Blazers 2021-22 salary cap

[SharpesTriumph]

It sounds like we haven't used the tax MLE?

It also sounds like we're currently under the luxury tax, will we stay under?

 

[Mediocre Man]

It sounds like we haven't used the tax MLE?

It also sounds like we're currently under the luxury tax, will we stay under?

Correct
No

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

One reason might be that you cannot use the tax MLE if you accept a player in a sign and trade.

Could Lauri be in our future?

 

[SharpesTriumph]

One reason might be that you cannot use the tax MLE if you accept a player in a sign and trade.

Could Lauri be in our future?

We would need to be under the hard cap then.

I guess we could trade DJJ.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

 

[SharpesTriumph]

It appears we could stay under the tax again to avoid repeater penalties in this season or future years.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/portland-trail-blazers/yearly/cap/

 

[wizenheimer]

It appears we could stay under the tax again to avoid repeater penalties in this season or future years.

either I'm reading Spotrac wrong, or they are all over the map

according to them:



that's 134.38M. But as far as I can tell, that does not include Snell or Brown

if that's the case, then adding Snell & Brown would add about 2.4-2.5M putting Portland over the 136.6M tax line already, without the 14th player. Even if it includes Snell, a vet minimum + Brown has the same impact. Maybe, if one of the listed amounts is a little high, the Blazers can stay under the line. But if Portland is determined to be a non-tax team next season, Dame is as good as gone

edit: another way the Blazers can stay under the line is to sign an undrafted player who has no NBA experience.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

Neil is saving it for “flexibility.”

You know, for a trade that will never happen.

 

[tykendo]

The Cap is total Bullshit, when the Lakers can use and abuse it, and keep doing it over & over again. Plus if any team is hard capped, it should have already happened to the Lakers & Nets.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

The Cap is total Bullshit, when the Lakers can use and abuse it, and keep doing it over & over again. Plus if any team is hard capped, it should have already happened to the Lakers & Nets.

Welcome to life as a fan of small market teams.

 

[wizenheimer]

The Cap is total Bullshit, when the Lakers can use and abuse it, and keep doing it over & over again. Plus if any team is hard capped, it should have already happened to the Lakers & Nets.

what is bullshit is the soft cap

the NBA should have a hard cap for all teams at the level of the tax line, and the max contract should be 50% of the cap. Then we'd see how serious players are about playing on super-teams. Union would never agree though

 

[blazerkor]

what is bullshit is the soft cap

the NBA should have a hard cap for all teams at the level of the tax line, and the max contract should be 50% of the cap. Then we'd see how serious players are about playing on super-teams. Union would never agree though

I think the union might if they were still guaranteed their revenue split... which would send to cap skyrocketing because all of the players' portion of the revenue that is going to salaries on teams way above the cap would be averaged into the new cap.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

either I'm reading Spotrac wrong, or they are all over the map

according to them:

View attachment 40141

that's 134.38M. But as far as I can tell, that does not include Snell or Brown

if that's the case, then adding Snell & Brown would add about 2.4-2.5M putting Portland over the 136.6M tax line already, without the 14th player. Even if it includes Snell, a vet minimum + Brown has the same impact. Maybe, if one of the listed amounts is a little high, the Blazers can stay under the line. But if Portland is determined to be a non-tax team next season, Dame is as good as gone

edit: another way the Blazers can stay under the line is to sign an undrafted player who has no NBA experience.

Minimum salary players count for luxury tax less than their contract, so teams don't avoid veterans with higher minimum salaries. Maybe that is part of your discrepancy.

 

[wizenheimer]

Minimum salary players count for luxury tax less than their contract, so teams don't avoid veterans with higher minimum salaries. Maybe that is part of your discrepancy.

yeah, I understand the vet minimum rules

I'm looking at the Blazer page on Spotrac:

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/portland-trail-blazers/cap/

if the total cap they list includes Snell (which may or may not be the case) Portland is 2.2M below the tax line counting 12 players, but not Brown. Adding the 900K for Brown, would put the Blazers 1.3M below the line. Since the cap charge for a minimum is $1,669,17, getting to 14 players by signing another vet minimum player would put them over the tax line. But being 200-300K over the line would leave them lots of options to get under the line by the trade deadline

on the other hand, if they signed an undrafted player with no NBA experience they could sign him for 900K and stay out of the tax

but obviously, this would do the opposite of convincing Dame to stop thinking about being traded

there's also the reports that the Blazers offered the TPMLE to Oubre (can't believe Olshey would be dumb enough to offer the minimum), so, while I think the Blazers will try and keep the tax low, I do not believe they are determined to stay out of the tax

 

[blazerkor]

yeah, I understand the vet minimum rules

I'm looking at the Blazer page on Spotrac:

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/portland-trail-blazers/cap/

if the total cap they list includes Snell (which may or may not be the case) Portland is 2.2M below the tax line counting 12 players, but not Brown. Adding the 900K for Brown, would put the Blazers 1.3M below the line. Since the cap charge for a minimum is $1,669,17, getting to 14 players by signing another vet minimum player would put them over the tax line. But being 200-300K over the line would leave them lots of options to get under the line by the trade deadline

on the other hand, if they signed an undrafted player with no NBA experience they could sign him for 900K and stay out of the tax

but obviously, this would do the opposite of convincing Dame to stop thinking about being traded

there's also the reports that the Blazers offered the TPMLE to Oubre (can't believe Olshey would be dumb enough to offer the minimum), so, while I think the Blazers will try and keep the tax low, I do not believe they are determined to stay out of the tax

I don't think it would be crazy to see us under the luxury tax at the end of the season despite Olshey going on and on about being willing to spend.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I don't think it would be crazy to see us under the luxury tax at the end of the season despite Olshey going on and on about being willing to spend.

Gonna sound like Olshey here but he has a point.
If the trade makes the team better and creates a better chance of contending then I'm all for a trade.
If not the smart play is to stay under the cap.
"At the End Of The Day" everyone on this site would agree and do the exact same thing. We can "Bifurcate" all we want but eventually we all end up in the same place.

 

[wizenheimer]

the smart play is to stay under the tax.

and lose Dame...yeah, so smart

 

[B-Roy]

We can easily get under the tax by stretching DJJ. We will eat 3.3M in dead salary for three years but that gets us safely out of the tax. In the case we are stretching DJJ, I'm assuming we are going full rebuild, so that dead cap doesn't matter as much. It would be a pretty sad turn of events though.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

and lose Dame...yeah, so smart

Think about your response? Read the statement again maybe.
If they go over the Tax for a player that doesn’t help then they just hurt themselves in the future when possibly there is a player available.
If Damian Lillard wants out then he wants out.
You move him for as much as you can get and move on. I love Lillard as much as any fan but in the end the team is who I cheer for. Damian Lillard is not going to be the end of my fandom.
Drexler wasn’t. Walton wasn’t. Roy wasn’t. Lillard won’t be either. Eventually Lillard will move on or retire. 2, 3, 5,6 years? It’s going to happen.
Making a smart move is not going to cost the team Damian Lillard. Many other issues have lead us to where we are now.

 

[wizenheimer]

Think about your response? Read the statement again maybe.
If they go over the Tax for a player that doesn’t help then they just hurt themselves in the future when possibly there is a player available.
If Damian Lillard wants out then he wants out.
You move him for as much as you can get and move on. I love Lillard as much as any fan but in the end the team is who I cheer for. Damian Lillard is not going to be the end of my fandom.
Drexler wasn’t. Walton wasn’t. Roy wasn’t. Lillard won’t be either. Eventually Lillard will move on or retire. 2, 3, 5,6 years? It’s going to happen.
Making a smart move is not going to cost the team Damian Lillard. Many other issues have lead us to where we are now.

I thought about my response before I posted it

and it was germinated listening to 9 years of bullshit excuses for Olshey's poor performance. Then came the loss to denver and dame making the noise he did. And I've seen posters here who like Olshey and think he's a good GM say several weeks ago that Olshey was "certain" to go over the tax line this year given the circumstances. No way he wouldn't because of the stakes

and now, I'm seeing people starting to rationalize him potentially NOT going over the tax line and likely using the possibility that he doesn't as proof there wasn't any good option....a catch-22 where Olshey does no wrong and has perpetual job security

I don't know what will happen between now and the trade deadline, but I'd really like to be surrounded by the magical moving goalposts that surround Olshey

 

[Fairly-Hard]

I thought about my response before I posted it

and it was germinated listening to 9 years of bullshit excuses for Olshey's poor performance. Then came the loss to denver and dame making the noise he did. And I've seen posters here who like Olshey and think he's a good GM say several weeks ago that Olshey was "certain" to go over the tax line this year given the circumstances. No way he wouldn't because of the stakes

and now, I'm seeing people starting to rationalize him potentially NOT going over the tax line and likely using the possibility that he doesn't as proof there wasn't any good option....a catch-22 where Olshey does no wrong and has perpetual job security

I don't know what will happen between now and the trade deadline, but I'd really like to be surrounded by the magical moving goalposts that surround Olshey

Yeah you thought about your response but might have missed the message of my statement. Or I was unclear.
All I said was he has a point and then made fun of the way he makes them.
Then I explained it to you in end by saying " Many other issues have led to where we are now."
I agree with you it's been 9 years of this and it needs to end. Hopefully sooner than later and without losing Lillard.
It was all simply a sarcastic way of putting him down but in the end he does indeed have a point. I'm just tired of hearing the same point.

One thing I would think would be the end of Olshey would be losing Lillard. Sad but maybe true?

 

[wizenheimer]

Yeah you thought about your response but might have missed the message of my statement. Or I was unclear.
All I said was he has a point and then made fun of the way he makes them.
Then I explained it to you in end by saying " Many other issues have led to where we are now."
I agree with you it's been 9 years of this and it needs to end. Hopefully sooner than later and without losing Lillard.
It was all simply a sarcastic way of putting him down but in the end he does indeed have a point. I'm just tired of hearing the same point.

One thing I would think would be the end of Olshey would be losing Lillard. Sad but maybe true?

sorry if I missed your point...been a rough day so far

honestly, I do not think Olshey would get fired even if Dame demands a trade. IMO, Jody Allen and the Vulcans are detached from anything but finances. I wish they would sell, even if there are remote risks to that

 

[SharpesTriumph]

We can easily get under the tax by stretching DJJ. We will eat 3.3M in dead salary for three years but that gets us safely out of the tax. In the case we are stretching DJJ, I'm assuming we are going full rebuild, so that dead cap doesn't matter as much. It would be a pretty sad turn of events though.

Probably better to trade him with a second sound pick for a player making a few million less.

Should wait until the trade deadline, in case another trade impacts this.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I thought about my response before I posted it

and it was germinated listening to 9 years of bullshit excuses for Olshey's poor performance. Then came the loss to denver and dame making the noise he did. And I've seen posters here who like Olshey and think he's a good GM say several weeks ago that Olshey was "certain" to go over the tax line this year given the circumstances. No way he wouldn't because of the stakes

and now, I'm seeing people starting to rationalize him potentially NOT going over the tax line and likely using the possibility that he doesn't as proof there wasn't any good option....a catch-22 where Olshey does no wrong and has perpetual job security

I don't know what will happen between now and the trade deadline, but I'd really like to be surrounded by the magical moving goalposts that surround Olshey

Avoiding luxury tax is for owners, not Neil.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Avoiding luxury tax is for owners, not Neil.

This is a very good point also.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

sorry if I missed your point...been a rough day so far

honestly, I do not think Olshey would get fired even if Dame demands a trade. IMO, Jody Allen and the Vulcans are detached from anything but finances. I wish they would sell, even if there are remote risks to that

My feelings on this are if Olshey loses Dame then firing would not be enough. Tar and Feather maybe?