Blazers trade the #7 pick for.....? (3 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

The Blazers trade #7 for?

  • Multiple picks - keep one, trade one for Grant

  • Multiple picks - keep one, trade one for Collins

  • Down to #11 and get Randle

  • Down to #17 and get Wood

  • Include #7 with Nurk (S&T) for Ayton

  • OG Anunoby

  • Plus other assets to move up

  • Other - please specify

Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
wizenheimer said:
are you sure that is true? I thought he had two trade values, just like Bledsoe. 5M till his guarantee date, then full value after that deadline
Click to expand...
IMO probably the closest match we could draft for a Collins like player ready to contribute right away would be Keegan Murray, but he could easily be gone before 7
 
wizenheimer said:
are you sure that is true? I thought he had two trade values, just like Bledsoe. 5M till his guarantee date, then full value after that deadline
Click to expand...
Yep. 100% positive.

For outgoing players, the other team has to be able to accept the FULL contract value.
For matching salary on incoming players, you can only use the GUARANTEED portion of the contract value. Teams can unilaterally guarantee more of the contract to be able to receive more salary coming back.

I believe right now teams have the option to use either the '21-'22 salary OR the '22-'23 salary.
Teams receiving Gallinari have to match his $20.5M contract (for '21-'22).
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
I didn't say that it HAD to be guaranteed.
I said that since Portland is over the cap, that they have to be able to RECEIVE the FULL CONTRACT AMOUNT.

In this scenario, $18.5M Bledsoe's contract would have to be fully guaranteed to be able to receive John Collins $23.5M contract. (CBA allows for $5M delta between the two).
Portland would then have to find a way to receive a $20M contract (that is only guaranteed for $5M). The only way to do that is to use the McCollum TPE.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, and I stand corrected.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Yep. 100% positive.

For outgoing players, the other team has to be able to accept the FULL contract value.
For matching salary on incoming players, you can only use the GUARANTEED portion of the contract value. Teams can unilaterally guarantee more of the contract to be able to receive more salary coming back.

I believe right now teams have the option to use either the '21-'22 salary OR the '22-'23 salary.
Teams receiving Gallinari have to match his $20.5M contract (for '21-'22).
Click to expand...

Not really following, so I am putting this out there for my own clarification.

When teams make a trade, the contract does not change. Portland has an option of $18.5 mil on a Bledsoe, exercisable by June 30, 2022 that is guaranteed for $18.5 mil after June 30, 2022, that is the entirety of the contract. Portland can decline their team option and release Bledsoe prior to June 30, 2022 and pay him what his contract calls for, $4.5 mil guaranteed to go away, saving $14 mil If a team trades for Bledsoe today, they have until June 30, 2022 to exercise his contract which is to say "we want Bledsoe on our team next season and are willing to guarantee 100% of his deal." Or they can decline their team option and release Bledsoe prior to June 30, 2022 and pay him what his contract calls for, $4.5 mil guaranteed to go away, saving $14 mil. The team trading for Bledsoe must be able to absorb his $18.5 mil initially worked into the parameters of the construction of the trade. It sounds like Gallo has a similar team option deal.
 
CJ_is_Gone said:
Yep. 100% positive.

For outgoing players, the other team has to be able to accept the FULL contract value.
For matching salary on incoming players, you can only use the GUARANTEED portion of the contract value. Teams can unilaterally guarantee more of the contract to be able to receive more salary coming back.

I believe right now teams have the option to use either the '21-'22 salary OR the '22-'23 salary.
Teams receiving Gallinari have to match his $20.5M contract (for '21-'22).
Click to expand...


upload_2022-6-13_15-17-59.png

upload_2022-6-13_15-18-51.png

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/03/how-non-guaranteed-salaries-will-affect-trades-in-new-cba.html

upload_2022-6-13_15-23-55.png

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q102

kind of seems like they can be traded for their lesser guaranteed salaries. But yeah, Portland over the cap disqualifies them from taking the lesser of Gallo's salary
 
Last edited:
wizenheimer said:
View attachment 47918

View attachment 47919

https://www.hoopsrumors.com/2018/03/how-non-guaranteed-salaries-will-affect-trades-in-new-cba.html

View attachment 47920

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q102

kind of seems like they can be traded for their lesser guaranteed salaries
Click to expand...
All of that talks specifically about outgoing salary, for which your (and my) understanding was correct. However, the incoming salary for the receiving team is (as @CJ_is_Gone correctly stated) the full amount, guaranteed or not.

New CBA limits value of non-guaranteed contracts as trade chips (msn.com)

Luke Adams said:
Under the NBA’s previous Collective Bargaining Agreement, a player with a $10M guaranteed salary and a player with a $10M non-guaranteed salary were essentially treated the same way in trades for salary-matching purposes. However, that’s no longer the case under the league’s current CBA.

We’ve written about this in the past, but it’s a point worth reiterating with the 2022 offseason around the corner. A player’s outgoing salary for matching purposes is now only equivalent to his salary guarantee. So a player with a $5M partial guarantee on a $10M contract counts for $5M in outgoing salary. A player with a non-guaranteed $10M contract counts as $0 in outgoing salary.

For the team receiving the player, however, the full cap hit still applies. So even though a player on a $10M non-guaranteed contract would count as $0 for outgoing purposes, he’d be considered $10M in incoming salary to the team acquiring him.
Click to expand...
This article even specifically talks about Gallo.

Luke Adams said:
For example, the Hawks have Danilo Gallinari under contract for $21.45M in 2022-23, but only $5M of that amount is guaranteed. As a result, Atlanta wouldn’t be able to use Gallinari as the primary salary-matching piece in a deal for, say, Jerami Grant and his $20M+ salary this offseason unless they significantly increased Gallinari’s partial guarantee (to $15M+).

As it stands, Gallinari’s $5M partial guarantee would be enough to net the Hawks a player earning up to $8.85M. However, since Gallinari’s incoming salary to a new team would count as $21.45M, that team wouldn’t be permitted to trade only an $8.85M player for Gallinari unless it had the cap room necessary to accommodate the forward’s full $21.45M cap hit.
Click to expand...
 
BIG Q said:
Portland has an option of $18.5 mil on a Bledsoe, exercisable by June 30, 2022 that is guaranteed for $18.5 mil after June 30, 2022, that is the entirety of the contract. Portland can decline their team option and release Bledsoe prior to June 30, 2022 and pay him what his contract calls for, $4.5 mil guaranteed to go away, saving $14 mil If a team trades for Bledsoe today, they have until June 30, 2022 to exercise his contract which is to say "we want Bledsoe on our team next season and are willing to guarantee 100% of his deal." Or they can decline their team option and release Bledsoe prior to June 30, 2022 and pay him what his contract calls for, $4.5 mil guaranteed to go away, saving $14 mil. The team trading for Bledsoe must be able to absorb his $18.5 mil initially worked into the parameters of the construction of the trade. It sounds like Gallo has a similar team option deal.
Click to expand...

Not quite... There is no 'option' on the contract. Although the end result is similar - technically, an 'option' is a different vehicle.

Bledsoe is under contract for '22-'23. He's guaranteed to make $3.9M for next season. If he's cut from the team by June 29, Bledsoe will earn $3.9M & then will be a FA to sign where he wishes. If he's still on the team on June 30, his contract will be fully guaranteed for $19.4M.


If Portland were to trade Bledsoe, the receiving team would have to be able to accept a contract value of $18.1M (his '21-'22 salary) under the terms of the CBA. The guaranteed portion is irrelevant at this point.
A couple of examples:
* Team A (with sufficient cap space or large enough TPE) -> They would not have to send any matching salary back.
* Team B (over cap, but under Tax) -> Would have to send back salary totaling between $13.1M (using '22 salary) and $24.4M (using his '23 salary). For salaries in this range, the NBA allows contracts to 'match' as long as they are within +/- $5M.

For more specific examples:
* Houston (as a team over the cap) -> Sending out Wood ($13.7M) can receive Bledsoe's contract in return.
* Atlanta (as a team over the cap) -> Sending out Collin ($23.0M) can receive Bledsoe's contract in return.


For Portland's side of the equation, we can only accept salary based on the guaranteed portion of Bledsoe's contract. Using the same two examples of Wood & Collins:
* Houston*** -> To receive Wood's ($13.7M) contract, Portland would have to send out a minimum of $8.7M in guaranteed contracts to 'match' (being $5M less than what Portland receives). Portland could unilaterally guarantee Bledsoe's contract for the $8.7M and trade him to Houston. Houston would receive Bledsoe's $18.1M contract that is guaranteed for $8.7M. Houston would either add ~$4M to their payroll (by keeping Bledsoe) or save ~$5M by cutting him.

* Atlanta -> To receive Collins ($23.0M) contract, Portland would have to send out a minimum of $18.0M in guaranteed contracts to 'match' (being $5M less than what Portland receives). Portland could unilaterally guarantee Bledsoe's contract for the $18.0M and trade him to Atlanta. Atlanta would save between $4M and $5M on this deal depending upon what they do with Bledsoe.


***The main confusion around all this is with regards to the TPE that Portland has. The TPE allows Portland to receive salary without having to send any back out. Again - using the same Wood & Collins examples:
* Houston -> Wood's ($13.7M) contract is less than Portland's $20M TPE. Portland can receive Wood without sending any salary back out (and would have a $6.3M TPE remaining). If Portland could talk Houston into taking Bledsoe, Houston would receive Bledsoe's $18.1M contract that is guaranteed for $3.9M (since none of it was used for matching purposes). Houston would save ~$10M by cutting him (although they would save ~$14M by not taking Bledsoe back at all).

* Atlanta -> Collins' ($23.0M) contract is more than Portland's $20M TPE. There is no way to receive him without sending $18M in guaranteed contracts as I described above.

Hopefully that is more clear.
 
wizenheimer said:
kind of seems like they can be traded for their lesser guaranteed salaries. But yeah, Portland over the cap disqualifies them from taking the lesser of Gallo's salary
Click to expand...
Yes - This is true.
The guaranteed portion only effects the amount of what Portland can bring back in a trade.
The other team has to be able to receive the full contract value (regardless of how much is guaranteed).
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Luke Adams said:
For example, the Hawks have Danilo Gallinari under contract for $21.45M in 2022-23, but only $5M of that amount is guaranteed. As a result, Atlanta wouldn’t be able to use Gallinari as the primary salary-matching piece in a deal for, say, Jerami Grant and his $20M+ salary this offseason unless they significantly increased Gallinari’s partial guarantee (to $15M+).

As it stands, Gallinari’s $5M partial guarantee would be enough to net the Hawks a player earning up to $8.85M. However, since Gallinari’s incoming salary to a new team would count as $21.45M, that team wouldn’t be permitted to trade only an $8.85M player for Gallinari unless it had the cap room necessary to accommodate the forward’s full $21.45M cap hit.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Correct... with 1 caveat.
Atlanta could choose to guarantee Gallinari's contract for more money. They could unilaterally decide to guarantee it for any number (say $12M, which would allow them to take back a contract up to $17M in value). Gallinari would not have a say in this.
 
BIG Q said:
Thanks for the response. If Collins is not happy with Trae's shot selection, watch out with Dame/Ant. He would be coming to a PDX team that I am not sure knows how to utilize a good forward. Honestly, how long has it been that they have had a decent one? Just talking out loud.
Click to expand...
Wonder why they would want to move him?
 
A big NO to John Collins.
We're replacing Josh Hart in the starting lineup with Anfernee Simons.
Now some people want to replace Justise Winslow with John Collins, (and at a very high cost in my opinion).
I can see the defense of the starting unit going from being solid last season during the 4-game win streak, to being mediocre to crappy.
Does anyone think that's the way you build a contender?
To me that's how you exclude yourself from being a contender. And not for free. At the cost of the 7th pick.
Edit: the Blazers cannot have an "adequate" defender at power forward if they are serious about being a contender.


 
blazerfan11 said:
A big NO to John Collins.
We're replacing Josh Hart in the starting lineup with Anfernee Simons.
Now some people want to replace Justise Winslow with John Collins, (and at a very high cost in my opinion).
I can see the defense of the starting unit going from being solid last season during the 4-game win streak, to being mediocre to crappy.
Does anyone think that's the way you build a contender?
To me that's how you exclude yourself from being a contender. And not for free. At the cost of the 7th pick.
Edit: the Blazers cannot have an "adequate" defender at power forward if they are serious about being a contender.
Click to expand...

Are you saying you would rather have Winslow than Collins?
 
Dame , Hart and Winslow and Co. ---- honestly i would rather just have last years team but a healthy Dame -- talking end of year team then that one.
 
blazerfan11 said:
A big NO to John Collins.
We're replacing Josh Hart in the starting lineup with Anfernee Simons.
Now some people want to replace Justise Winslow with John Collins, (and at a very high cost in my opinion).
I can see the defense of the starting unit going from being solid last season during the 4-game win streak, to being mediocre to crappy.
Does anyone think that's the way you build a contender?
To me that's how you exclude yourself from being a contender. And not for free. At the cost of the 7th pick.
Edit: the Blazers cannot have an "adequate" defender at power forward if they are serious about being a contender.
Click to expand...
Basing any lineup decisions and roster moves on a 4 game win streak is stupid at best.
 
So many people in here being typical blazer fans over valuing players on the roster….it’s just insane
 
I’d ship out Ant and Nurk in S@Ts if it meant adding Collins and LaVine. Not that I necessarily like those players or think they will work but whatever we do let’s go all in on it. If it’s win now sell the farm for win now players, if it’s to build around Ant/Nas/#7 then trade Dame. There needs to be a plan one way or another though, I’m sick of all these counterproductive moves. Place ur bet and go all in, if it works great and if not we rebuild. Both options are better than battling for a play in game every season.
 
LayneStaley said:
I’d ship out Ant and Nurk in S@Ts if it meant adding Collins and LaVine. Not that I necessarily like those players or think they will work but whatever we do let’s go all in on it. If it’s win now sell the farm for win now players, if it’s to build around Ant/Nas/#7 then trade Dame. There needs to be a plan one way or another though, I’m sick of all these counterproductive moves. Place ur bet and go all in, if it works great and if not we rebuild. Both options are better than battling for a play in game every season.
Click to expand...

Not with LaVine’s knee issues
 
blazerfan11 said:
A big NO to John Collins.
We're replacing Josh Hart in the starting lineup with Anfernee Simons.
Now some people want to replace Justise Winslow with John Collins, (and at a very high cost in my opinion).
I can see the defense of the starting unit going from being solid last season during the 4-game win streak, to being mediocre to crappy.
Does anyone think that's the way you build a contender?
To me that's how you exclude yourself from being a contender. And not for free. At the cost of the 7th pick.
Edit: the Blazers cannot have an "adequate" defender at power forward if they are serious about being a contender.
Click to expand...

Ummm Collins is way better than Winslow and it’s not close
 
Collins is still being mentioned as a trade target for Portland while the Trail Blazers explore their options to add win-now talent around Damian Lillard in exchange for the No. 7 choice. Should a deal with Atlanta materialize, G League Ignite combo guard Dyson Daniels is believed to be a primary draft target for the Hawks, sources said.
https://t.co/LsWmR1kHF5

idk how I’d feel about this. Collins would have to take another step as a player for this to be worth it imo, because losing out on Daniels would suck.

btw, how would a Collins trade even look like money wise? He doesn’t fit into the TPE does he?
 
Last edited:
Scalma said:
Collins is still being mentioned as a trade target for Portland while the Trail Blazers explore their options to add win-now talent around Damian Lillard in exchange for the No. 7 choice. Should a deal with Atlanta materialize, G League Ignite combo guard Dyson Daniels is believed to be a primary draft target for the Hawks, sources said.
https://t.co/LsWmR1kHF5

idk how I’d feel about this. Collins would have to take another step as a player for this to be worth it imo, because losing out on Daniels would suck.

btw, how would a Collins trade even look like money wise? He doesn’t fit into the TPE does he?
Click to expand...
He does not. Bledsoe would have to be involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top