Blazers Offer Roy Hibbert Max Contract

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 think you're reading it slightly wrong. i did the same initially. He's not saying in the quote roy hibbert is our first priority this offseason. He's saying in the matching/not matching scenario, and bettering their team, first, ideally, they want to keep him. But they need to analyze if that is the best step going forward.
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
Yes, but the trade doesn't have to be even because of our cap space.

They could simply say, "Give us a 1st-rounder, E-Will or Leonard, and cash."

That's not exactly breaking the bank for the Pacers. Plus, it gives them cash, and some additional assets.
Click to expand...

But we can't give a first-rounder.
 
How? Did we give up our protections on next year's pick while I was at work?
 
BrianFromWA said:
How? Did we give up our protections on next year's pick while I was at work?
Click to expand...

We can still trade future picks. Just because next year's is already promised (with protection) doesn't mean we can't trade future first rounders....
 
yeah, it does. Stepien rule. Because of the protection on next year's pick (going out to 2016), you can't trade, say, 2015's pick b/c we might suck too bad next year to give CHA the 2013 pick, so it reverts to 2014. You can't trade 2015 if 2014 might already be traded. And so on...

We can trade 2018's, because protection runs out in 2016 and now it's 6 drafts out so we can trade 2018. But that's it.

Coon said:
When dealing with pick protection, the Stepien rule is interpreted to mean that teams can't trade a first-round pick if it results in so much as a minute possibility that they could be without a first-round pick in consecutive years...The Stepien rule says teams must have a first-round pick, but it doesn't have to be their own. The Clippers are able to count the pick they are owed from Minnesota as one of their future picks. They just can't count on it being in any specific year. No matter how likely it appeared the Timberwolves would finish with a record that would guarantee their pick would be in the top 10, the Clippers couldn't count on having a 2012 pick. The Stepien rule lets you off the hook only if it's an absolute certainty.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I would think, but don't know, that we could say next available first. so if it is conveyed in 13, then 15, etc.
 
BrianFromWA said:
yeah, it does. Stepien rule. Because of the protection on next year's pick (going out to 2016), you can't trade, say, 2015's pick b/c we might suck too bad next year to give CHA the 2013 pick, so it reverts to 2014. You can't trade 2015 if 2014 might already be traded. And so on...

We can trade 2018's, because protection runs out in 2016 and now it's 6 drafts out so we can trade 2018. But that's it.
Click to expand...

If Portland is going to get Hibbert (and keep Batum), we'd be a playoff team. I'd be willing to tell CHA that we'll give up the protection on our pick, which thereby frees us to deal a pick to Indy.
 
that's another matter entirely. I've been advocating that since before the draft, just for situations like this. UTH and GSW were talking about doing this before the draft so that UTH could get back in.
 
My fault. I was taking your use of no adjectives to mean that there weren't any.
 
It was evident last year that Portland really needed a player like Hibbert. I'm not so excited about becoming a "defensive juggernaught" though, because LA has played next to some very good defensive centers in his career, and did not distinguish himself on that end of the floor. But at least he'll get his wish on being an outside softie player. He always complains in the media if he's forced to play inside too much.
 
So... with some of the moves being made back East.... Does anyone think those moves will effect Indy's decision on Hibbert?

And if so.... for better or for worse (for Portland's chances of acquiring Hibbert)?
 
BLAZINGGIANTS said:
So... with some of the moves being made back East.... Does anyone think those moves will effect Indy's decision on Hibbert?

And if so.... for better or for worse (for Portland's chances of acquiring Hibbert)?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of money being thrown around. Unless Indy is rebuilding and playing the future FA mkt (which they aren't), I think it will be easier to match given some of these contract numbers that are being thrown around.
 
Yeah I've been saying all along. There's no way that Indy doesn't match. Even via S&T. It will take Roy saying he wants to be in PDX and us throwing some assets their way to have any chance, and even then, the odds are slim.

We have a better chance at Gordon, and NO said from the outset they would match all offers for him.
 
If we somehow manage to get hibbert, I'm gonna be one happy blazer fan!
 
I would like Hibbert but most likely Indiana will match. The bigger question is what player/players are they going to get ride of to be able to afford Hibbert?
 
Rhal said:
I would like Hibbert but most likely Indiana will match. The bigger question is what player/players are they going to get ride of to be able to afford Hibbert?
Click to expand...

I still don't think they'll match. It is odd that we know nothing about the finances involving George Hill's 5-year deal, though. Indy can't offer Hibbert a 5 year deal now, and without knowing the dollars of Hill's contract, it makes things complicated.

Does anybody know the terms of Hill's contract, in terms of money? It's a fairly relevant topic right now. They offered him for 5 years, so I have to assume that it's for more than the MLE, because he's only and could get more money as a UFA in 4 years, if his career continues progressing as it has thus far. PGs have a higher ceiling for salaries later in their careers, at least in terms of the current NBA.
 
PapaG said:
I still don't think they'll match. It is odd that we know nothing about the finances involving George Hill's 5-year deal, though. Indy can't offer Hibbert a 5 year deal now, and without knowing the dollars of Hill's contract, it makes things complicated.

Does anybody know the terms of Hill's contract, in terms of money? It's a fairly relevant topic right now. They offered him for 5 years, so I have to assume that it's for more than the MLE, because he's young and could get more money as a UFA in 4 years, if his career continues progressing as it has thus far.
Click to expand...

They'll match. 'Nuff said.
 
I think I saw 5 years, 40 million somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top