A lot of two year options and expirings

[magnifier661]

I wonder what direction management is taking. If you skim and look from the outside; it looks like they are preparing for a day that may not included Aldridge. But if you really pay attention; I see it as a two year period and preparing to offer Aldridge a team of contention.

Let's say next season we make it past the first round. Then the season after, we are at pace to have a top 3 record. The expirings will be handy to find veterans to take us to the next level.

So I guess it really depends if you are a glass half full or empty guy. I consider myself half full. And it's not full of shit either assholes!!!!!

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think this is a good observation.

We seem to be setting the table for either a team with or without LA and a chance to continue to get better. I like the sorter, expiring contracts for our role players as it gives us tremendous flexibility.

 

[magnifier661]

I think this is a good observation.

We seem to be setting the table for either a team with or without LA and a chance to continue to get better. I like the sorter, expiring contracts for our role players as it gives us tremendous flexibility.

That's what I'm thinking too. It's a good position to have one way or another.

 

[Further]

I think it's just a real smart way to move forward for almost any strategy the team employs. Two years is enough to have bird rights, but not so long that they can't escape a bad contract. Two years fom now depends a lot on what Aldridge tells the team behind closed doors. He decides if he stays or goes, but either choice is easier to optimize with timed contract endings.

 

[magnifier661]

I think it's just a real smart way to move forward for almost any strategy the team employs. Two years is enough to have bird rights, but not so long that they can't escape a bad contract. Two years fom now depends a lot on what Aldridge tells the team behind closed doors. He decides if he stays or goes, but either choice is easier to optimize with timed contract endings.

Yep the team isn't hand cuffed to sign atrocious contracts to be relevant. If Aldridge does decide to leave; then we have a blank canvas to move in which ever direction the gm sees fit. If he decides to stay; then you make a conscious decision to keep the players you have or find that one big name to take you to the next level.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I say we win 3 championships in a row and then sign everyone to lifetime contracts!

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I think it's just a real smart way to move forward for almost any strategy the team employs. Two years is enough to have bird rights, but not so long that they can't escape a bad contract. Two years fom now depends a lot on what Aldridge tells the team behind closed doors. He decides if he stays or goes, but either choice is easier to optimize with timed contract endings.

Is 2 years enough to have bird rights? I think it would be early bird not full bird correct? I know it was 3 years for full bird rights in the past.

 

[magnifier661]

Is 2 years enough to have bird rights? I think it would be early bird not full bird correct? I know it was 3 years for full bird rights in the past.

I don't know. Maybe the new cba changed it?

 

[Further]

Not sure, Brian will weigh in at some point and set me right.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The NBA is changing.

If you have a Durant or Lebron... you want them in long term contracts. But if it's role players that are pretty much a dime a dozen, shorter contracts are the way to go. Deals like Matthews got with us are going to be increasingly harder to get.

 

[BrianFromWA]

2 years is not enough for Bird Rights for players who signed with a new team (like Crabbe, Wright & Watson). For those who were traded, but have 2 years left (Lopez), then it is enough to have, due to the rules for "Full" Bird (below). For rookie contract guys like CJ & Robinson they're still tied to rookie scale and RFA requirements, whether they were traded or not. It would've been different if Robinson had actually been cut and picked up off waivers (like JJ in 2011) but not for trades.
From Coon's CBA FAQ:

"Full" Bird Rights: To qualify for this exception a player essentially must play for three seasons without clearing waivers or changing teams as a free agent, however there are nuances to this rule, which are explained in question number 32. This means a player can qualify by playing under three consecutive one-year contracts, a single contract of at least three years, or any equivalent combination. It also means that when a player is traded, his Bird rights are traded with him, and his new team can use the Larry Bird exception to re-sign him
Early Bird: To qualify for this exception the player must play for two seasons without clearing waivers or changing teams as a free agent.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Another one of the reasons I'm on the "stay away from UFA if you can" bandwagon is that, by definition, you're tied to a max of a 4-year "window". If in 2015 we magically somehow signed LeBron, Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant--they would be under team control for a max of 4 (and most likely with an ETO after 3) years. That's great for winning 3 rings in a row, but building through rookie contracts allows you a measure of continuity (up to 9 years) to get systems in place, get players to buy in, get players used to a city, etc. If it doesn't work out, you can choose not to re-sign them after their rookie deal (or cut them like Babbitt and Nolan) or trade them away.

It's a matter of opinion, but I'd rather Portland be a franchise like SAS going forward, than a franchise like MIA going forward--even if we could pull it off (which I don't think we can). SAS has continuity of coach, GM, system, home-grown players. MIA has mercenaries who may leave the franchise in the gutter as soon as 2015.

It's smart to line up cap space if you plan on using it to get assets to make your team better. (It's better to HAVE space than not, all other things being equal).

 

[Further]

Another one of the reasons I'm on the "stay away from UFA if you can" bandwagon is that, by definition, you're tied to a max of a 4-year "window". If in 2015 we signed LeBron, Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant--they would be under team control for a max of 4 (and most likely with an ETO after 3) years. That's great for winning 3 rings in a row, but building through rookie contracts allows you a measure of continuity (up to 9 years)lto get systems in place, get players to buy in, get players used to a city, etc. If it doesn't work out, you can choose not to re-sign them after their rookie deal (or cut them like Babbitt and Nolan) or trade them away.

It's smart to line up cap space if you plan on using it to get assets to make your team better. (It's better to HAVE space than not, all other things being equal).

How did you get 9 years

 

[BrianFromWA]

4 year rookie contract, with the sole ability to offer a 5-year deal (or match anyone else's 4-year).

For instance, Dame will be on a rookie deal from last year until 2015-16. We can offer him an extension in the summer of 2015 (a year before anyone else can even talk to him) to lock him in until 2021. If he says "no", and tries RFA, we can still match anyone else's offer (like Nic). Even if he's adamant about leaving as soon as possible, and just signs the 1 year QO, we have a player for 5 years.

Compare that to, say, Dorell Wright. Let's say magically he turns into Ray Allen over the next 2 years. We can't stop him from going anywhere he wants, for whatever amount he wants.

 

[bigbailes]

I wonder what direction management is taking. If you skim and look from the outside; it looks like they are preparing for a day that may not included Aldridge. But if you really pay attention; I see it as a two year period and preparing to offer Aldridge a team of contention.

Let's say next season we make it past the first round. Then the season after, we are at pace to have a top 3 record. The expirings will be handy to find veterans to take us to the next level.

So I guess it really depends if you are a glass half full or empty guy. I consider myself half full. And it's not full of shit either assholes!!!!!

I know you are glass half full but you REALLY think this team makes it out of the 1st round this year, and (without a draft pick or cap space) are a top 3 team the following season? Most around here at their most optomistic would say we finish no better than 6th this year, which makes advancing past the first round VERY difficult. I just don't see us being that good this year and how we'll improve that much the following year is a mystery.

 

[magnifier661]

I know you are glass half full but you REALLY think this team makes it out of the 1st round this year, and (without a draft pick or cap space) are a top 3 team the following season? Most around here at their most optomistic would say we finish no better than 6th this year, which makes advancing past the first round VERY difficult. I just don't see us being that good this year and how we'll improve that much the following year is a mystery.

Well did you know the 6th seed is the one seed that has upset the higher ranked team the most?

We first need to make the playoffs and with Lillard; I think anything is possible. It maybe hard; but who knows man, it's not like it hasn't happened before.

I'm still hoping for us to be top 4-5 in the west btw.

 

[Further]

4 year rookie contract, with the sole ability to offer a 5-year deal (or match anyone else's 4-year).

For instance, Dame will be on a rookie deal from last year until 2015-16. We can offer him an extension in the summer of 2015 (a year before anyone else can even talk to him) to lock him in until 2021. If he says "no", and tries RFA, we can still match anyone else's offer (like Nic). Even if he's adamant about leaving as soon as possible, and just signs the 1 year QO, we have a player for 5 years.

Compare that to, say, Dorell Wright. Let's say magically he turns into Ray Allen over the next 2 years. We can't stop him from going anywhere he wants, for whatever amount he wants.

Thanks

 

[Hobbesarable]

I wonder what direction management is taking. If you skim and look from the outside; it looks like they are preparing for a day that may not included Aldridge. But if you really pay attention; I see it as a two year period and preparing to offer Aldridge a team of contention.

Let's say next season we make it past the first round. Then the season after, we are at pace to have a top 3 record. The expirings will be handy to find veterans to take us to the next level.

So I guess it really depends if you are a glass half full or empty guy. I consider myself half full. And it's not full of shit either assholes!!!!!

It's a good philosophy to give one's roster cap flexibility.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

 

[C_note]

Well did you know the 6th seed is the one seed that has upset the higher ranked team the most?

Source?

 

[magnifier661]

Source?

http://www.sportingcharts.com/artic...ayoffs-do-lower-seeds-even-have-a-chance.aspx

If we break down the numbers by seeding, rather than by conferences, we see that a 5th seed, followed by the 6th seed, holds the best chance of pulling an upset; the 5th seed at 25.9% chance and the 6th seed at a 20% clip. This makes logical sense. When it comes to the 7th and 8th seed, it’s reversed. The 8th seed actually holds a better chance at winning a playoff series than a 7th seed. In fact, only one 7th seed has won a playoff series over the last ten years, 2009-2010 San Antonio Spurs. Before the Spurs, the last time a 7th seed pulled the upset on a 2 seed was all the way back during the 97-98 season when the Knicks defeated the Heat. This does not bode well for the current 7th seeders, the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers.

 

[C_note]

http://www.sportingcharts.com/artic...ayoffs-do-lower-seeds-even-have-a-chance.aspx

LMAO you just cited evidence that PROVES YOU WRONG!

I've been taking the totally wrong approach. Just let you prove yourself wrong.

I was going to link the same article but thought, hell, I'll give him a chance to maybe be right for once.

 

[Hobbesarable]

LMAO you just cited evidence that PROVES YOU WRONG!

I've been taking the totally wrong approach. Just let you prove yourself wrong.

I was going to link the same article but thought, hell, I'll give a chance to maybe be right for once.

You and Mags have an on-going feud?

 

[magnifier661]

LMAO you just cited evidence that PROVES YOU WRONG!

I've been taking the totally wrong approach. Just let you prove yourself wrong.

I was going to link the same article but thought, hell, I'll give a chance to maybe be right for once.

5th-6th seed have the best chances, no?

 

[magnifier661]

You and Mags have an on-going feud?

C_note is just bitter... It's all good. I think he's cute

 

[C_note]

You and Mags have an on-going feud?

Yea I know, it's socially frowned upon. I should just let the special kid be...

 

[magnifier661]

Well did you know the 6th seed is the one seed that has upset the higher ranked team the most?

We first need to make the playoffs and with Lillard; I think anything is possible. It maybe hard; but who knows man, it's not like it hasn't happened before.

I'm still hoping for us to be top 4-5 in the west btw.

Oh and psst, I said I wanted us to be 4-5th seed in that same post. C_note u are soooo adorable!

 

[C_note]

Prove yourself wrong more, it's hilarious!

 

[magnifier661]

Prove yourself wrong more, it's hilarious!

Okay I will. Still proves that we have a 20-25% chance to make it out of the first round; even being the 5th-6th seed. Jealous chickenhawk?

 

[C_note]

Lmao

 

[magnifier661]

Lmao

Exactly!