Harkless resolves after Crabbe decision?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Boob-No-More said:
Here's a little context for you: Mo Harkless is not on our current roster. How can someone who is not on our roster be part of our starting line up? He wasn't on our roster at the time Turner was signed, and neither was Crabbe. So, when Neil was speaking at the press conference the only other viable starting SF on our roster was Aminu, and as Neil said, he expects Turner to see a lot of time at the 3 next to Aminu at the 4.

Turner didn't take Harkless' job, because right now Harkless doesn't have a job. At this time, he is not under contract to play here, or anywhere else, in the NBA. If we re-sign Harkless, like I said, he'll have a chance to earn the starting job he held for 14 games last season. Its funny you call Harkless a starter and Turner a Boston substitute when Harkless started a total of two more games than Turner last year and Turner has 241 career starts compared to Harkless' 118. In the last two seasons, Turner has started 69 games and Harkless has started 18.

But, whatever. We both know Stotts isn't an idiot. He's great at figuring out how to get the most out of the players he's given. If we re-sign Harkless, he'll have a chance to earn playing time, like everyone else on the roster.

BNM
Click to expand...

Maurice Harkless is currently on the roster, neither have the Blazers renounced his rights, or has another team signed him to an offer sheet(nor have the Blazers matched or declined that offer)...He is a RFA and until one of the above happens he is part of the Blazers roster
 
Wow after some of these responses I hope we lose Harkless...y'all deserve a middling team.
 
DaLong said:
Wow after some of these responses I hope we lose Harkless...y'all deserve a middling team.
Click to expand...
We've had a middling team since 2007. Not good enough to seriously contend. Not bad enough to get a difference maker in the draft.
 
Mediocre Man said:
We've had a middling team since 2007. Not good enough to seriously contend. Not bad enough to get a difference maker in the draft.
Click to expand...
Yeah exactly. I just think that Hark could be a pretty big difference maker. Not enough of one to push us over the top, to be certain, but he is valuable as is and his potential is even more valuable IMO.
 
DaLong said:
Yeah exactly. I just think that Hark could be a pretty big difference maker. Not enough of one to push us over the top, to be certain, but he is valuable as is and his potential is even more valuable IMO.
Click to expand...

Keeping hark is a no-brainer.
 
DaLong said:
Wow after some of these responses I hope we lose Harkless...y'all deserve a middling team.
Click to expand...
What responses are those? Did someone say they don't want Harkless on the team? Are you suggesting Harkless is a max player worth incurring luxury tax penalties for? Or that the Blazers should max Harkless or pay him well above his market value, even if he doesn't get any other offers? Otherwise we'll suck? Or maybe you're saying the opposite: that maxing Harkless would cripple the Blazers going forward thus causing them to be a middling team?
 
I like Hark but there are financial realities, one big one is signing CJ for a likely 23-25 mil next summer, and the vast majority of our current salary is now locked in. Something or someone has to give, I'm guessin mgmt made their decision who their priorities are/were and who they would pay large contracts for and Hark is the odd man out. I think we'd sign him for 8-9 mil per but don't think we will go into Lux tax territory for him, we will see
 
Today is the first day that the Blazers can pull the QO away from Harkless. The question will be will they I say no because I believe they want him back and if they do then he becomes UFA.
 
BBert said:
What responses are those? Did someone say they don't want Harkless on the team? Are you suggesting Harkless is a max player worth incurring luxury tax penalties for? Or that the Blazers should max Harkless or pay him well above his market value, even if he doesn't get any other offers? Otherwise we'll suck? Or maybe you're saying the opposite: that maxing Harkless would cripple the Blazers going forward thus causing them to be a middling team?
Click to expand...
Just various posts I've been reading, seems like there's a general tone of "well there's no room for him now that Turner is here" and "Keeping someone just for potential isn't a good idea if there's limited play time" and "he's not worth it if it's asking for a lot". Maybe I'm misconstruing the tone, maybe not.
 
DaLong said:
Just various posts I've been reading, seems like there's a general tone of "well there's no room for him now that Turner is here" and "Keeping someone just for potential isn't a good idea if there's limited play time" and "he's not worth it if it's asking for a lot". Maybe I'm misconstruing the tone, maybe not.
Click to expand...

I see Harkless like a poor man's Harrison Barnes, but he owes us a solid contract to determine what he's really worth. At this point he hasn't made nearly enough a statement to prove that he's worth Nic Batum on his first contract like money.
 
Last edited:
Its all about how much. Argument ends there, because until we know, its all personal preference on him. The more you like him the more you think we should be willing to spend. That doesn't mean the insiders... you know, the ones that attend and analyze every practice?... agree that he is of need. They could very well believe that we have all of his skill sets now covered in other players and he is of redundancy. Yes he could be helpful as a potential bench roll player starting out, but I think the organization is not willing to put alot of money on yet another unproven. We have three now. Ill give Crabbe a semi proven. We just tied him up. Leonard up. We arent going to offer another 10 mill a year at another unproven. Not with CJ coming up.

I think he needs to do some serious work on his mid to outside jump shot to have a chance at cracking the starting lineup this year, because Turners' handles will prove to be more valuable than Harkless's hustle. And I think the Organization agrees with me.
 
Boob-No-More said:
Do you have a link to those "stupid words, defining our new starter to be Turner"? I just went back and re-watched the entire press conference and not once did Neil (or Terry) say that Turner would start. The only thing even remotely related was when Olshey said that the team projected much better (53 - 54 wins) when Aminu played the 4, compared to projections in the mid-40s with Aminu at the 3. He said that adding Turner would allow Aminu to spend more time at the 4, but did not say one damn thing about Turner starting. He could, just as well, have meant that Turner would be the back up 3, so that Aminu would no longer have to fill that role, allowing him to play more minutes at the 4. He even said he'd leave it up to Terry to comment on rotations, at which point Terry said he wasn't even going to talk about rotations until October. And that was the end of the press conference. No one, at any point, said ANYTHING about Turner starting.

You keep harping on this whole, Neil-said-Turner-would-start-and-that's-why-Harkless-hasn't-re-signed spiel, but haven't presented any evidence to back up your speculation. As usual, you just expect us to accept your version of the truth. Well, I did most of your homework for you and watched the entire press conference again to see if I missed something the first time. I did not. So, if Neil did say some "stupid words" proclaiming Turner as a starter, it wasn't during the press conference. If he said that during a different interview, please provide a link.

BNM
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty obvious Turner will start at SF and Aminu at PF. The only other possibility would be Crabbe at SF instead of Turner, but we would really struggle with that lineup.
 
BonesJones said:
I think it's pretty obvious Turner will start at SF and Aminu at PF. The only other possibility would be Crabbe at SF instead of Turner, but we would really struggle with that lineup.
Click to expand...

Yep, that appears to be the most logical choice, but Olshey made zero comments about Turner starting (as jlprk claims). All we've seen is a story out of Boston, after they lost Turner, that was refuted by Turner.

As always, minutes are earned. If Harkless wants to start, he needs to come into camp and prove he deserves it. Simple as that.

BNM
 
DaLong said:
Just various posts I've been reading, seems like there's a general tone of "well there's no room for him now that Turner is here" and "Keeping someone just for potential isn't a good idea if there's limited play time" and "he's not worth it if it's asking for a lot". Maybe I'm misconstruing the tone, maybe not.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of room for him - if he outplays Turner and/or Crabbe. At this point, because Mo can't create for himself, or others, and doesn't have a reliable jump shot, Turner is the more likely starter. Crabbe was our leading scorer off the bench last season, has a reliable outside shot and can play the 2 or 3. These players have proven skills, but it's not like either one is a first ballot Hall of Famer.

Mo iss still young and can improve. Hopefully, he's working on his handle and his shot and will come into training camp and give Turner and Crabbe a run for their (considerable) money.

I've never said I don't want Mo back, at the right price. What that is, is up to Neil and Paul. If we can retain him and stay under the LT threshold, it makes sense. Unfortunately, Mo (allegedly) wants more than that, and that's why there is an impasse. Maybe the best option really is for him to bet on himself, take the QO, come into camp, show that he's improved enough to warrant PT and play his ass off all year. If he does that, Terry will find playing time for him and he'll earn a huge, Crabbe-like payday next summer.

BNM
 
the conversation has reminded me of andre miller signing and nate starting blake ahead of him. miller sulked. best player starts. no "promises.
 
DaLong said:
Just various posts I've been reading, seems like there's a general tone of "well there's no room for him now that Turner is here" and "Keeping someone just for potential isn't a good idea if there's limited play time" and "he's not worth it if it's asking for a lot". Maybe I'm misconstruing the tone, maybe not.
Click to expand...
OIC. That's fair.

I'm very high on Harkless' potential but Harkless is high if (that's "if") he thinks he's worth anything close to a max contract. He's proven and earned no such thing.

I seem to recall some discussion when we acquired him that he was somewhat immature and entitled, and maybe lacked a bit of understanding of how to earn his role on a team, and he had a tendency to get down. I don't know if that's true, but the current rumors seem to suggest it could be.

As I said I like his potential and I really really hope the Blazers can afford to keep him. But I don't see them mortgaging the future on his potential.
 
Guys Harkless isn't holding out for a max contract so let's just put an end to that discussion.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Everyone thought Tristan Thompson was out of his fucking mind for wanting the max as well. Common sense doesn't always come into play.
Click to expand...

Common sense would mean you would quote the message you wanted for maximum context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Perspective --- Quick Story re. Crabbe/Leonard's Value...
Replies
18
Views
1K
tester551
tester551
Schilly
2017 Offseason: The Schilly Edition
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
Sinobas
Sinobas
Dan Marang
Potential Upside Profile: Allen Crabbe - Week 3 discussion topic
Replies
14
Views
2K
SlyPokerDog
SlyPokerDog
Boob-No-More
The Great Who can be Traded When Thread
Replies
27
Views
3K
Scalma
Scalma
SlyPokerDog
New Batum interview...
Replies
8
Views
1K
BBert
BBert

Users who are viewing this thread

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