with him. Brunson didn’t seem to have any interest in returning to Dallas after their WCF run.

[keevsnick]

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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

Luka is talented, but he’s a black hole on offense and doesn’t play defense. If those two things don’t change, I don’t see the Mav’s contending anytime soon. He also needs to shoot the ball better. Just under 34% career from 3pt and 74% from the line… Not great. A lot of parallels between him and Westbrook. I’m also not sure other star players are interested in teaming up with him. Brunson didn’t seem to have any interest in returning to Dallas after their WCF run.

All of that said he still is a very high impact player. On/off differential this year of +7.3 points/100. Similar to Devin booker at +8.8, Curry at +8.6, Giannis at +8.1 (although a step below Embiid/Jokic/Durant/Kawhi level).

The problem for the Mavs was when he was off the floor. WIth him on they were +3.1, with him off they were -4.2.

Net rating isn't everything of course, but I think he clearly drives winning even with some faults.

[cman88]

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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

Its an odd take, but the same posters argue we should trade Jaylen for lesser players.

it's alot harder to find a Luka Doncic than a Grant Williams. Celtics fans have a tendency to massively overrate their role-players when they leave.

not saying Grant wasn't a good roleplayer for the celtics. but the way some celtics fans talk about him now you would've thought we lost charles barkley.

[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.

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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

Luka is talented, but he’s a black hole on offense and doesn’t play defense. If those two things don’t change, I don’t see the Mav’s contending anytime soon. He also needs to shoot the ball better. Just under 34% career from 3pt and 74% from the line… Not great. A lot of parallels between him and Westbrook. I’m also not sure other star players are interested in teaming up with him. Brunson didn’t seem to have any interest in returning to Dallas after their WCF run.

This is just a shocking take, my dear. "Black hole" is just false. His defence is mediocre, rather than terrible. He has taken his Mavs to the Conference Finals on his shoulders alone. Slightly below average shooting is hardly the end of the world - to compare that to Westbrook is just absurdity.

The Mavs didn't offer Brunson his money. Kyrie seemed pretty happy to stay. You've come up with some hardcore inventions here

[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?

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

You're not seriously questioning Luka's contribution to winning, are you?

Luka is talented, but he’s a black hole on offense and doesn’t play defense. If those two things don’t change, I don’t see the Mav’s contending anytime soon. He also needs to shoot the ball better. Just under 34% career from 3pt and 74% from the line… Not great. A lot of parallels between him and Westbrook. I’m also not sure other star players are interested in teaming up with him. Brunson didn’t seem to have any interest in returning to Dallas after their WCF run.

This is just a shocking take, my dear. "Black hole" is just false. His defence is mediocre, rather than terrible. He has taken his Mavs to the Conference Finals on his shoulders alone. Slightly below average shooting is hardly the end of the world - to compare that to Westbrook is just absurdity.

The Mavs didn't offer Brunson his money. Kyrie seemed pretty happy to stay. You've come up with some hardcore inventions here

Brunson played a huge role in that teams success and them making it to the WCF. Luka had even mentioned last year when the Mavs were struggling how much they missed Jalen. I’m sure Kyrie is happy with the $120M contract, but I’m not sure he’d still be there if other teams were interested in paying him anything close to that.

As he approaches free agency, point guard Jalen Brunson might believe he can only spread his wings away from the Dallas Mavericks.

"I've talked to people in his circle. They think he has another level to reach that he just couldn't reach with Dallas because he played with the most ball-dominant player in the league in Luka Doncic," Yahoo Sports' Chris Haynes said at the 52:35 mark of his Posted Up podcast. "They feel like he has more to his game."

[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.

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

Yep. the same one that was in the WCF 2 playoffs ago, you know before Team Killer Kyrie arrived.

They were a .500 team before the Kyrie trade. Kinda strange that they would give Irving a $120M contract if he was killing the team. I think the ball movement was actually a lot better with Kyrie in and Luka out of the lineup.

They were 27-25 before Irving, but were 0-6 in the 6 games Luka missed, so they were 27-19 with Luka and pre-Irving.  The Mavs were 8-14 in the games Luka played after Irving arrived (some of those Irving missed).  Part of the appeal of Irving to them was to not fall off a cliff when Luka wasn't in the game, but Irving has never been able to carry a team like that.  Irving is a losing player and always has been.  I don't know why teams keep expecting him to be something he isn't.  Your description of Luka is actually Irving.  He is the team killer.  Killed the Cavs, killed the C's, killed the Nets, and killed the Mavs (at least last year). At some point Dallas will cut their losses on him, though it may be too late to properly build around Luka (if they even can).

[cman88]

I don't get with the Mavs wouldn't pay Brunson.

Then replaced him with having to pay Kyrie. Cuban has no idea what he's building around Luka

[ChillyWilly]

I don't get with the Mavs wouldn't pay Brunson.

Then replaced him with having to pay Kyrie. Cuban has no idea what he's building around Luka

As a former Tech CEO during the dot com bubble, I can say with 10000% certainty Cuban got lucky that Yahoo was blowing money like cocaine cowboys back in the mid 90s. He just built a website with his buddy using a generic dot com name. At least he was smart enough to buy a basketball team with the money.

His networth is less now than when he sold his website to Yahoo back in the 90s. That's all you need to know about Mark.

[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.

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.

I don't know how the conversation led here. I was arguing why Grant was a solid role player and worth the contract he received. Luka is a superstar and should be compared to guys like Tatum and Brown.

[Celtics4ever]

Luka is a superstar

That has never made it past the conference finals, and missed the playoffs entirely, three out of the five years he has played

2018-19 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2020-21  Loss in the first round 5-2
2021-22 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2021-22 Conference finals loss swept 4-1
2022-23  Didn't make the playoffs this year.

As a former Tech CEO during the dot com bubble, I can say with 10000% certainty Cuban got lucky that Yahoo was blowing money like cocaine cowboys back in the mid 90s. He just built a website with his buddy using a generic dot com name. At least he was smart enough to buy a basketball team with the money.

His networth is less now than when he sold his website to Yahoo back in the 90s. That's all you need to know about Mark.

5.1 Billion is still really rich

[W8ting2McHale]

Luka is a superstar

That has never made it past the conference finals, and missed the playoffs entirely, three out of the five years he has played

2018-19 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2020-21  Loss in the first round 5-2
2021-22 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2021-22 Conference finals loss swept 4-1
2022-23  Didn't make the playoffs this year.

How does that compare to Michael Jordan?

1984-85 Knocked out in 1st round 1-3
1885-86 Swept in 1st round 0-3
1986-87 Swept in 1st round 0-3
1987-88 Knocked out in 2nd round 1-4
1988-89 Knocked out in ECF 2-4

Finally wins a championship in year 7. Is that better, worse, or about the same? The 1st round sweeps he might as well have stayed home.

[obnoxiousmime]

Luka is a superstar

That has never made it past the conference finals, and missed the playoffs entirely, three out of the five years he has played

2018-19 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2020-21  Loss in the first round 5-2
2021-22 Didn't make the playoffs this year.
2021-22 Conference finals loss swept 4-1
2022-23  Didn't make the playoffs this year.

As a former Tech CEO during the dot com bubble, I can say with 10000% certainty Cuban got lucky that Yahoo was blowing money like cocaine cowboys back in the mid 90s. He just built a website with his buddy using a generic dot com name. At least he was smart enough to buy a basketball team with the money.

His networth is less now than when he sold his website to Yahoo back in the 90s. That's all you need to know about Mark.

5.1 Billion is still really rich

Sure, I was just responding to the poster that oddly brought up Doncic during a discussion about Grant. Doncic is paid to be a superstar with all the responsibilities that entails, while Grant is only paid to be a role guy.