Exclusive 2022-23 Portland Trail Blazers Roster

[Natebishop3]

People are ignoring the obvious, but if you really want to balance the roster...........trade one of Dame/Ant.

The team really is straddling two paths right now.... and it's creating some weird issues on the roster.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

People are ignoring the obvious, but if you really want to balance the roster...........trade one of Dame/Ant.

Not ignoring--just accepting that there isn't really a reasonable Dame deal to be made (no would-be contenders have sufficient rebuild assets they'd give up for him), and Ant can't be traded until January.

IMO, if Dame is dealt, Nurk should go as well.

 

[B-Roy]

The team really is straddling two paths right now.... and it's creating some weird issues on the roster.

I think they are going to try this for next season and if the results aren’t good they’re gonna split them up. Maybe at the deadline even.

 

[B-Roy]

Not ignoring--just accepting that there isn't really a reasonable Dame deal to be made (no would-be contenders have sufficient rebuild assets they'd give up for him), and Ant can't be traded until January.

IMO, if Dame is dealt, Nurk should go as well.

Yeah they’re gonna try this for a season or a half season. IDK, at least it’s somewhat different.

 

[andalusian]

The team really is straddling two paths right now.... and it's creating some weird issues on the roster.

Exactly. The team wants to keep Dame, give him an opportunity to win, but not mortgage the future while also giving Billups the defensive roster he wants. I think the Blazers are trying to be opportunistic here, but I suspect that this is not a finished roster. It will look differently after some trades to balance it happen, just not sure if this will still happen before the next year or closer to the trade deadline.

 

[B-Roy]

I'm curious if Dame gets his extension. I've slowly been inching towards the trade Dame camp, and Grant's age makes him able to fit both timelines.

 

[HansenYang]

Man, things move fast around here. Here's the update with the signing of Nurkic -

View attachment 48258

CAP summary -

Since Bledsoe's full contract puts the Blazers over the apron, I'll assume he is waived and only $3.9M apply to the CAP.

View attachment 48260

Unofficial / Assumed:
- A Simons signing
- J Nurkic signing
- G Payton II signing
- Jabari Walker Signing
- E Bledsoe waived
- Signing of a vet minimum

That puts the Blazers $1.65M under the Apron.

I was thinking about this a little last night.

I wonder if part of the reason the Grant trade is being delayed is Portland has an agreement with Detroit to 'eat' Bledsoe's contract.... Portland wanted the opportunity to see if they could find a trade, but if not - Portland sends him to Detroit (along with cash) and they take the cap hit.

But if not - Bledsoe's contract would likely be stretched, meaning his cap hit would only be $1.3M instead of $3.9M (opening up ~$2.5M under the hard cap).

 

[B-Roy]

I was thinking about this a little last night.

I wonder if part of the reason the Grant trade is being delayed is Portland has an agreement with Detroit to 'eat' Bledsoe's contract.... Portland wanted the opportunity to see if they could find a trade, but if not - Portland sends him to Detroit (along with cash) and they take the cap hit.

Does Detroit even have the ability to do that anymore? I’m pretty sure even if you guarantee Bledsoe for 3.9 and trade him, there Pistons still need 19M in cap to take him in. But I guess order of operations matter here. If they execute the Grant trade before they sign Bagley I believe they still have enough room to take Bledsoe.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

Again I didn’t expect us to fix Neil’s problems in 1 year. We’ll have pretty good idea what we have in Sharpe, Little and Simons after this year. If two guys make huge strides we aren’t that far away, if we two of the three don’t make the jump then I think it’s full rebuild time

 

[Chris Craig]

Again I didn’t expect us to fix Neil’s problems in 1 year. We’ll have pretty good idea what we have in Sharpe, Little and Simons after this year. If two guys make huge strides we aren’t that far away, if we two of the three don’t make the jump then I think it’s full rebuild time

True. I think we will see a more balanced roster in a year.

 

[B-Roy]

Not the biggest fan of Kevin O Connor, but he's actually been pretty spot on about the Blazers the last few seasons....

 

[Freshtown]

Not the biggest fan of Kevin O Connor, but he's actually been pretty spot on about the Blazers the last few seasons....

he also thought Nance would be a game-changing addition…

 

[42N8Bounce]

I'm excited about the coming year. I'm not a 'championship or bust' kind of fan. I want to see some good, entertaining basketball.

Dame, Simons, Grant, and Nurk is a solid starting group.

Who's our starting small forward? A few guys have a good argument to claim the spot:
- Josh Hart: 5 yrs, 6'5", career 9.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 4.3 apg, 37.3% 3pfg, Drtg 111
- Justice Winslow: 7 yrs, 6'6", career 8.4 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, 31.5% 3pfg, Drtg 107
- Nassir Little: 3 yrs, 6'5", career 5.8 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 0.7 apg, 31.7% 3pfg, Drtg 117

Who's first off the bench?

Will the young guys contribute? I want to see what Shaedon Sharpe can do. Will he be a bench warmer, or actually see some floor time this year? Will Nas stay healthy and make that big leap?

Who's going to be the biggest surprise?

 

[RR7]

Does Detroit even have the ability to do that anymore? I’m pretty sure even if you guarantee Bledsoe for 3.9 and trade him, there Pistons still need 19M in cap to take him in. But I guess order of operations matter here. If they execute the Grant trade before they sign Bagley I believe they still have enough room to take Bledsoe.

Bledsoe's full amount would match up with Grant's salary, so it works for Detroit regardless of order of operations.

 

[illmatic99]

Does Detroit even have the ability to do that anymore? I’m pretty sure even if you guarantee Bledsoe for 3.9 and trade him, there Pistons still need 19M in cap to take him in. But I guess order of operations matter here. If they execute the Grant trade before they sign Bagley I believe they still have enough room to take Bledsoe.

what is the benefit for us here? we add 3.9 mil to our space below the apron? unless we have a deal lined up to bring in an upgrade using our TPE, i'm not sure of the point.

 

[RR7]

what is the benefit for us here? we remove add 3.9 mil to our space below the apron? unless we have a deal lined up to bring in an upgrade using our TPE, i'm not sure of the point.

Precisely that.

 

[e_blazer]

The hard cap makes any trade extremely hard. We'd have to send out Hart in a 1:1 swap for a wing or big. We can't make a consolidation trade.

Sorry to be slow responding to this. Actual work sometimes gets in the way.

As I understand it, the Blazers are capped at not being able to exceed the apron for the rest of the season. They can still make trades, including consolidation trades, as long as they remain below the apron at the end of the deal. I still think that they will pull one off.

 

[Natebishop3]

Sorry to be slow responding to this. Actual work sometimes gets in the way.

As I understand it, the Blazers are capped at not being able to exceed the apron for the rest of the season. They can still make trades, including consolidation trades, as long as they remain below the apron at the end of the deal. I still think that they will pull one off.

Sure, financially, but the problem is the empty spots that a consolidation trade would create. You can't go over the apron to sign more players. Not even vet minimum players. So if we send out a bunch of guys to match salary, we might not be able to fill those spots and we HAVE to have a minimum of 13 guys on the roster.

 

[e_blazer]

Sure, financially, but the problem is the empty spots that a consolidation trade would create. You can't go over the apron to sign more players. Not even vet minimum players. So if we send out a bunch of guys to match salary, we might not be able to fill those spots and we HAVE to have a minimum of 13 guys on the roster.

True, so the consolidation trade would have to return lower total salaries than sent out. That complicates things a bit, but doesn't make it impossible to do a trade.

 

[Natebishop3]

True, so the consolidation trade would have to return lower total salaries than sent out. That complicates things a bit, but doesn't make it impossible to do a trade.

Not impossible. Just very difficult.

 

[andalusian]

True, so the consolidation trade would have to return lower total salaries than sent out. That complicates things a bit, but doesn't make it impossible to do a trade.

Can return the same amount or slightly over as long as it is not over the threshold. The issue now is that you can not get below 13 roster spots - so you can not do a 4 for 1 type of deals, 3 for 1 is the best we can do now, unless Portland takes on less salary to open a min vet hole to the threshold to sign someone from the scrap heap.

 

[Blazer Freak]

Sure, financially, but the problem is the empty spots that a consolidation trade would create. You can't go over the apron to sign more players. Not even vet minimum players. So if we send out a bunch of guys to match salary, we might not be able to fill those spots and we HAVE to have a minimum of 13 guys on the roster.

Is this not factoring in our two-ways? In the case of a consolidation trade where we are 1-2 players short....are we unable to convert one of Walker (assuming) or Williams to a minimum contract?

 

[Natebishop3]

Is this not factoring in our two-ways? In the case of a consolidation trade where we are 1-2 players short....are we unable to convert one of Walker (assuming) or Williams to a minimum contract?

I don't think they can count because they can't play more than 45 days in the NBA.

https://gleague.nba.com/nba-g-league-101-two-way-contracts/

NBA teams may have up to two players under NBA Two-Way Contracts who will spend the bulk of the season in the NBA G League and not more than 45 days with their NBA team. Two-Way players are paid a corresponding daily amount based on the number of days they play in each league. Only players in their fourth NBA season or earlier are able to sign Two-Way Contracts, which can be for either one or two seasons.

 

[1 Eye Jack]

I’m probably in minority but I think Watford is going to turn out to be a good bench player

 

[Blazer Freak]

I don't think they can count because they can't play more than 45 days in the NBA.

https://gleague.nba.com/nba-g-league-101-two-way-contracts/

NBA teams may have up to two players under NBA Two-Way Contracts who will spend the bulk of the season in the NBA G League and not more than 45 days with their NBA team. Two-Way players are paid a corresponding daily amount based on the number of days they play in each league. Only players in their fourth NBA season or earlier are able to sign Two-Way Contracts, which can be for either one or two seasons.

I understand that part, I'm just wondering in the case of a trade while we are hard-capped and sending out more players. You can convert two-way deals to actual deals. While on the two-ways they do not count against our cap. If we were able to do a 3 for 1 trade, could we convert those from the two-way to a regular minimum contract while being hard-capped?

 

[Pinwheel1]

Sure, financially, but the problem is the empty spots that a consolidation trade would create. You can't go over the apron to sign more players. Not even vet minimum players. So if we send out a bunch of guys to match salary, we might not be able to fill those spots and we HAVE to have a minimum of 13 guys on the roster.

I think we have 15 players not counting EBE. So we can trade EB and 3 players and take back 1 to reach the 13-player minimum??

 

[andalusian]

I understand that part, I'm just wondering in the case of a trade while we are hard-capped and sending out more players. You can convert two-way deals to actual deals. While on the two-ways they do not count against our cap. If we were able to do a 3 for 1 trade, could we convert those from the two-way to a regular minimum contract while being hard-capped?

My understand is that once you convert a 2-way player - he counts against the cap, so if his salary now puts us over the threshold, no.

 

[Pinwheel1]

I’m probably in minority but I think Watford is going to turn out to be a good bench player

I hate to rely on him, but between him and Winslow, one of them needs to. Watford can guard slower bigger PFs and Winslow can guard the stretch 4s who like to hang out on the perimeter. I do like that both can push the ball with the 2nd unit.

 

[Natebishop3]

could we convert those from the two-way to a regular minimum contract while being hard-capped?

No. You can't go above the cap for any reason.

 

[Natebishop3]

I think we have 15 players not counting EBE. So we can trade EB and 3 players and take back 1 to reach the 13-player minimum??

If you can hit the required 13 players and stay under the apron, go for it. Those are just the two main barriers to most trades. Especially consolidation trades.