Dame in Milwaukee thread

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Dame has realized what most of you have forgotten, the PNW is a pretty damn special place to live. Special enough for Dame to bring his family here, to invest here, and to live year-round.
 
Tince said:
Most importantly, he ate up a large chunk of the salary cap. Do I blame him for getting his money? Absolutely not. Did that decision hurt Portland's ability to surround him with the most talent? Yes.
Click to expand...

Huh?

can you name one contender, now or recently, that didn't have at least one max-player on the roster? Dame's salary was only 35% of the cap and last season, for example, Portland had a margin of 72% under the tax line after accounting for his salary. That was 108M for chrissakes. The notion it was Dame's salary that kept Portland from building a contender isn't logical

Blazers aren't saddled with Dame's salary this season...how much contending are they doing?
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Dame has realized what most of you have forgotten, the PNW is a pretty damn special place to live. Special enough for Dame to bring his family here, to invest here, and to live year-round.
Click to expand...

Especially if you like meth and catalytic converters!
 
Natebishop3 said:
Especially if you like meth and catalytic converters!
Click to expand...
Funny enough, I have a friend in the recycling industry who says catalytic converter business is way down and they are actually laying some people off.
 
wizenheimer said:
Huh?

can you name one contender, now or recently, that didn't have at least one max-player on the roster? Dame's salary was only 35% of the cap and last season, for example, Portland had a margin of 72% under the tax line after accounting for his salary. That was 108M for chrissakes. The notion it was Dame's salary that kept Portland from building a contender isn't logical

Blazers aren't saddled with Dame's salary this season...how much contending are they doing?
Click to expand...

A few things:
  1. I never claimed I thought Portland was better without Dame's salary or that they would be, so I no clue why you're even bringing that up.
  2. I have stated over and over that I thought trading Dame was less likely to yield better results than keeping him.
  3. I don't think Dame's contract was the #1 reason we didn't win a title with him. I never implied such.
  4. If I gave you an contender in the last 10 years that didn't have at least one max-player on their roster, would that change your stance?
  5. I'm aware of Dame's salary and what percentage it made up of the salary cap. That still doesn't make what I said inaccurate.
If a player was making 20% of the cap vs 35% that would unequivocally allow the organization they played for more options to build the team around them with more talent. I'm not sure how that's even debatable. I think Dame's #1 priority was getting paid and making sure his guys (CJ for example) got paid. And I repeat, I don't blame them for it being their #1 priority, it should be.
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm wondering what exactly was it he "chose" and what was the choice based upon?

and were there any choices by management in the 11 years he was in Portland that plotted a path to Dame's 'choice' 7 months ago?

I know plenty of posters here were really happy Portland 'moved on' from Dame (don't want to get bogged down in debating how 'necessary' it was). I wasn't one of them for a couple of major reasons. One was that it was due to a decade of totally shitty management by the Blazers. The other was that I knew Portland was headed for several straight years in the lottery and that was going to get old fast...and it has
Click to expand...
Yeah man, I seriously doubt when considering that compound he built here that Dame's plans included getting divorced and being on any team other than the Blazers. Dude tried to force the front office into going all in on a title run for him and for whatever reason they didn't do it. Sure he could have backed off of that trade demand (and by some reports he did) but then what? Play for a paycheck and not for true competition?

Dude chose to try and win big over the comforts of home. I don't know if it was a wise choice and it doesn't seem like he's truly enjoying it but everything considered I don't think where he's at in his professional or personal life are what his ideal situation was this time last year and I feel for the guy... regardless of if he got there by making mistakes or because his hand was forced by others.
 
Tince said:
If a player was making 20% of the cap vs 35% that would unequivocally allow the organization they played for more options to build the team around them with more talent. I'm not sure how that's even debatable..
Click to expand...

au contraire, it is very debatable because how many 10 year vets who are top-15 in the NBA make 20% of the cap? my guess is absolutely NONE, EVER

Milwaukee is paying Giannis the same as Portland was paying Dame. They are paying Middleton and Lopez about the same as Portland is paying Simons and Grant. The Milwaukee metro population is half that of Portland. And yet the Bucks still found a way, and the will, to add Dame's talent, and salary.

I'll say again: Dame's salary did not have any impact on Portland not building a contender. It was shitty management....period. Denver won a championship because in part, while Portland was trading for RoCo and Nance, they were trading for Gordon and Caldwell-Pope; while Portland was using a 10th pick on Zach Collins, Denver was using a 14th pick on Porter Jr. Blazers were mismanaged; Denver wasn't

you're talking a pie-in-the-sky theory about some mythical team being able to talk some mythical top-1o player into agreeing to take 20M/year less than he was eligible for so his team, that never signs any good free agents, and never trades for all-stars, and doesn't have lottery picks, can build some mythical contending roster around that player....with the hypothetical 20M in savings. rabbit hole

I'd also point out that in Dame's 2nd contract he actually signed for less than the max so Olshey had some extra margin. He didn't repeat that mistake
 
wizenheimer said:
au contraire, it is very debatable because how many 10 year vets who are top-15 in the NBA make 20% of the cap? my guess is absolutely NONE, EVER

Milwaukee is paying Giannis the same as Portland was paying Dame. They are paying Middleton and Lopez about the same as Portland is paying Simons and Grant. The Milwaukee metro population is half that of Portland. And yet the Bucks still found a way, and the will, to add Dame's talent, and salary.

I'll say again: Dame's salary did not have any impact on Portland not building a contender. It was shitty management....period. Denver won a championship because in part, while Portland was trading for RoCo and Nance, they were trading for Gordon and Caldwell-Pope; while Portland was using a 10th pick on Zach Collins, Denver was using a 14th pick on Porter Jr. Blazers were mismanaged; Denver wasn't

you're talking a pie-in-the-sky theory about some mythical team being able to talk some mythical top-1o player into agreeing to take 20M/year less than he was eligible for so his team, that never signs any good free agents, and never trades for all-stars, and doesn't have lottery picks, can build some mythical contending roster around that player....with the hypothetical 20M in savings. rabbit hole

I'd also point out that in Dame's 2nd contract he actually signed for less than the max so Olshey had some extra margin. He didn't repeat that mistake
Click to expand...

Wow... incredible use of your imagination here.

I never said management was good or without fault. And you are comparing building around a 6'2" all-star with a 6'10" MVP, which is makes no sense to me, but either way is independent of the point I made.

Anyway, there have been REALLY REALLY good teams that have not had max players, but that also was off topic. You asked the question though, for some reason, so I'd assume since there has been, that would take away from whatever point you were trying to make.

If you think salary cap space and roster management doesn't make any difference in ability to build a supporting cast, then I guess we disagree. I think Olshey sucked big time, but to say anyone involved deserves 100% of the responsibility of how things turned out is silly to me.
 
man wanted luxury life and climate of miami, banging sluts (not that he cant do it while traveling with the team), but joe cronin really said: "buddy, brace yourself, were sending your ass to milwaukee"
 
Tince said:
Wow... incredible use of your imagination here.

I never said management was good or without fault. And you are comparing building around a 6'2" all-star with a 6'10" MVP, which is makes no sense to me, but either way is independent of the point I made.

Anyway, there have been REALLY REALLY good teams that have not had max players, but that also was off topic. You asked the question though, for some reason, so I'd assume since there has been, that would take away from whatever point you were trying to make.

If you think salary cap space and roster management doesn't make any difference in ability to build a supporting cast, then I guess we disagree. I think Olshey sucked big time, but to say anyone involved deserves 100% of the responsibility of how things turned out is silly to me.
Click to expand...

quit trying to twist what I'm saying to fit your weird argument. When was it I said that cap-management wasn't important?

you said if Portland had paid Dame 20% of the cap instead of 35% they'd have had more room to maneuver and manipulate the roster. OK...fine

but I'm not joining you in that fantasy-land. Dame was not going to sign for 20M/year less so Olshey could throw more money at Derrick Jones or Cronin could throw more money at Gary Payton Jr. No top-15 player in the league was going to sign for 20% of the cap when they were eligible for 35%. None ever have. Some have settled for 5-10% less than their max, and Dame was one of those (8.3% less in 2017). But again, NOBODY at the top of their game is going to agree to play for 43% less than their max.

the mechanism you are arguing for doesn't exist in the real world
 
Mr. Robot said:
man wanted luxury life and climate of miami, banging sluts (not that he cant do it while traveling with the team), but joe cronin really said: "buddy, brace yourself, were sending your ass to milwaukee"
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Aladdin:

His personality flaws
Give me adequate cause
To send him packing on a one-way trip
So his prospects take a terminal dip
His assets frozen
The venue chosen
It's the ends of the earth, whoopee
So long, ex-prince Ali
 
Strenuus said:
To be fair he chose Miami and he got handed Milwaukee.
Click to expand...
LOL, when you ask for a trade there is no guarantee where you are going, he gets to play with one of the greats in Giannis, too bad he is "lonely" collecting 50mil per year, I'm sorry but no sympathy from me
 
Mr. Robot said:
man wanted luxury life and climate of miami, banging sluts (not that he cant do it while traveling with the team), but joe cronin really said: "buddy, brace yourself, were sending your ass to milwaukee"
Click to expand...
As if Dame can't afford to gave half a dozen of Milwaukee's finest at his pad doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

I'm not sure that's what he's missing.
 
wizenheimer said:
quit trying to twist what I'm saying to fit your weird argument. When was it I said that cap-management wasn't important?

you said if Portland had paid Dame 20% of the cap instead of 35% they'd have had more room to maneuver and manipulate the roster. OK...fine

but I'm not joining you in that fantasy-land. Dame was not going to sign for 20M/year less so Olshey could throw more money at Derrick Jones or Cronin could throw more money at Gary Payton Jr. No top-15 player in the league was going to sign for 20% of the cap when they were eligible for 35%. None ever have. Some have settled for 5-10% less than their max, and Dame was one of those (8.3% less in 2017). But again, NOBODY at the top of their game is going to agree to play for 43% less than their max.

the mechanism you are arguing for doesn't exist in the real world
Click to expand...

I believe you were the one trying to twist what I was saying to fit your weird argument, so I assumed you would be ok with me doing the same.

We continue to agree Olshey did a piss poor job building around Dame and that Dame was unwilling to take less money to give management additional assets to build a roster around him. And I repeat, I don't blame Dame one bit for not leaving money on the table. Nothing wrong with doing what is best for you and not the organization because as we've seen, the organization is likely to do what is best for them vs the player. Though like the "who's fault is it" debate, I don't think that is an all-or-none situation either.
 
Tince said:
I believe you were the one trying to twist what I was saying to fit your weird argument, so I assumed you would be ok with me doing the same.

We continue to agree Olshey did a piss poor job building around Dame and that Dame was unwilling to take less money to give management additional assets to build a roster around him. And I repeat, I don't blame Dame one bit for not leaving money on the table. Nothing wrong with doing what is best for you and not the organization because as we've seen, the organization is likely to do what is best for them vs the player. Though like the "who's fault is it" debate, I don't think that is an all-or-none situation either.
Click to expand...

you said 'Dame's decision to accept a max deal hurt Portland's ability to put a contender around him'. You offered no evidence that was true; just an assumption that if he would have taken 5-10M less a year that would have changed the talent level of the team. How?

my argument is that it wasn't Dame's 25-40M max salaries impeding Portland it was paying CJ 25-30M and Crabbe+Turner 35M and Meyers+Harkless 20M and Powell+RoCo 25M. It was settling for and overpaying role players that killed the Blazers in the Dame era; and that's still happening this year
 
wizenheimer said:
you said 'Dame's decision to accept a max deal hurt Portland's ability to put a contender around him'. You offered no evidence that was true; just an assumption that if he would have taken 5-10M less a year that would have changed the talent level of the team. How?

my argument is that it wasn't Dame's 25-40M max salaries impeding Portland it was paying CJ 25-30M and Crabbe+Turner 35M and Meyers+Harkless 20M and Powell+RoCo 25M. It was settling for and overpaying role players that killed the Blazers in the Dame era; and that's still happening this year
Click to expand...

You're still moving off of what I said and making the case that because Olshey made other bad moves (which I continue to agree with), that it means additional salary flexibility would not matter. If you feel that way, then we disagree. If you do think it matters, then I can't see how you're objecting with my statement.

There is no way to go back in time and know 100% what would've happened. I believe having additional cap space and/or being under the tax is an advantage when it comes to signing free agents or getting ownership to buy off on adding salary. Do you think a teams payroll has no impact on their ability to make moves?
 
Last edited:
Tince said:
You're still moving off of what I said and making the case that because Olshey made other bad moves (which I continue to agree with), that it means additional salary flexibility would not matter. If you feel that way, then we disagree. If you do think it matters, then I can't see how you're objecting with my statement.
Click to expand...

"additional salary flexibility". tell me, realistically, how much salary you actually expected Dame to give back. 3M/year? 7M/year? play for a minimum? Dame did not have a max contract for the first 9 years of his career. He agreed to 8.3% less than max on his 2nd contract (he was eligible for the 30% max instead of the 25%, but split the difference and settled for 27.5%). Over 5 years he 'gave back' about 11-12M to the Blazers instead of keeping it for himself

the point I'm making is it would be purely dumb to argue Dame should have played for 20M less a year. I think 10M less a year is a dumb suggestion as well because no max level player is going to make that kind of sacrifice over a 4-5 year contract. Dame spent two seasons in Portland on a max deal. He made 31.6M on the last year of his 2nd contract; and 39.3M in the first year of his max extension (2021-22). If he would have taken 10% less than his max it would have been 3.9M less. 20% would have been 7.8M less. Hedge toward the high number and say Dame agreed to take 15% less than his max. Call it 6M (which would have been a 25M haircut over 4 years). What the hell difference would 6M have made for a payroll that started out over the tax line and ended up at 122M by the end of the season? That wasn't even at the level of an MLE contract. It wasn't even 5% of the ending payroll

Tince said:
Do you think a teams payroll has no impact on their ability to make moves?
Click to expand...

why do you keep asking me that goofy question? Do you think I'm a moron? Does a bear defecate in arboreal regions?

you seem to want to debate some generic theoretical point. Yes, it could have made a difference if Dame played for 20M/year less; all he had to do was leave 140M dollars on the table and Olshey might have built a contender. If you want to argue that absurd hypothetical, knock yourself out. I won't participate anymore.

meanwhile, I'll say there was no realistic reduction in Dame's salary that would have made a damn bit of difference.
 
wizenheimer said:
"additional salary flexibility". tell me, realistically, how much salary you actually expected Dame to give back. 3M/year? 7M/year? play for a minimum? Dame did not have a max contract for the first 9 years of his career. He agreed to 8.3% less than max on his 2nd contract (he was eligible for the 30% max instead of the 25%, but split the difference and settled for 27.5%). Over 5 years he 'gave back' about 11-12M to the Blazers instead of keeping it for himself

the point I'm making is it would be purely dumb to argue Dame should have played for 20M less a year. I think 10M less a year is a dumb suggestion as well because no max level player is going to make that kind of sacrifice over a 4-5 year contract. Dame spent two seasons in Portland on a max deal. He made 31.6M on the last year of his 2nd contract; and 39.3M in the first year of his max extension (2021-22). If he would have taken 10% less than his max it would have been 3.9M less. 20% would have been 7.8M less. Hedge toward the high number and say Dame agreed to take 15% less than his max. Call it 6M (which would have been a 25M haircut over 4 years). What the hell difference would 6M have made for a payroll that started out over the tax line and ended up at 122M by the end of the season? That wasn't even at the level of an MLE contract. It wasn't even 5% of the ending payroll



why do you keep asking me that goofy question? Do you think I'm a moron? Does a bear defecate in arboreal regions?

you seem to want to debate some generic theoretical point. Yes, it could have made a difference if Dame played for 20M/year less; all he had to do was leave 140M dollars on the table and Olshey might have built a contender. If you want to argue that absurd hypothetical, knock yourself out. I won't participate anymore.

meanwhile, I'll say there was no realistic reduction in Dame's salary that would have made a damn bit of difference.
Click to expand...



I think that was a lot of words to say you don't disagree with my original statement and we continue to agree a lot of what happened around Dame was a total failure. I think you want me to take some hard stance that I think the Blazers never winning a title is mainly Dame's fault, but I don't believe that.

You imply (or said) I'm arguing "Dame should have played for $20m less a year" but let me copy and paste what I've said in previous posts about if Dame should've given up money:

"Do I blame him for getting his money? Absolutely not"

" I think Dame's #1 priority was getting paid and making sure his guys (CJ for example) got paid. And I repeat, I don't blame them for it being their #1 priority, it should be."

So no, I don't think he should have played for $20m less a year.

And no, I don't think you're a moron. I won't call you dumb or your ideas dumb either. I have zero issue with you and I think you bring a great perspective to this board.
 
Mr. Robot said:
man wanted luxury life and climate of miami, banging sluts (not that he cant do it while traveling with the team), but joe cronin really said: "buddy, brace yourself, were sending your ass to milwaukee"
Click to expand...

Nothing better than getting over a nasty divorce than banging sluts, right?
 
Tince said:
You're still moving off of what I said and making the case that because Olshey made other bad moves (which I continue to agree with), that it means additional salary flexibility would not matter.
Click to expand...
The problem here is the assumption that Dame taking less would have allowed "additional salary flexibility". Given the constraints of the rest of the roster, that assumption is dubious at best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top