ESPN NBA future: Power Rankings

[H.C.]

And people get paid to write articles like this.
smh

 

[PDXFonz]

Seriously though, can someone provide an explanation for what "money" means? I don't see any way we fall in the middle of that category. We have one of the highest available salaries, an owner who loves to spend, and a GM who will most certainly target some big names.

Really seems like Pelton or Ford or whoever wrote this said "Hmm well if this isn't 19 then the Blazers are up to 5, and I'm not sure I want to deal with the fan backlash regarding that."

 

[Mediocre Man]

Then why respond at all?

BNM

I didn't respond. I input

 

[illmatic99]

Seriously though, can someone provide an explanation for what "money" means? I don't see any way we fall in the middle of that category. We have one of the highest available salaries, an owner who loves to spend, and a GM who will most certainly target some big names.

Really seems like Pelton or Ford or whoever wrote this said "Hmm well if this isn't 19 then the Blazers are up to 5, and I'm not sure I want to deal with the fan backlash regarding that."

PLAYERS (worth 50 percent of score): Current players and their potential for the future, factoring in expected departures
MANAGEMENT (worth 16.7 percent of score): Quality and stability of front office, ownership, coaching
MONEY (worth 16.7 percent of score): Projected salary-cap situation; ability and willingness to exceed cap and pay luxury tax
MARKET (worth 8.3 percent of score): Appeal to future acquisitions based on team quality, franchise reputation, city's desirability as a destination, market size, taxes, business and entertainment opportunities, arena quality, fans
DRAFT (worth 8.3 percent of score): Future draft picks; draft positioning

 

[PDXFonz]

See that's bs then. We should at least be top 5 in money this off season, right?

 

[B-Roy]

See that's bs then. We should at least be top 5 in money this off season, right?

We are on the low end in terms of cap-space available, believe it or not.

 

[illmatic99]

We are on the low end in terms of cap-space available, believe it or not.

Yup. Especially when you look at all our capholds for RFAs

 

[PDXFonz]

We are on the low end in terms of cap-space available, believe it or not.

That's surprising to me, seems all I've heard about is how much space Olshey has to sign this or that.

 

[Minstrel]

That's surprising to me, seems all I've heard about is how much space Olshey has to sign this or that.

The Blazers have quite a bit of cap space--the issue is, so does everyone else thanks to a large jump in the cap this off-season (and, most likely, next off-season too). This is, unfortunately, the least valuable that cap space has ever been.

 

[Mediocre Man]

That's surprising to me, seems all I've heard about is how much space Olshey has to sign this or that.

He can get to about a max contract. That is not a lot of space this off season though. Literally every team in the league can create enough space to sign a high end FA. I heard that on ESPN, so who knows?

 

[PDXFonz]

The Blazers have quite a bit of cap space--the issue is, so does everyone else thanks to a large jump in the cap this off-season (and, most likely, next off-season too). This is, unfortunately, the least valuable that cap space has ever been.

Funny how some writers omit the fact that other teams have a ton of space too.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I didn't respond. I input

And added nothing to the thread. This article wasn't getting the soccer mom reaction you desire to prove that everyone else here are a bunch of clueless homers. So you thought you'd try to generate a reaction. It's called bating. Too bad we've all seen your stinky bait a hundred times and don't fall for it any more.

BNM

 

[e_blazer]

He can get to about a max contract. That is not a lot of space this off season though. Literally every team in the league can create enough space to sign a high end FA. I heard that on ESPN, so who knows?

It's too simplistic to say that the Blazers only have room for one max contract. The Blazers are only committed to a bit over $50 million next season. There are cap holds on Crabbe, Harkless, Leonard, Alexander, Kaman, Roberts and Henderson, but Olshey could renounce the Blazers' rights to any or all of them if he wanted to pursue a couple of high-end free agents. He could also look for unbalanced trades to remove salaries of other players if he was so inclined. I doubt that he plans to do that, but he could if the right players were willing to sign here. Then he'd have to fill out the rest of the roster with minimum salary guys.

 

[Schilly]

Funny how some writers omit the fact that other teams have a ton of space too.

Maybe maybe not. The cap space thing is overplayed because what tends to be omitted is how many players and who have to be renounced or options not picked up in order for them to have the space, Portland included. Example the spurs could have $22mil in cap space but would only have Aldridge, Leonard, Parker, Green and Mills under contract, leaving 10 roster spots to fill. They would have to rely on guys opting out and then renouncing them, or not picking up options on guys. Those guys are Duncan, Ginobili, Diaw, West, Boban, Miller, Martin, etc... So in essence they don't have a ton of cap space due to how the guaranteed salaries are aligned.

 

[Mediocre Man]

It's too simplistic to say that the Blazers only have room for one max contract. The Blazers are only committed to a bit over $50 million next season. There are cap holds on Crabbe, Harkless, Leonard, Alexander, Kaman, Roberts and Henderson, but Olshey could renounce the Blazers' rights to any or all of them if he wanted to pursue a couple of high-end free agents. He could also look for unbalanced trades to remove salaries of other players if he was so inclined. I doubt that he plans to do that, but he could if the right players were willing to sign here. Then he'd have to fill out the rest of the roster with minimum salary guys.

Simplistic, but probably accurate enough for the discussion. But if you feel better, I feel better

 

[PDXFonz]

Maybe maybe not. The cap space thing is overplayed because what tends to be omitted is how many players and who have to be renounced or options not picked up in order for them to have the space, Portland included. Example the spurs could have $22mil in cap space but would only have Aldridge, Leonard, Parker, Green and Mills under contract, leaving 10 roster spots to fill. They would have to rely on guys opting out and then renouncing them, or not picking up options on guys. Those guys are Duncan, Ginobili, Diaw, West, Boban, Miller, Martin, etc... So in essence they don't have a ton of cap space due to how the guaranteed salaries are aligned.

Which means there is a lot of assumption regarding the "money" ranking, wouldn't you say?

 

[e_blazer]

Simplistic, but probably accurate enough for the discussion. But if you feel better, I feel better

Well then, my work here is done.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I bet we'd be number 1 if we traded CJ.

 

[e_blazer]

Funny how some writers omit the fact that other teams have a ton of space too.

Here's a list from RealGM of the maximum amount of cap space all 30 teams can generate based on guaranteed contracts and renouncing all of their free agents.

I see that I cropped the chart a bit too much. The fourth column should read "Non-Guaranteed Contracts".

 

[Mediocre Man]

And added nothing to the thread. This article wasn't getting the soccer mom reaction you desire to prove that everyone else here are a bunch of clueless homers. So you thought you'd try to generate a reaction. It's called bating. Too bad we've all seen your stinky bait a hundred times and don't fall for it any more.

BNM

Are you adding anything to the thead? Ironic, isn't it?

 

[BBert]

Here's a list from RealGM of the maximum amount of cap space all 30 teams can generate based on guaranteed contracts and renouncing all of their free agents.

I see that I cropped the chart a bit too much. The fourth column should read "Non-Guaranteed Contracts".

The bottom of that chart makes me happy. Thanks for that. No. 1, not so much.

 

[jlprk]

Does anyone know what this thread is about? Can you summarize in like, 6 words?

 

[THE HCP]

The bottom of that chart makes me happy. Thanks for that. No. 1, not so much.

My Lakers will be contending in NO time FAMS....... With THAT much money and the draw to play in Hollywood along side Ingram,Russel and the rest of these young guys sans Kobe.

 

[BonesJones]

It's too simplistic to say that the Blazers only have room for one max contract. The Blazers are only committed to a bit over $50 million next season. There are cap holds on Crabbe, Harkless, Leonard, Alexander, Kaman, Roberts and Henderson, but Olshey could renounce the Blazers' rights to any or all of them if he wanted to pursue a couple of high-end free agents. He could also look for unbalanced trades to remove salaries of other players if he was so inclined. I doubt that he plans to do that, but he could if the right players were willing to sign here. Then he'd have to fill out the rest of the roster with minimum salary guys.

It wouldn't have to be minimum salary guys... We'd still have a partial MLE, a Cap Room Exception, and a Bi-Annual Exception

 

[PDXFonz]

Here's a list from RealGM of the maximum amount of cap space all 30 teams can generate based on guaranteed contracts and renouncing all of their free agents.

I see that I cropped the chart a bit too much. The fourth column should read "Non-Guaranteed Contracts".

Thanks for this post!

Would you guys agree that none of the teams above us in possible cap space are a more lucrative destination?

Maybe Washington/Boston because they are fringe in the east which means they are a good player away from making the ECF each year. But at the same time if you put the Blazers in the East I think we would be in the ECF each year as is.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Does anyone know what this thread is about? Can you summarize in like, 6 words?

Teams with best outlook right now

 

[Mediocre Man]

Thanks for this post!

Would you guys agree that none of the teams above us in possible cap space are a more lucrative destination?

Maybe Washington/Boston because they are fringe in the east which means they are a good player away from making the ECF each year. But at the same time if you put the Blazers in the East I think we would be in the ECF each year as is.

No.

Now that Kobe is gone the Lakets will start to attract more talent. Hell, Simmons already said he wants to go there. Unless I missed it, I don't hear that about Portland.

Dallas has no state sales tax. Given the choice, they win.

Washington is where KD is from, so.....

Boston is probably at worst even with us.

Philly is clown town

 

[e_blazer]

It wouldn't have to be minimum salary guys... We'd still have a partial MLE, a Cap Room Exception, and a Bi-Annual Exception

Those are added to team salary in the off season, so in order to clear maximum cap space for 2 high dollar free agents, we'd have to renounce them as well.

 

[BonesJones]

Those are added to team salary in the off season, so in order to clear maximum cap space for 2 high dollar free agents, we'd have to renounce them as well.

I don't believe the partial MLE and Cap Room Exception are. Both are designed for teams with cap space so it'd make no sense to count them as cap space.

 

[andalusian]

Does anyone know what this thread is about? Can you summarize in like, 6 words?

Garbage in, Garbage Out, Much Noise.