Since we still all cannot wrap our heads around % of cap vs. the actual dollar amounts.
Grant right now is 16.5% of the cap, in 26/27 he is 14.5% of the proposed cap @ 34MM
Domas at 48MM is 24% of the cap the same year.
Yes, it's the better way to look at it. Ignoring players on minimum contracts, we currently have the following cap percentages committed
'23-'24: 101.3%
'24-'25: 103.7% - No Monk
'25-'26: 87.8% - No Lyles
'26-'27: 28.0% - Fox, Keegan, Barnes, Huerter, Sasha all off the books
So obviously '26-'27 is the year we need to worry about. Presumably we want to sign Monk. Currently his max contract sits somewhere around 14%. If we sign him to the max we can for four years, that's gravy. It's obviously possible that we sign him to a one-year with the intention of using full Bird rights in '25-'26.
For the upcoming three years, Grant is 21%, 20.5%, 20% (this is '26-'27) and then a player option for 19.3%.
If we trade, say, Barnes and change for Grant, then we'll presumably take on a bit of net salary for this year and the next two years, but our extension crunch doesn't actually come up until the third year, and that's where it gets a bit more problematic. Instead of being clear of Barnes/Huerter, we would have Grant still on the books. With Monk at 14%, we'd be paying 62% for three players (Domas, Monk, Grant) while looking to give big money to both Fox and Keegan - presumably at least in the high 20% range each...say 55% between the two, adding up to ~117% for just five players. With Grant not on board we're looking instead at ~97% for four players. Still a crunch, but if the model is "four players, a couple of mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts", that may be a better strategy than "five players, maybe no mid-levels, and fill around with cheap contracts".
You know, look at what Barnes is doing for us this year (and look at what Huerter is doing for us this year) and I think it starts to become clear that the #5 guy on the team may not contribute a lot. Do we want to pay Grant to come here, be unhappy about being #5, and get the HB treatment from the board?
We should make whatever moves make sense, but Grant is higher profile, higher salary, higher usage than I want for a guy who is about to become a role player. We need to find our Doug Christie, the glue/defense/passing/floor spreading role player that will be happy at 15% USG. I don't know who that is, but it's probably not a guy who has been stuck on 25% USG the last four years and it can probably be had for well under 20% of the salary cap if you dig the right player out.