Exclusive Ayton is agreeing to buyout

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
I wonder what kind of compensation we would have to add to Grant to pull off a…

Rui
Vandy
Dalton

for

Grant/Orlando 1st

Would that do it?
 
LayneStaley said:
I wonder what kind of compensation we would have to add to Grant to pull off a…

Rui
Vandy
Dalton

for

Grant/Orlando 1st

Would that do it?
Click to expand...

I would not. If you are giving up a 1st, I suspect you can find a better deal sooner or later. It's not like the Blazers are in a rush to get off Grant's contract at this point. Either start Grant or Sharpe off the bench while you look for a better deal, imho.
 
andalusian said:
Nurkic because it allowed him to make the Tou, Deni trades.
Click to expand...
You don't know that. If we had a shorter or chaper expiring contract instead of Nurkic we could have likely got more value back in those trades. Maybe we only have to give up the one lottery pick in the Deni trade.
andalusian said:
It seems unreasonable to me to accept that Tou and Deni were home runs when they were part of the DA trade, but than be upset that he did not get even more value form DA when you just said you do not expect him to hit everything.
Click to expand...
I never said I was upset we didn't get value from DA yesterday. I never expected much if any value. I actually wasn't even critical of acquiring Ayton - I was critical of keeping him over a year later when it was obvious he was not a part of our future and giving this stupid AytonGrantAnt trio all the shots as well as minutes they got. I was highly critical of every one of the Ant, Nurk, Grant contracts the day they were agreed to.

Plenty of posters here will criticize everything the team does. Others praise even the dumbest moves the team makes. I enjoy reading and posting reasonable judgements on Blazer moves.

I'm just praising moves that were good and criticizing moves that were bad.
 
Blazer Freak said:
In this CBA you MUST have a large salary in order to complete trades for any potential star player.
Click to expand...
This is a stupid argument I often see repeated. Every season every NBA team will hand out salaries to get to the salary floor. You can just overpay a player on a one year expiring contract. That contract can be used to match salary in a trade. There is NEVER a need to acquire a 3 year 100+ million contract just to "complete star player" trades. There are alternatives that a team MUST do and provide far less downside risk.

Now maybe the Jrue trade ends up being a great deal. Maybe he plays well and greatly exceeds the worth of the rest of his contract. My comment isn't to judge that element of the trade.

I'm just saying the justification of overpaid long term contracts to match incoming players in trades is a complete fallacy. One year expiring deals will always be preferred as a pure salary matching mechanism and will always be acquired before the season if the team is short on salary.
 
Blazer Freak said:
1) I understand and I'm not saying that people shouldn't react and comment about each move. It's fun and differing opinions are awesome to discuss. It just seems like there is zero nuance to many of the discussions here. Moves are judged as if they can't be part of a bigger plan sometimes and it's mind boggling to me.

2) As far as taking on Jrue, I think it has more to do with the overall offseason plan for the roster and how our teams finances will be structured. In this CBA you MUST have a large salary in order to complete trades for any potential star player. If they knew Ayton was being traded for another expiring or bought out and they have plans to move JG this summer, we have literally 0 long-term high value contracts on our books. Even with JG and Jrue we still have $55M in cap space next summer right now. If they are telling the truth about keeping Jrue, then paying him $30M this season to be a 3rd guard, vet influence and hopefully show last year was not the beginning of a decline, he then only has two years left on the deal and one year before becoming an expiring.
Click to expand...
I understand but we thought all those same things with Ant and Ayton and their contracts and were not able to deal them for much in return. I think holding Ant and moving at the deadline would have been a better move. Cap space is so much more valuable in this cba too, meaning if we had a ton of contracts off the books, I feel like absorbing deals could allow us to gain a multitude of assets.
 
I agree with someone else's buyout guess at 8-10 mil below full salary which is near 35 mil
 
Fez Hammersticks said:
I’d definitely give up the Orlando pick for Dalton.
Click to expand...
Fuck no! That pick is unprotected. Yeah Orlando might be good - but who knows they might be injured. People said the Phoenix pick this year was going to be worth little yet it ended up higher than ours.

I highly question if Dalton makes sense with the defensive identity we've added on every move recently with this roster. If we want to take a flyer on him than fine - but don't give up unprotected first round picks for it.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Would be stupid for the Blazers to do a buyout on a player with multiple years left on his contract.
Click to expand...
What then? He doesn't want to be here. It's not good for the team for him to be here. And no one will trade for him without getting some kind of incentive.
 
Now that we own the Orlando pick can’t we put our own protections on it?
 
Blazinaway said:
wrong again, with teams like Char and LA and perhaps a few others desperate for a C paying Ayton 14 mil is really very reasonable
Click to expand...
But will Ayton agree to that? He is going to want to keep as many team options available to himself as possible.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I believe he is willing to take a buyout also. Got the impression in his end of season statement that he wasn't planning on being here.
Click to expand...

I am not sure how that would even work. He declines his player option year and takes a small cut for the other two years? Not worth it IMO.
I would make him play off the bench unless he made some big concessions.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
What then? He doesn't want to be here. It's not good for the team for him to be here. And no one will trade for him without getting some kind of incentive.
Click to expand...
Maybe some team in 2027 like the Kings want to acquire him.

Or maybe the Blazers can acquire a star in 2027 sending draft picks but needs a contract to match. They could send Grant out then.

Too many possible trades could materialize years from now that it doesn't make sense to lose all those options.

Now I suppose if Grant gave back half his contract or such the Blazers would consider it. We never see multi year buyouts where so much is returned.
 
SharpesTriumph said:
Maybe some team in 2027 like the Kings want to acquire him.

Or maybe the Blazers can acquire a star in 2027 sending draft picks but needs a contract to match. They could send Grant out then.

Too many possible trades could materialize years from now that it doesn't make sense to lose all those options.

Now I suppose if Grant gave back half his contract or such the Blazers would consider it. We never see multi year buyouts where so much is returned.
Click to expand...
I just don't think it's a healthy situation for him to stay with the team.
 
LayneStaley said:
Now that we own the Orlando pick can’t we put our own protections on it?
Click to expand...
Yes we can.
But that will also lose a big advantage of the pick as it can be used to avoid Stipen restrictions on other picks. With protections we lose that.

Now if we can use the pick or other picks to acquire an all-star I'm all for considering it.

Doesn't make sense for unproven backups like Knecht.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top