Zombie Fire Olshey

[Denny Crane]

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.

I agree the LT is leverage. It was at least a reason given for a "take it or leave it" offer that was as generous as the team could make it.

Mo could have bet on himself and become a UFA, had he signed the QO. But he probably looked at next year's class of FAs, the teams with money to sign guys, and the risk of injury or failing to play well enough for a big contract, and signed.

The risk of being $500K from the LT line is that one of the guys earns a bonus (MVP, all-star, 6MOY) that's more than the $500K - whoops, over the LT.

Guys singed on 10 day contracts or vet minimum for part of the year are prorated. As the season goes on, we can fit guys under the LT still.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

If some team offered Mo $20M/year, he'd have been gone. Or even $9M/year.

 

[Sinobas]

What exactly are the stupid points? Reality isn't a stupid point. lol.

Oh, you want to join the moron brigade too?

The Afflalo trade sucked because AFFLALO didn't play well, he bolted for nothing, and Will Barton became the bench player we wished we had (at a very reasonable contract), and we lost a 1st rounder to boot. Wesley Matthews has nothing to do with that.

I don't know why I waste my time stating the obvious.

 

[e_blazer]

Oh, you want to join the moron brigade too?

The Afflalo trade sucked because AFFLALO didn't play well, he bolted for nothing, and Will Barton became the bench player we wished we had (at a very reasonable contract), and we lost a 1st rounder to boot. Wesley Matthews has nothing to do with that.

I don't know why I waste my time stating the obvious.

Two days into the new year and already I think you have the Mr. Congeniality award in the bag.

 

[Rhal]

Oh, you want to join the moron brigade too?

The Afflalo trade sucked because AFFLALO didn't play well, he bolted for nothing, and Will Barton became the bench player we wished we had (at a very reasonable contract), and we lost a 1st rounder to boot. Wesley Matthews has nothing to do with that.

I don't know why I waste my time stating the obvious.

Affalo was injured and then played in the playoffs not close to 100% because we lost Wes. We made a trade to take a shot at wining it all and were pretty much considered the #2 team in the west before Wes went down. Its why this hindsight take is stupid because its 2 years removed from the situation and since it didn't work out of course the negatives outweigh the positives of the trade when it happened. Its like saying "hey we should have taken Durant over Oden", of course we should have but thats only because were talking about something in hindsight.

 

[Denny Crane]

Affalo was injured and then played in the playoffs not close to 100% because we lost Wes. We made a trade to take a shot at wining it all and were pretty much considered the #2 team in the west before Wes went down. Its why this hindsight take is stupid because its 2 years removed from the situation and since it didn't work out of course the negatives outweigh the positives of the trade when it happened. Its like saying "hey we should have taken Durant over Oden", of course we should have but thats only because were talking about something in hindsight.

This.

If Afflalo actually was our backup SG/SF instead of replacing Wes, we had a much better chance in the playoffs than without him.

Instead of taking strike 3, NO crushed it, but right at the fielder.

 

[Strenuus]

This.

If Afflalo actually was our backup SG/SF instead of replacing Wes, we had a much better chance in the playoffs than without him.

Instead of taking strike 3, NO crushed it, but right at the fielder.

And this, is stating the obvious. Well, at least to people who think, at least.

 

[tester551]

Affalo was injured and then played in the playoffs not close to 100% because we lost Wes. We made a trade to take a shot at wining it all and were pretty much considered the #2 team in the west before Wes went down. Its why this hindsight take is stupid because its 2 years removed from the situation and since it didn't work out of course the negatives outweigh the positives of the trade when it happened. Its like saying "hey we should have taken Durant over Oden", of course we should have but thats only because were talking about something in hindsight.

There were a few of us who were against the trade to begin with. There was no hindsight required to realize that Affolo sucks and a first round pick was a massive overpay.

 

[Rhal]

There were a few of us who were against the trade to begin with. There was no hindsight required to realize that Affolo sucks and a first round pick was a massive overpay.

He sucked, yes he wasn't great for us but when we traded for him it was a legit discussion of who was the better defender him or Wesley Mathews and he was not a bad player at all when we traded for him. So a good defender who shot .400 from 3, which he did for us, that added much needed depth and defense at a position we didn't have great depth at. You can be against the trade but to say Affalo sucked, which he did not, is just ridiculous.

 

[Strenuus]

There were a few of us who were against the trade to begin with. There was no hindsight required to realize that Affolo sucks and a first round pick was a massive overpay.

He came here for depth.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Oh, you want to join the moron brigade too?

The Afflalo trade sucked because AFFLALO didn't play well, he bolted for nothing, and Will Barton became the bench player we wished we had (at a very reasonable contract), and we lost a 1st rounder to boot. Wesley Matthews has nothing to do with that.


I don't know why I waste my time stating the obvious.

You are wasting your time. But you are wrong. Wes had EVERYTHING to do with that. If He didn't get injured, Afflalo wouldn't have been thrust into the starting position while not being ready or knowing our schemes. Are you this dense?

Jesus Christ Sinobas. how many times have we been through this? You really need to pull your head out of your ass or the sand or whatever on this. Afflalo was tossed into a starting role while injured himself. That was NOT the plan.
WTF do you not get about that? Any post you make about that trade should just be deleted because you REFUSE to acknowledge the sequences of that trade and just look at the end result....

Why do you even post here if you are just going to ignore rebuttals about FACTs that you seem to just disregard or ignore? Pretty frustrating when you are like talking to a brick fucking wall.....

I mean, really... WTF....stating the obvious? The only thing obvious you stated is you have no clue WTF you are talking about....

 

[TBpup]

Wes's injury hurt but I still have issues with the trade because CJ AND Barton were on the roster at the time but Stotts wouldn't play them. So Olshey went out and got someone he would play.

That cost us a 1st round pick AND Barton who as soon as he got to Denver, became an instant 6th MoY candidate.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

That cost us a 1st round pick AND Barton who as soon as he got to Denver, became an instant 6th MoY candidate.

No fan of Olshey, and I HATED that trade, but Will The Thrill is a lot more "JR Smith, the early years" than "JR Smith, the shirtless champion".

Don't get me wrong - he was probably my favorite ever Olshey draft pick, but I don't think we'd be significantly better if we still had him (unlike Batum or even Robin Lopez) and it's worth noting that Denver are pretty publicly shopping him.

 

[TBpup]

Barton has his flaws to be sure but in his first full season in Denver, he played in all 82 games, (durable) came off the bench yet still averaged 28 mpg, (productivity), improved his 3-pt percentage, (this season up to .375), and put up 14.4 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists and a steal.

What most of us wouldn't give to have that coming off our bench.

By comparison, in the same 28 mpg, Allen Crabbe is putting up 9.9 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.2 assists and 0.6 steals.
Evan Turner in a similar 25 mpg is putting 9.3 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists and a steal.

We really don't want to compare salaries between the three of them.

 

[illmatic99]

Barton is one of the more criminally underpaid players in the league. And if he were in the FA market this summer instead of last, he would have been similarly PAID.

Not really a fair comparison.

Compare AC/ET's stats/salaries to guys like Bazemore, Tyler Johnson, Solomon Hill, Harkless, Eric Gordon, or Ryan Anderson, etc who were all in this FA class. It's awfully convenient to omit the fact that the $ out there was vastly different in 2016 vs 2015.

 

[TBpup]

I don't often comment on convenience.....much more comfortable sticking to what actually is. Return on Investment is my professional career so tend to look at things through those glasses.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Barton has his flaws to be sure but in his first full season in Denver, he played in all 82 games, (durable) came off the bench yet still averaged 28 mpg, (productivity), improved his 3-pt percentage, (this season up to .375), and put up 14.4 points, 5.8 rebounds, 2.5 assists and a steal.

What most of us wouldn't give to have that coming off our bench.

By comparison, in the same 28 mpg, Allen Crabbe is putting up 9.9 points, 3.1 rebounds, 1.2 assists and 0.6 steals.
Evan Turner in a similar 25 mpg is putting 9.3 points, 4 rebounds, 3 assists and a steal.

We really don't want to compare salaries between the three of them.

It's easy to put up stats if you hog the ball, and that's no indication of ability to play a team game. Besides, I'm happy to admit that Crabbe and Turner are way overpaid. But I'm willing to bet both of them are better for the team's defense than Will. Remember T-Rob could also stuff the stat sheet but is about to bounce out of the league because his BBIQ is vanishingly small.

 

[e_blazer]

I don't often comment on convenience.....much more comfortable sticking to what actually is. Return on Investment is my professional career so tend to look at things through those glasses.

Fair enough, but without looking at WHY something actually is the way it is, the analysis seems to me to be pretty shallow. Barton is certainly the better Return on Investment right now, but that's just because he signed a cheap contract before he really hit his stride as an NBA player. You can bet the farm that the ROI on him won't look so rosy after he signs a new contract in the summer of 2018. NBA salaries are crazy things that are impacted by too many variables to make much sense on a short term basis. Steph Curry's only making $12M this year and looks like an amazing ROI compared to Crabbe's and Turner's $17-18M deals. Of course, next summer when he's likely to get around $30M, that ROI won't look quite as sweet.

 

[TBpup]

It's easy to put up stats if you hog the ball, and that's no indication of ability to play a team game. Besides, I'm happy to admit that Crabbe and Turner are way overpaid. But I'm willing to bet both of them are better for the team's defense than Will. Remember T-Rob could also stuff the stat sheet but is about to bounce out of the league because his BBIQ is vanishingly small.

Crabbe/Turner may be better on 'D'....I'm sure someone can find the advanced stats to show the differences. As for T-Rob stuffing the stat sheet, that might take a little more convincing.

Both teams suck right now so we can't even point out team accomplishments as a difference due to player contributions.

 

[TBpup]

Fair enough, but without looking at WHY something actually is the way it is, the analysis seems to me to be pretty shallow. Barton is certainly the better Return on Investment right now, but that's just because he signed a cheap contract before he really hit his stride as an NBA player. You can bet the farm that the ROI on him won't look so rosy after he signs a new contract in the summer of 2018. NBA salaries are crazy things that are impacted by too many variables to make much sense on a short term basis. Steph Curry's only making $12M this year and looks like an amazing ROI compared to Crabbe's and Turner's $17-18M deals. Of course, next summer when he's likely to get around $30M, that ROI won't look quite as sweet.

All very true....but even if they were all making the same $17M salary, Barton is still putting up more production in the same minutes. Not enough time to flesh out every last scenario or comparison.

 

[e_blazer]

All very true....but even if they were all making the same $17M salary, Barton is still putting up more production in the same minutes. Not enough time to flesh out every last scenario or comparison.

I wouldn't expect you to, but a nod in passing to the fact that it's not apples to apples to look at current salaries vs production would be good.

 

[blue9]

He sucked, yes he wasn't great for us but when we traded for him it was a legit discussion of who was the better defender him or Wesley Mathews and he was not a bad player at all when we traded for him. So a good defender who shot .400 from 3, which he did for us, that added much needed depth and defense at a position we didn't have great depth at. You can be against the trade but to say Affalo sucked, which he did not, is just ridiculous.

Actually, we had quite a bit of depth at SG - just not experience. We had NO depth at SF. If we had to make a risky trade with DEN we should have insisted on Chandler. I wouldn't have much liked that trade either, but it was the better trade at the time. Only in hindsight, with Wes going down, does Afflalo make more sense...and even then, I'm not sure it does.

We had the following who could play SG:
Wes
CJ
Barton
Blake
Crabbe
Nic

Versus the following who could play SF:
Nic
Dorrel (blech!)

 

[TBpup]

I wouldn't expect you to, but a nod in passing to the fact that it's not apples to apples to look at current salaries vs production would be good.

I'll try to include a head nod for any/all possible contingents anyone might think of. As per the follow up, Barton has more production per $ even if their salaries were exactly the same.

 

[dviss1]

He didn't end up getting another offer

do you really think that Harkless would have signed a bargain-priced contract to return to a team with no depth?

These two sentences contradict themselves.

He got no offer, so 10 MM per is what he took. Nobody in their right mind is gonna turn away 10 per when no other offers are out there. There's nothing in this post OR the article to suggest that we would've paid him more had we not signed Turner and matched Crabbe.

 

[riverman]

...or if you have a recurring role on Days of Our Lives.

or if you're married to HCP

 

[e_blazer]

These two sentences contradict themselves.

He got no offer, so 10 MM per is what he took. Nobody in their right mind is gonna turn away 10 per when no other offers are out there. There's nothing in this post OR the article to suggest that we would've paid him more had we not signed Turner and matched Crabbe.

There's a balance point for a young player like Harkless between taking the security of a contract at less than what he thinks he may get next year if he just accepts the one year Qualifying Offer. Hard to say where the break point is, but I think it's fair to say that the Blazers didn't want to test it and gave him the most that they could.

 

[dviss1]

There's a balance point for a young player like Harkless between taking the security of a contract at less than what he thinks he may get next year if he just accepts the one year Qualifying Offer. Hard to say where the break point is, but I think it's fair to say that the Blazers didn't want to test it and gave him the most that they could.

Yet they paid Meyers more.

Harkless got paid what he was worth.

 

[e_blazer]

Yet they paid Meyers more.

Harkless got paid what he was worth.

Meyers got paid first. Harkless got paid the most the Blazers could give him without risking going into the luxury tax threshold. By any reasonable societal measure, all NBA players are compensated pretty damned well.

 

[dviss1]

Meyers got paid first. Harkless got paid the most the Blazers could give him without risking going into the luxury tax threshold. By any reasonable societal measure, all NBA players are compensated pretty damned well.

It's a contract that's good for both sides. Your argument that he would've been paid more sans the Crabbe/Turner signings doesn't hold water though. Would you say he's better/more valuable than Crabbe? How come Crabbe got the huge offer and none for Mo?

 

[Minstrel]

Would you say he's better/more valuable than Crabbe? How come Crabbe got the huge offer and none for Mo?

Three-point shooting is the new hotness. A prime Steve Kerr would get a $60M offer today.

I do think Harkless is better/more valuable than Crabbe. Of course, some of that is because Harkless is...shooting threes competently this year. GMs couldn't know that he would and it may not even last.