Bust a Scoot? (2 Viewers)

[Pinwheel1]

Realistically he should be coming off the bench, and I don't think he's gonna want to be paid like a bench player. But sure, if he's making like 18 a year that's fine.

Well, if no one offers him more, he won't have a choice. The market will dictate his next contract and according to many of our posters, his skill sets are easy to find. So signing him to a contract worthy of a 6th man......... doesn't seem too far-fetched.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I think fans get impatient because the product, let's face it, is garbage. We all know it and it is understandable why fans are impatient. But, I think I can see the reason for that path. Maximizing options for talent acquisition. You either get lucky with pingpong balls when a generational talent is available or it's a methodical approach until you "get lucky" and it is going to take time...

I want the Blazers to intelligently and aggressively rebuild, as many other teams like the Thunder and Rockets have done. Or make smart trades with cap space like the Spurs did this summer. Not acquire overpaid contracts then send out a possible lottery draft pick to ditch that same contract.

There is zero strategic reason for the Blazers to have built to a spot the last two years where now all FIVE of these mediocre overpaid veterans are still on the Blazers roster today (Grant/Ant/Ayton/Timelord/Thybulle).

All of your arguments of having patience with overpaid contracts, how we can't "lose an asset for nothing", and how the cap must be spent were the same stupid justifications used to defend Neil Olshey signing Evan Turner, Meyers Leonard, and Allen Crabbe. That ended up harming the Blazers ability to ever build a team around Dame, just as we're doing now to harm the ability to build a team around whoever a hopeful stud Blazer might eventually be.

I'm plenty patient - but I want to be on a path to eventually improve. The problem is that we might still be 5-10 years away from finishing up this rebuild - just as we were back when Olshey was leaving the team. That's not the path to progress that we should be patient for.

 

[Hoopguru]

Stars and potential stars all get paid max contracts so the costs to NBA teams is the same.

The problem is the Blazers paying mediocre veterans like they are stars, when they're not.

Agree, but as you say the ones you're still not sure about? that the team thinks about building around, Shae & Scoot they could bet on themselves and consider a change of scenery.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

You will need new ownership for that. Teams that are under the minimum are not getting tax distribution per the new CBA. I would suspect that that's a management directive.

Nobody said we would be under the salary minimum in October when the season start. No NBA team will ever do that going forward. I'm not sure if you legit think someone is arguing with you on this or your being intentionally obtuse.

People are saying that its beneficial to be under the minimum at the end of June - then use that space to add assets around the draft/free agency.

Instead the Blazers were in the luxury tax and had to send out a possible #2 overall pick to cut salary. The rebuilding Blazers don't need to hold onto overpaid veterans like contenders do - they should be doing the opposite of flipping space for assets.

 

[wizenheimer]

He's still only 24, the age Damian was in his 3rd year in the league. He can be a Lillard type player for us. We just need to surround him with talent.

this again....Simons isn't 24, he's 25, and has been 25 for 4 months. He's also entering his 7th season. He's not young by NBA standards any more. He's defined himself as a player and the rest of the league knows exactly who he is and what he is which probably explains why he doesn't seem to have much positive value

Absolutely agree. However, there is a reason for the madness, imho. The Olshey regime left that cupboard stacked with an ill-fitting sub-standard roster around an aging superstar. Once the superstar lost the patience to wait for a proper rebalancing of the roster and talent accumulation - the Blazers went about a rebuild. Their path seems reasonable to me - long term gain for short term pain.

I just picked this post to respond to some of the things you've been arguing

one seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the Blazers are better off with tradable contracts than being at or below the salary floor. That may be true, but only if it's proven that Ant-Grant-Timelord-Ayton-Thybulle actually have contracts that fetch back solid returns. I don't believe they do and that probably means we've spent months debating trade returns that don't reflect reality....just like we spent years debating the trade value of CJ. Basically, the Blazers traded CJ + Nance for Grant + Thybulle + Murray. Then compounded the issues by giving Grant that big, bloated contract, and then matching a stupid offer sheet to Thybulle

that's not progression. That's not improving the roster, short term or long term. It's just putting new paint on the same old car. There's no upside to that kind of transition. Just kicking the same damn can down the same damn road, in purgatory. The Blazers need to break the cycle by NOT holding onto veterans like Ant and Ayton and Timelord, IMO.

I mean, what transactions have the Blazers done in the Olshey/Cronin era that would lead anybody to believe they would re-sign Simons to a 15-17M/year deal instead of a 40-45M/year deal? Same for Ayton. Time and again, whether it's CJ or Turner or Crabbe or CJ again or Simons or Grant or Thybulle the Blazers either bid against themselves or match dumb fucking offer sheets. Bloated contracts on flawed average players don't fetch back solid returns

*********************************************
I'm also not sure how the salary floor became such a bug-a-boo (not saying you view it as such)

there are only two minor penalties to being below the floor. One is that a team loses whatever space they have below the floor once the season starts. Basically, the most space any team can have during the season is 10% of the salary cap. The other penalty is that a team below the floor when the season starts is ineligible to collect luxury tax payments at the end of the season

obviously, that would be a big no-no for the Vulcans, but the solution is simple as can be: a team just signs some player to a one year deal for the difference. It's Christmas in September for some lucky scrubs. The irony being that those types of contracts may be more tradable than the ones the Blazer veterans have

 

[andalusian]

Nobody said we would be under the salary minimum in October when the season start. No NBA team will ever do that going forward. I'm not sure if you legit think someone is arguing with you on this or your being intentionally obtuse.

People are saying that its beneficial to be under the minimum at the end of June - then use that space to add assets around the draft/free agency.

Instead the Blazers were in the luxury tax and had to send out a possible #2 overall pick to cut salary. The rebuilding Blazers don't need to hold onto overpaid veterans like contenders do - they should be doing the opposite of flipping space for assets.

I am not sure how I am intentionally obtuse, the Blazers chose the option of not letting talent going away for nothing which is the only way the Blazers could have been under the minimum, and at that point, to risk the Washington Wizards perpetual tank.

Once they have decided that's not the way to go, there is no way of getting under the minimum other than getting salary back. That's the CBA.

The fact that you disagree with this path they took is fine, but I said that I understand their reasoning.

Now I think that the OKC argument is not reasonable, that team was built during the previous CBA which is a lot different than today and started with 2 superstars to rebuild with (vs. the Blazers that had only one). They also managed to get super lucky with the SGA / PG trade. But what they did was basically traded super-stars and good role players for picks and young talent, which is exactly what the Blazers are trying to do. OKC had a 2-3 year tank because they hit the SGA trade - the Blazers basically are trying to do exactly the same from a worse starting point, but their Deni trade is exactly the kind of stuff OKC managed to do with SGA.

I also want to remind you that SAS are now going into the 6th year of their tank, they maximized their tanking to get lucky for Wemby, and after they managed that - they had the good luck of Wemby - so again, nothing quick about their rebuild.

 

[andalusian]

I just picked this post to respond to some of the things you've been arguing

one seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the Blazers are better off with tradable contracts than being at or below the salary floor. That may be true, but only if it's proven that Ant-Grant-Timelord-Ayton-Thybulle actually have contracts that fetch back solid returns. I don't believe they do and that probably means we've spent months debating trade returns that don't reflect reality....just like we spent years debating the trade value of CJ. Basically, the Blazers traded CJ + Nance for Grant + Thybulle + Murray. Then compounded the issues by giving Grant that big, bloated contract, and then matching a stupid offer sheet to Thybulle

I am absolutely sure they are better off with tradeable contracts, if the contracts they have are or not, I have no way of knowing - only time will tell. I think the Blazers believe they are and they also believe that since they are in a rebuild, they are not in a hurry to trade them for any shit out there.

If they are right or not, only time will tell.

I do not believe however, that trading them quickly for shit at this point is reasonable. We can argue from here to eternity if the signing were good or not, I suspect that like most things, some will be, others not. All I am saying is that I understand what their thinking is and I disagree with the idea that these veterans need to be traded for shit, quickly just to shed salary.

We have seen what letting talent go for nothing did to the Blazers in the past...

 

[wizenheimer]

Well, if no one offers him more, he won't have a choice. The market will dictate his next contract and according to many of our posters, his skill sets are easy to find. So signing him to a contract worthy of a 6th man......... doesn't seem too far-fetched.

wut?

what have the Blazers done in the Olshey/Cronin era that makes you believe Portland would re-sign Simons to 15-17M/year rather than 40-45M/year? Blazer GM's don't go by the market of the year they re-sign/sign guys

the market wasn't going to give Evan Turner anywhere close to 18M/year and it wasn't going to give CJ 30M/year. It wasn't going to give Nurkic 18M/year. It wasn't going to give Simons 25M/year; or Grant 33M/year

the pattern has been to not only bust the market, but bust it by a lot. For a lot of us, the goal would be to get rid of Simons and Ayton well before Cronin can give them some idiotic new contract because it sure seems likely that he will

 

[Pinwheel1]

wut?

what have the Blazers done in the Olshey/Cronin era that makes you believe Portland would re-sign Simons to 15-17M/year rather than 40-45M/year? Blazer GM's don't go by the market of the year they re-sign/sign guys

No Olshey and no Paul Allen. Both were the driving force for giving or matching big contracts. So the only deals that are relevant to your point are Grant and Thybulle. If they don't move Grant, you will be right. If they just get one 1st for him, you will be wrong.

Thybulle's contract was matched so that was pretty close to his market value and the contract is not too crazy for trade purposes.

Who am I missing?

 

[wizenheimer]

We have seen what letting talent go for nothing did to the Blazers in the past...

* Evan Turner's tradable contract returned Kent Bazemore. Bazemore returned an aging Trevor Ariza on an expiring deal who refused to participate in the bubble.

* Crabbe's tradable contract returned Andrew Nicholson who became a 7-year/2.8M burden on Portland's cap

* CJ + Nance's tradable contracts became Grant and Thybulle plus a late 1st. And Nance's initial cost is still an encumbrance on Portland's ability to leverage their own first. It might even become an obstacle to swapping their 2028 first with Milwaukee

there is no upside to any of those exchanges

you're talking the theory of cap-management and tradable contracts. I'm talking what Portland has actually done with both, and your theories don't match Blazer realities under the management of Olshey/Cronin

 

[andalusian]

what have the Blazers done in the Olshey/Cronin era that makes you believe Portland would re-sign Simons to 15-17M/year rather than 40-45M/year? Blazer GM's don't go by the market of the year they re-sign/sign guys

I believe the word you want there is could, not would. The Blazers have to overpay to retain some players, if it's worth it or not, is debatable.

it wasn't going to give CJ 30M/year. It wasn't going to give Nurkic 18M/year.

The Pelicans gave CJ a 32M / year extension, so that part I am not sure you are right about.

It wasn't going to give Simons 25M/year; or Grant 33M/year

Speculation your honor. This league gave Jordan Poole 32M a year contract, Tyler Herro has a 30M a year contract, Zach Lavine makes 42M

When Grant signed his contract, Tobias Harris was making 36M a year, MPJ (a walking injury concern) makes 36M - I think you are underestimating how the current salaries in the NBA look.

 

[andalusian]

* Evan Turner's tradable contract returned Kent Bazemore. Bazemore returned an aging Trevor Ariza on an expiring deal who refused to participate in the bubble.

* Crabbe's tradable contract returned Andrew Nicholson who became a 7-year/2.8M burden on Portland's cap

I don't give a shit about the NeO years as indication of the Cronin years, honestly.

* CJ + Nance's tradable contracts became Grant and Thybulle plus a late 1st. And Nance's initial cost is still an encumbrance on Portland's ability to leverage their own first. It might even become an obstacle to swapping their 2028 first with Milwaukee

See, I look at this as having a $30+m contract of a small combo guard with no defense and shit for a $30+m contract of a forward with some defense and shit, that's a more tradeable contract imho. So, yes, I think that was a good trade all around. It was not a slam dunk, but it was a good trade both for the time when it was done with the belief that Dame is still around, and still when Dame wanted out. Not great, but an upgrade, for sure.

you're talking the theory of cap-management and tradable contracts. I'm talking what Portland has actually done with both, and your theories don't match Blazer realities under the management of Olshey/Cronin

You are entitled to your opinion. I think Cronin clearly upgrade the team's roster balance and options, given the shit hand he inherited and the reluctant owners he has to work with.

 

[wizenheimer]

No Olshey and no Paul Allen. Both were the driving force for giving or matching big contracts. So the only deals that are relevant to your point are Grant and Thybulle. If they don't move Grant, you will be right. If they just get one 1st for him, you will be wrong.

Thybulle's contract was matched so that was pretty close to his market value and the contract is not too crazy for trade purposes.

Who am I missing?

again...wut?

who signed Simons to his current deal? Nurkic to his current deal? Grant to his current deal? Jody Allen was in charge when Olshey re-signed CJ for 33M/year

when I replied to you it wasn't about what Grant might get traded for. It was about the theory that the Blazers would offer Simons a contract 7-10M/year less than his current deal. Dream on. Where is this belief even coming from?

 

[Natebishop3]

again...wut?

who signed Simons to his current deal? Nurkic to his current deal? Grant to his current deal? Jody Allen was in charge when Olshey re-signed CJ for 33M/year

when I replied to you it wasn't about what Grant might get traded for. It was about the theory that the Blazers would offer Simons a contract 7-10M/year less than his current deal. Dream on. Where is this belief even coming from?

and LOL at Thybulle's 'toxic' offer sheet being his market. Right...just like Brooklyn's idiot offer sheet to Crabbe was Crabbe's market. In both cases another team was being stupid and the Blazers called the stupid bet and ended up holding the bag

I kinda wonder if Simons and Nurk were re-signed just because we were so low on tradeable salary. We can't do the Ayton deal without Nurk having a somewhat sizeable contract. Maybe Cronin thought Simons would have more trade value than he actually has. Supposedly we shopped Simons/#3 and didn't really have any takers (at least not for the value we wanted.)

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Little and nUrk were traded in what most believe has been overall good value considering our superstar wanted out.
Using them as ammo to back up bad contracts is not valid because those contracts were traded just fine.

I don't see how anyone can expect more at this point in Cronin’s tenure as a GM considering what he walked into and what he has done in two years.
Its like people want him to turn shit into gold with magic wand or something…

 

[Phatguysrule]

You will need new ownership for that. Teams that are under the minimum are not getting tax distribution per the new CBA. I would suspect that that's a management directive.

Better ownership is my number one hope for this team.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Well, if no one offers him more, he won't have a choice. The market will dictate his next contract and according to many of our posters, his skill sets are easy to find. So signing him to a contract worthy of a 6th man......... doesn't seem too far-fetched.

He can't be a sixth man here. Not if we ever want to get good.

His skill set and motivation is toxic to young players, IMO.

He sucks at defense because he doesn't care to play defense. Get him out of here.

Scoot gets in foul trouble because he cares about defense. I much prefer that for my point guard.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Huh? Simons is a MUCH better scorer than Stoudamire was. Damon's TS% with the Blazers was like 51%. Which is better than Scoot's last year. But really bad.

And even though Scoot is 6-3 and very athletic, he was just as terrible a finisher at the rim as Damon.

And stoudemire was a better defender and set far better screens and a much better passer.

I'm not looking for my short guard to be a shooting guard.

 

[beast blazer]

this again....Simons isn't 24, he's 25, and has been 25 for 4 months. He's also entering his 7th season. He's not young by NBA standards any more. He's defined himself as a player and the rest of the league knows exactly who he is and what he is which probably explains why he doesn't seem to have much positive value

Ok, big whoop. He was 24 last season. The equivalent of Damian Lillard's 3rd year. If you compare their numbers at that time, Simons compares favorably.

If Anfernee were a top 10 pick in his 3rd year, fans would be singing a different tune about him.

The "he's good, but not a superstar, so lets ditch him and hitch our wagon to Markelle Fultz" logic seems off-based to me.

 

[Pinwheel1]

again...wut?

who signed Simons to his current deal? Nurkic to his current deal? Grant to his current deal? Jody Allen was in charge when Olshey re-signed CJ for 33M/year

when I replied to you it wasn't about what Grant might get traded for. It was about the theory that the Blazers would offer Simons a contract 7-10M/year less than his current deal. Dream on. Where is this belief even coming from?

Who signed Simons? Olshey
Who signed CJ ? Olshey
Who signed Nurkic? Olshey

When Paul was alive he was instrumental in those decisions. Do you think Jody is involved to the same extent? I don't.
As for Simons, next contract who the fuck knows how much he will get? Not you or I.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Giving them for shit makes no sense, it needs to be shit + prospects (in the form of young players or draft picks). I suspect that this is where the issue is. Getting a return that is deemed worth it.

Yes, 100%. I meant shitty players as well as prospects/draft compensation. And of course that is a worse case scenario.

But the shittier and worse contract the player, the player the better draft/prospect we should get.

And that is exactly what I'm looking for right now.

 

[andalusian]

I don't see how anyone can expect more at this point in Cronin’s tenure as a GM considering what he walked into and what he has done in two years.
Its like people want him to turn shit into gold with magic wand or something…

That's pretty much opinion as well. I also think that when he immediately broke the Dame/CJ combo NeO clung to for more than half a decade is indication to judging him by the NeO regime decisions is wrong.

There is plenty that can go wrong from the Cronin decisions, but he seems to follow a somewhat logical course of action given the restrictions he has to deal with - and there seems to be a rather reasonable direction and the will to take big swings both in the draft (Shae), trades (getting DA, Deni) and get some size and talent on the edges, so I, for one, do not think that he is the problem in Portland, I think he does as well as can be expected given what he has to work with.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok, big whoop. He was 24 last season. The equivalent of Damian Lillard's 3rd year. If you compare their numbers at that time, Simons compares favorably.

If Anfernee were a top 10 pick in his 3rd year, fans would be singing a different tune about him.

The "he's good, but not a superstar, so lets ditch him and hitch our wagon to Markelle Fultz" logic seems off-based to me.

He's not good. It's not that he's not a superstar. He's not a starting level guard and he's in his seventh season.

We aren't in position to keep players like that. There are situations in which he could be beneficial. Teams who already have established identities and are looking for scoring off the bench.

That's not us. He's never going to be that for us.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

That's pretty much opinion as well. I also think that when he immediately broke the Dame/CJ combo NeO clung to for more than half a decade is indication to judging him by the NeO regime decisions is wrong.

There is plenty that can go wrong from the Cronin decisions, but he seems to follow a somewhat logical course of action given the restrictions he has to deal with - and there seems to be a rather reasonable direction and the will to take big swings both in the draft (Shae), trades (getting DA, Deni) and get some size and talent on the edges, so I, for one, do not think that he is the problem in Portland, I think he does as well as can be expected given what he has to work with.

I agree. I entered the conversation based on one persons post essentially blaming Cronin for everything. I find that opinion nonsense and void of context.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

He's not good. It's not that he's not a superstar. He's not a starting level guard and he's in his seventh season.

We aren't in position to keep players like that. There are situations in which he could be beneficial. Teams who already have established identities and are looking for scoring off the bench.

That's not us. He's never going to be that for us.

What if he actually signed an extension for 17-20 per and accepted a 6th man roll?

 

[wizenheimer]

I don't give a shit about the NeO years as indication of the Cronin years, honestly.

I agree that Cronin was dealt a shit hand by Olshey. I'd also agree that he has the Vulcans peering over his shoulder and whispering in his ear

for those reasons, I defended what he did at his first trade deadline when he took substantial steps in dismantling Olshey's idiot roster. There was a lot of negativity about those moves around here, especially the Clippers trade. I didn't have problems with those trades....I liked them because at long last, those trades signaled the end of Olshey's era

but I'm seeing plenty of similarities between Olshey and Cronin. Olshey overpaid CJ & Turner; Cronin overpaid Simons and Grant. Olshey hard-capped the Blazers by signing Derrick Jones; Cronin hard-capped Portland by signing Payton. Olshey traded two 1st's for RoCo; Cronin traded two 1st's and two 2nd's for Avdija (and yes, I like Avdija's talent, but the price was steep)

Olshey wasted TPE's because of bloated team salaries too close to the tax line. Cronin has wasted 26M in TPE's (Hart-Payton-Dame) because of bloated team salaries too close to the tax line

you have confidence in Cronin as GM. I don't share it. You have confidence that the contracts the Blazers have are solid tradable contracts, I don't share that confidence either. One reason is that I was assured by other confident posters here that Brogdon had a very tradable contract that might very well fetch back a 1st. But the Blazers had to attach 4 draft picks to Brogdon in order to move him. And last season, Brogdon was Portland's best player

so sure, maybe between now and the trade deadline Cronin will reward your confidence. If not then, then maybe next summer. If not then, then maybe by next season's trade deadline.

 

[wizenheimer]

Who signed Simons? Olshey
Who signed CJ ? Olshey
Who signed Nurkic? Olshey

When Paul was alive he was instrumental in those decisions. Do you think Jody is involved to the same extent? I don't.
As for Simons, next contract who the fuck knows how much he will get? Not you or I.

WRONG...check your dates

Olshey was fired 12/03/2021

Simons and Nurkic were resigned by Cronin 7 months later....July, 2022

 

[andalusian]

but I'm seeing plenty of similarities between Olshey and Cronin. Olshey overpaid CJ & Turner; Cronin overpaid Simons and Grant. Olshey hard-capped the Blazers by signing Derrick Jones; Cronin hard-capped Portland by signing Payton. Olshey traded two 1st's for RoCo; Cronin traded two 1st's and two 2nd's for Avdija (and yes, I like Avdija's talent, but the price was steep)

Well, I don't think Simons and Grant are out of the league standard as shown by the examples I gave above. Turner was a clear overpay by NeO, CJ - again, not sure it was (and I don't want to support NeO in any way shape or form) simply because we have seen another team do it as well, so again, league standard.

I thought RoCo was pretty much over the hill when that trade happened, Deni has a big upside - so again, not the same case at all, imho.

you have confidence in Cronin as GM. I don't share it. You have confidence that the contracts the Blazers have are solid tradable contracts, I don't share that confidence either. One reason is that I was assured by other confident posters here that Brogdon had a very tradable contract that might very well fetch back a 1st. But the Blazers had to attach 4 draft picks to Brogdon in order to move him. And last season, Brogdon was Portland's best player

so sure, maybe between now and the trade deadline Cronin will reward your confidence. If not then, then maybe next summer. If not then, then maybe by next season's trade deadline.

I have confidence that Cronin has a vision that is somewhat logical, that's as far as I will go. I also do not think that Cronin is responsible for what posters said about Brogdon. Brogdon was a required piece for a big swing for a prospect with a lot of upside, so it seems to me that he was used well as a trade asset, someone like Deni is probably the same as a high-level pick with a much higher floor - which is the kind of swing that is needed, so basically, I see Brogdon + lower level picks for a higher-level pick with less risk (because the floor is higher). It is to me, the same kind of swing OKC made when they traded PG for picks + SGA, the difference being of course that PG was a much bigger piece to trade than Brogdon - which is why OKC got more for him than what Portland got for Brogdon.

So, that's the way I look at it. Probably a good get for someone like Brogdon and late picks. It's OK if you disagree or choose to consider this an indication that Cronin will not be able to get value for other assets.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What if he actually signed an extension for 17-20 per and accepted a 6th man roll?

What if he started playing defense like Patrick Beverly?

Both seem equally likely to me.

But sure, if that were to happen, that would be great.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

What if he started playing defense like Patrick Beverly?

Both seem equally likely to me.

But sure, if that were to happen, that would be great.

I agree. Not likely at all. Just trying to gauge the room. Do most want him gone regardless because of no defense or would some be happy with him ling term if he were to accept a role best suited for the team.
I have this fools gold future where he accepts coming off the bench in a three guard rotation with him and scoot.