Zombie Fire Olshey

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Sinobas said:
Also, Paul Allen deserves this for being such a moron. He watches every game, so he should have known that the Leonard and Crabbe deals were ridiculous at the very least.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Paul Allen should sit next to Mark Cuban and be dissed so he could wake up.
 
WillG said:
Fully in the Blazers are better by subtraction in regard to Meyers.

I've never seen an NBA big so allergic to contact. One who bends at the waist (and closes his eyes) to avoid even perceived contact that may (or may not) be coming.

Meyers being in the league is out of his league.
Click to expand...
I guess you never watched the Blazers when Aldridge was on the team?
 
The George Karl analysis is ridiculous.

The problem is 100% on Neil.

You can't surround Dame/CJ with mediocre talent and expect to compete in the West.

Neil lacks creativity. I fully expect him to pursue Monroe or Thad Young. Thus, our indefinite stay in purgatory.
 
as I said in the game thread the worst set of bigs in the league and probably in Blazer history and YES that is on Neil, fire his ass PA
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
I want someone to tell me what moves they would have done differently this summer.

We had cap space. It was use it or lose it. Nobody would sign with us. Whiteside returned to Miami. Chandler Parsons spurned us for Memphis. Who was Neil supposed to go out and get?

People are so concerned about how much we spent. The money was gone. One way or another. Dame's new contract kicked in. CJ's new contract was coming up. So it was either re-sign Crabbe/Harkless/Leonard or let them walk for nothing. It was either sign Turner or lose our money. Unless there's another free agent out there that wanted to come here. Was there?
Click to expand...

I want someone to tell me how HAVING THAT MONEY GONE for 4 seasons is better than HAVING IT GONE for one season.

Maybe there were no better FA options that NO could have signed last off-season, I will agree with you there.

However, we would still have the option to trade for a player on a rookie contract that can actually play BB, and then use the money to re-sign him to RFA contract.

Now with the luxury tax kicking in, we can trade for a good player on a rookie contract, but we will never be able to re-sign him to a RFA contract.

Instead, we are stuck with below average bench players for three more seasons that are making starters money. STUPID!!!!
 
Fez Hammersticks said:
The George Karl analysis is ridiculous.

The problem is 100% on Neil.

You can't surround Dame/CJ with mediocre talent and expect to compete in the West.

Neil lacks creativity. I fully expect him to pursue Monroe or Thad Young. Thus, our indefinite stay in purgatory.
Click to expand...

To me, it seems that Neil was like..ok LA is leaving, we need to rebuild the roster, so he goes out and signs mediocre talent to 3-4 year deals to hold the team over till he can find long term pieces. Then this offseason, he was like, fuck it, let's just go with this team.
 
If Neil would have done nothing but resign Harkless this offseason, we'd still have had enough to offer a near max contract to someone this offseason. (or do a lopsided trade) But now we're stuck with Crabbe/Turner/Leonard.
 
Sinobas said:
If Neil would have done nothing but resign Harkless this offseason, we'd still have had enough to offer a near max contract to someone this offseason. (or do a lopsided trade) But now we're stuck with Crabbe/Turner/Leonard.
Click to expand...

Harkless wouldn't have signed for what he did if there was still money on the table.
 
e_blazer said:
Harkless was looking for the big payday and held out until the very end of FA. He only agreed to take what he did because it was the most the Blazers could give him and not go into luxury tax territory.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Did any other team offer him more money? This guy was a year removed from being given away for free.
 
e_blazer said:
Harkless was looking for the big payday and held out until the very end of FA. He only agreed to take what he did because it was the most the Blazers could give him and not go into luxury tax territory.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
dviss1 said:
Link?
Click to expand...

Sinobas said:
Bullshit.

Did any other team offer him more money? This guy was a year removed from being given away for free.
Click to expand...

Twice with the "Bullshit", Sinobas? As dviss1 just showed, it's possible to question a post and request a link without being an ass about it.

Given that he just turned 23 in May, Harkless was thought by many to be the potential target of a big-time offer sheet, which he ultimately did not get.

It is unclear, as of now, what the structure of the contract will be. According to Bobby Marks of The Vertical, the Blazers are paying Harkless more than $8.9M in the first year of his deal, but the Blazers $542,755 below the tax line.
Click to expand...

http://www.blazersedge.com/2016/7/2...arkless-signs-portland-trail-blazers-contract

That matches pretty closely with my memory of the situation. Given all of the money being handed out by teams under the new TV money era, Harkless and his agent had hoped for a big offer based on his showing at the end of last season. He didn't end up getting another offer and wanted to come back to the Blazers. His contract amount was based on keeping the Blazers under the luxury tax threshold. If they hadn't signed Leonard, Crabbe & Turner and said that they were going to wait for the FA market the next summer, do you really think that Harkless would have signed a bargain-priced contract to return to a team with no depth? A much more plausible scenario is that he bets on himself, takes the one year qualifying offer contract, and plans on making even more money the next summer.

Just because you can imagine a nice little scenario where the Blazers have a bunch of cap space and a good young SF signs with them for relative peanuts doesn't mean that matches anywhere close to reality. Some would even say that such an imaginary view of the NBA world was pure, unadulterated bullshit.
 
e_blazer said:
That matches pretty closely with my memory of the situation. Given all of the money being handed out by teams under the new TV money era, Harkless and his agent had hoped for a big offer based on his showing at the end of last season. He didn't end up getting another offer and wanted to come back to the Blazers. His contract amount was based on keeping the Blazers under the luxury tax threshold. If they hadn't signed Leonard, Crabbe & Turner and said that they were going to wait for the FA market the next summer, do you really think that Harkless would have signed a bargain-priced contract to return to a team with no depth? A much more plausible scenario is that he bets on himself, takes the one year qualifying offer contract, and plans on making even more money the next summer..
Click to expand...

I don't agree that it's more plausible that he decided against a better scenario for himself (this is under the assumption that signing the qualifying offer and hitting the market next year would be more financially enriching) because Leonard, Crabbe and Turner made the Blazers such an enticing team that he wanted to "sign for relative peanuts" to be a part of it. I think that's extremely unlikely. To play with Curry, Durant, Green and Thompson? Yeah, maybe a guy takes less. Not to play with Crabbe, Leonard and Turner.

I think after seeing his market was weak, he preferred to take the security of the Blazers' offer over potentially getting hurt or having a poor year and seeing his market dry up completely. I personally don't think signing Crabbe, Leonard and Turner to extremely overpriced deals made Harkless decide to sign.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't agree that it's more plausible that he decided against a better scenario for himself (this is under the assumption that signing the qualifying offer and hitting the market next year would be more financially enriching) because Leonard, Crabbe and Turner made the Blazers such an enticing team that he wanted to "sign for relative peanuts" to be a part of it. I think that's extremely unlikely. To play with Curry, Durant, Green and Thompson? Yeah, maybe a guy takes less. Not to play with Crabbe, Leonard and Turner.

I think after seeing his market was weak, he preferred to take the security of the Blazers' offer over potentially getting hurt or having a poor year and seeing his market dry up completely. I personally don't think signing Crabbe, Leonard and Turner to extremely overpriced deals made Harkless decide to sign.
Click to expand...

I think at least part of the reason that Harkless wanted to return to the Blazers is that he liked his teammates and what they achieved last year. He may well have signed with the Blazers anyway for the greater security of a contract in hand vs. the insecurity of the one-year QO, but there wouldn't have been any hard line for Olshey to have used as leverage in keeping Harkless' contract amount down. At this point we're just stating opinions, but I find it pretty hard to believe that he signs the contract that he did absent there being any real reason for the Blazers not to give him a few more million as their SF starter.
 
e_blazer said:
there wouldn't have been any hard line for Olshey to have used as leverage in keeping Harkless' contract amount down.
Click to expand...

The luxury tax line isn't leverage. Leverage is power you have over someone or something else. It's like me saying I have leverage over a BMW dealer because I can only afford to pay $20,000. Olshey's leverage was the qualifying offer and the market. Harkless apparently couldn't find a better deal.

And it wouldn't surprise me if he liked his teammates, but A. Turner wasn't one of them and B. the vast majority of his teammates would still have been in place absent Crabbe and Leonard. I basically don't believe that Crabbe and Leonard were such pivotal teammates that Harkless turned down a superior offer elsewhere to provide a "hometown discount" because of them.
 
Last season’s free agent class was very weak. The result was, several players received ridicules offers in relationship to their skills. Even though Harkless had shown he had some NBA skills and athleticism, (potential), he was not one of the lucky players to be waaay overpaid.

Next off-season’s free agent class is very strong. You can forget about the Blazers trading our waaay overpaid players Turner and Crabbe, unless we add in a bushel full of draft picks to sweeten the deal. The other GMs will just go after next season’s large free agent class.

Unless Harkless shows a huge improvement to his game this season, I doubt he would have received much interest next off season as a free agent. It is the old business rule of supply and demand. Last season the demand was greater than the supply. Next off season, the supply is equal to or greater than the demand. Harkless did as well as he could for his family. And I am happy he is a Blazer for a few more years.
 
Last edited:
Minstrel said:
The luxury tax line isn't leverage. Leverage is power you have over someone or something else. It's like me saying I have leverage over a BMW dealer because I can only afford to pay $20,000. Olshey's leverage was the qualifying offer and the market. Harkless apparently couldn't find a better deal.

And it wouldn't surprise me if he liked his teammates, but A. Turner wasn't one of them and B. the vast majority of his teammates would still have been in place absent Crabbe and Leonard. I basically don't believe that Crabbe and Leonard were such pivotal teammates that Harkless turned down a superior offer elsewhere to provide a "hometown discount" because of them.
Click to expand...

Of course the luxury tax is leverage as to the amount of the contract. We saw it last year with Wesley Matthews in his Dallas deal. He was going to sign for $12M when it looked like the Mavs had Jordan agreeing to sign with them. Once that went away, Cuban raised him up to a max contract. Without the threshold, there's no limit in place to keep the amount of Harkless's contract down as low as it was. Could he have gotten max money, no, but the Blazers have a track record of not being stingy.
 
e_blazer said:
Of course the luxury tax is leverage as to the amount of the contract. We saw it last year with Wesley Matthews in his Dallas deal. He was going to sign for $12M when it looked like the Mavs had Jordan agreeing to sign with them. Once that went away, Cuban raised him up to a max contract.
Click to expand...

If Matthews could have gotten a max deal elsewhere (which I'm skeptical of), but was willing to sign for $12M with Jordan also signing, it simply means that he was determined to sign in Dallas regardless of salary. Which means the leverage was not the luxury tax line but his desire to be there.

Without the threshold, there's no limit in place to keep the amount of Harkless's contract down as low as it was. Could he have gotten max money, no, but the Blazers have a track record of not being stingy.
Click to expand...

The limit in place is what kind of deal he could find elsewhere. Considering what you quoted indicated that his market was weak, the simplest explanation is that he could not, in fact, find a better deal elsewhere and preferred to sign now rather than wait for next year.
 
Minstrel said:
The limit in place is what kind of deal he could find elsewhere. Considering what you quoted indicated that his market was weak, the simplest explanation is that he could not, in fact, find a better deal elsewhere and preferred to sign now rather than wait for next year.
Click to expand...

I think you protest too much. The fact that the Blazers went within $500K of the luxury tax to sign him, which barely left them any wiggle room for a FA signing in the event of injury or to make a lopsided trade, is certainly indicative that the threshold was a factor that both sides knew was in play.
 
It doesn't make any sense at all stating Harkless signed for less than he could really find. He didn't have any other offers, so he signed the best one. No other offer on the table that was bigger than the one he received. I don't know why you have it like that in your mind. Seriously it doesn't make any sense. I can only accept that he agreed with the current structure of his contract in order to help the team, but he surely didn't leave any money on the table.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
So, you just supported Bones' point, because the freak injury Matthews sustained is the reason the Afflalo trade didn't work out. Had he remained healthy, the Afflalo deal had appeared to make the Blazers a legit title contender before Matthews went down.
Click to expand...
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!
 
e_blazer said:
I think you protest too much. The fact that the Blazers went within $500K of the luxury tax to sign him, which barely left them any wiggle room for a FA signing in the event of injury or to make a lopsided trade, is certainly indicative that the threshold was a factor that both sides knew was in play.
Click to expand...

It was obviously a factor for the Blazers. They offered him the best deal they could without going into the luxury tax. With no better options, Harkless took it. I'm protesting just the right amount, because that seems like the most sensible reading of the situation.

I don't believe that if there had been $20M more of pre-tax room, that Harkless magically would have had the leverage to demand any significant fraction of that. That isn't how leverage works. If I'm offering you the best deal for your used car but you know I have a lot more money than that, you don't have extra leverage based on that knowledge. I'm offering the best deal--your only option is to sell it for less to someone else. My having more money doesn't help you. We know his market was weak, because he and his agent admitted it. Unless Olshey is stupid, he wouldn't have offered more when there was no reason to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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