Harkless resolves after Crabbe decision?

[e_blazer]

The Blazers' team salary is at $104M. The luxury tax threshold is at $113M. I doubt that Olshey goes over the threshold to re-sign Moe unless there's a signed offer sheet with another team that he has to match.

 

[Natebishop3]

If he really is asking for max..... wow.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Maybe i'm wrong, but it seemed like the team was more aggressive when Meyers went down, less stagnant play and more getting to the rim.

Maybe you're seeing what you want to see, but the team had a much better record when Meyers was healthy (between his two shoulder injuries) than either before, or after. As I previously said, the team was 24-13, with a healthy Meyers, between Christmas and 3/14 (date of second injury) and was 20-25 the rest of the year. Advanced metrics also show that while Meyers is consistently outperformed by the man he is guarding, the team actually performs better with him on the court.

When Leonard is missing 3 pointers he's getting sad and pouts, when Harkless is missing a jump-shot he is trying to dunk it on the next possession.

When exactly is that? Other than a brief slump at the beginning of last season (before his first injury), Meyers has shot the 3 at an elite level the past two years. He shot it at an elite level the entire 2014-15 season (.420 3FG%). He shot it at an elite level during the 2015 playoffs (.769 3FG%), and shot it at an elite level between Christmas and March 14 last season (.457 3 FG%). I don't see a lot to pout about when you're shooting the 3-pointer that well. But, if he's not doing his job for whatever reason, pull his ass. We have plenty of other bigs that can take his place if/when he pouts.

Again this really shouldn't be a Meyers vs. Mo debate. They are very different players that play different positions and different roles. Mo can really only play one position - SF. He played his best ball, by far, when he was playing the 3, both regular season and playoffs, next at Aminu at the 4. He doesn't have the ball handling skills or outside shot to play the 2 and he gets absolutely abused at the 4. He's not a very good rebounder and he doesn't have the beef to guard opposing 4s. Basically, Aminu does everything Mo does and he does it better. He's big enough to guard most opposing 4s and the emergence of his 3-point shot also makes him a better 3 than Mo. Turner will be our starting 3 and he's clearly a better all around player than Mo and Crabbe, a MUCH better shooter, will see minutes at both the back up 2 and the back up 3 in small lineups.

So, where exactly is Mo going to get minutes. Where does he fit in the rotation? Barring injury, do you see him any higher than 10th man in Stotts' rotation? Here's how I see our top 9 players:

Starters:

Dame - starts at PG, but also plays off the ball with both Turner and C.J. sharing ball handling duties. With Turner, we now have something we've never had really had since Dame has been here: two other starting caliber ball handlers/distributors. When we had Batum sharing the ball handling and distribution duties at SF, we had Wesley Matthews, a poor ball handler at SG. With good ball handlers at the SF and SG spots in Turner and C.J., we can always have at least one other good ball handler on the floor with Dame, allowing him to play off the ball more for more higher percentage catch and shoot opportunities.

C.J. Starts at SG and slides to PG when Dame sits out.

Turner - Starts at SF, but can also provide solid minutes at back up SG

Aminu - Starts at 4 and also gets minutes at back up 3

Plumlee - starts at C.

Bench (in order of anticipated minutes played):

Crabbe - 6th man that gets minutes at both back up SG, when C.J. comes out and at the back up 3 in small ball lineups

Davis - back up 4 and back up 5. He has proven, not just in Portland, but over the course of his career, he can play both positions, but prior to coming to Portland, was primarily a PF. Fr his career, his minutes distribution is 57% PF and 40% C. With the addition of Ezeli, I think Ed will see most of his minutes at back up 4.

Ezeli - back up C

Leonard - back up stretch 4 and back up center against large, low post centers. Both Davis and Leonard are insurance at the 5, in case of injury. The minutes distribution between Davis and Meyers will vary from night to night, depending on match ups and need.

So, with Turner, Aminu and Crabbe all being better options at the 3, where do you see Mo getting minutes? We have much better options at both the 2 and the 4, both starting and coming off the bench. I can see him getting occasional situational minutes as a defensive stopper against opposing SFs and SGs, but it's not like Turner and Aminu suck at defense and both provide more at the other end than Harkless. He will be our 10th man, but wants a max contract. As big as their contracts are, none of Turner, Crabbe or Leonard got max deals, and in Meyers case, not even close (about 50% of max). So, why does a guy who will play fewer minutes deserve to get paid more than the guys playing ahead of him?

He really hasn't proven himself on any kind of consistent level. He's been in the league four full seasons, and if you look at last years numbers compared to his rookie year, they are remarkably similar. ORL gave up on him after 3 years and gave him to us for nothing (a top 55 protected draft pick). I like Mo for the depth he'd provide and the insurance against injury to another player, but if the Lakers really are dumb enough to offer him a max contract, he should take it and run. I don't really believe they will, I think that's just his agent spreading rumors, but anything that puts us over the LT threshold would be hard to match for a 10th man. If he takes the QO, great. If he takes a short term deal, like a 1 + 1 with a starting salary that keeps us below the LT threshold and the second year at his option, that's fine, too. But, his dreams of a HUGE contract at anything close to max are premature, at least in Portland. The Lakers have shown they are willing to severely overpay just to get career back ups to sign with them. Maybe that's his best option (assuming it's not a total smoke screen by his agent).

BNM

 

[BBert]

Harkless has never had what one would call a good season. Good potential, but he hasn't proven anything. I know I may be out of whack on the new salary structure, but $9 mil this year with raises thereafter doesn't seem far off to me.

How long is the shortest contract we can sign him for and retain some form of rights to him? So he can prove his worth?

 

[BlazerCaravan]

If he really is asking for max..... wow.

For a guy who moped his way out of the rotation twice only to have Dame drag him back into relevancy, that's quite an ask.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The Blazers' team salary is at $104M. The luxury tax threshold is at $113M. I doubt that Olshey goes over the threshold to re-sign Moe unless there's a signed offer sheet with another team that he has to match.

And if there is a signed offer sheet starting at anything that would puts us over the LT threshold, we should just let him walk. Paying your 10th man anything above $10 million/year, especially if it pushes you over the LT threshold, would not make sense. The guys starting in front of him aren't even on max contracts. He's done nothing in his four years in the NBA to show he's worth anything close to that.

BNM

 

[Blazinaway]

And if there is a signed offer sheet starting at anything that would puts us over the LT threshold, we should just let him walk. Paying your 10th man anything above $10 million/year, especially if it pushes you over the LT threshold, would not make sense. The guys starting in front of him aren't even on max contracts. He's done nothing in his four years in the NBA to show he's worth anything close to that.

BNM

agreed and even in this market he has not done enough, but if someone wants to max him them they can have him. I like MO but think a fair contract is 8-9 mil per, yes Crabbe got overpaid but he can shoot well and that is a skillset that in general brings home the bacon

 

[Denny Crane]

And if there is a signed offer sheet starting at anything that would puts us over the LT threshold, we should just let him walk. Paying your 10th man anything above $10 million/year, especially if it pushes you over the LT threshold, would not make sense. The guys starting in front of him aren't even on max contracts. He's done nothing in his four years in the NBA to show he's worth anything close to that.

BNM

I would absolutely sign him to our remaining LT space minus any possible bonuses that any of the players might get. Otherwise, we could S&T him or let him walk.

I do think he's a very good asset, and he may prove valuable as the season progresses. But I don't think we should pay the LT this year because we may well really want to pay it next year.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But I don't think we should pay the LT this year because we may well really want to pay it next year.

Paying the LT this year has no impact on our ability to do so next year.

 

[Denny Crane]

Paying the LT this year has no impact on our ability to do so next year.

No, but it means the season after we'd pay big taxpayer penalties. 3 of the last 4 seasons rule. THIS team is not one to use one of those LT seasons.

 

[Denny Crane]

A suggestion.

S&T to Chicago for Tony Snell.

Snell took a giant step back last season, but so did the whole Bulls team. He's got nice size, a rookie scale deal, and can hit the 3pt shot. He's also a very good defender. He can handle the ball well for a SF.

He's not going to be a small ball lineup 4.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A suggestion.

S&T to Chicago for Tony Snell.

Snell took a giant step back last season, but so did the whole Bulls team. He's got nice size, a rookie scale deal, and can hit the 3pt shot. He's also a very good defender. He can handle the ball well for a SF.

He's not going to be a small ball lineup 4.

Snell only makes 2.3M, which means the most Hark could make in his first year in such a deal would be 3.5M (otherwise Chicago wouldn't be able to take him back in trade). He'd be better off taking the QO.

 

[Blazers Roy]

Maybe you're seeing what you want to see, but the team had a much better record when Meyers was healthy (between his two shoulder injuries) than either before, or after. As I previously said, the team was 24-13, with a healthy Meyers, between Christmas and 3/14 (date of second injury) and was 20-25 the rest of the year. Advanced metrics also show that while Meyers is consistently outperformed by the man he is guarding, the team actually performs better with him on the court.



When exactly is that? Other than a brief slump at the beginning of last season (before his first injury), Meyers has shot the 3 at an elite level the past two years. He shot it at an elite level the entire 2014-15 season (.420 3FG%). He shot it at an elite level during the 2015 playoffs (.769 3FG%), and shot it at an elite level between Christmas and March 14 last season (.457 3 FG%). I don't see a lot to pout about when you're shooting the 3-pointer that well. But, if he's not doing his job for whatever reason, pull his ass. We have plenty of other bigs that can take his place if/when he pouts.

Again this really shouldn't be a Meyers vs. Mo debate. They are very different players that play different positions and different roles. Mo can really only play one position - SF. He played his best ball, by far, when he was playing the 3, both regular season and playoffs, next at Aminu at the 4. He doesn't have the ball handling skills or outside shot to play the 2 and he gets absolutely abused at the 4. He's not a very good rebounder and he doesn't have the beef to guard opposing 4s. Basically, Aminu does everything Mo does and he does it better. He's big enough to guard most opposing 4s and the emergence of his 3-point shot also makes him a better 3 than Mo. Turner will be our starting 3 and he's clearly a better all around player than Mo and Crabbe, a MUCH better shooter, will see minutes at both the back up 2 and the back up 3 in small lineups.

So, where exactly is Mo going to get minutes. Where does he fit in the rotation? Barring injury, do you see him any higher than 10th man in Stotts' rotation? Here's how I see our top 9 players:

Starters:

Dame - starts at PG, but also plays off the ball with both Turner and C.J. sharing ball handling duties. With Turner, we now have something we've never had really had since Dame has been here: two other starting caliber ball handlers/distributors. When we had Batum sharing the ball handling and distribution duties at SF, we had Wesley Matthews, a poor ball handler at SG. With good ball handlers at the SF and SG spots in Turner and C.J., we can always have at least one other good ball handler on the floor with Dame, allowing him to play off the ball more for more higher percentage catch and shoot opportunities.

C.J. Starts at SG and slides to PG when Dame sits out.

Turner - Starts at SF, but can also provide solid minutes at back up SG

Aminu - Starts at 4 and also gets minutes at back up 3

Plumlee - starts at C.

Bench (in order of anticipated minutes played):

Crabbe - 6th man that gets minutes at both back up SG, when C.J. comes out and at the back up 3 in small ball lineups

Davis - back up 4 and back up 5. He has proven, not just in Portland, but over the course of his career, he can play both positions, but prior to coming to Portland, was primarily a PF. Fr his career, his minutes distribution is 57% PF and 40% C. With the addition of Ezeli, I think Ed will see most of his minutes at back up 4.

Ezeli - back up C

Leonard - back up stretch 4 and back up center against large, low post centers. Both Davis and Leonard are insurance at the 5, in case of injury. The minutes distribution between Davis and Meyers will vary from night to night, depending on match ups and need.

So, with Turner, Aminu and Crabbe all being better options at the 3, where do you see Mo getting minutes? We have much better options at both the 2 and the 4, both starting and coming off the bench. I can see him getting occasional situational minutes as a defensive stopper against opposing SFs and SGs, but it's not like Turner and Aminu suck at defense and both provide more at the other end than Harkless. He will be our 10th man, but wants a max contract. As big as their contracts are, none of Turner, Crabbe or Leonard got max deals, and in Meyers case, not even close (about 50% of max). So, why does a guy who will play fewer minutes deserve to get paid more than the guys playing ahead of him?

He really hasn't proven himself on any kind of consistent level. He's been in the league four full seasons, and if you look at last years numbers compared to his rookie year, they are remarkably similar. ORL gave up on him after 3 years and gave him to us for nothing (a top 55 protected draft pick). I like Mo for the depth he'd provide and the insurance against injury to another player, but if the Lakers really are dumb enough to offer him a max contract, he should take it and run. I don't really believe they will, I think that's just his agent spreading rumors, but anything that puts us over the LT threshold would be hard to match for a 10th man. If he takes the QO, great. If he takes a short term deal, like a 1 + 1 with a starting salary that keeps us below the LT threshold and the second year at his option, that's fine, too. But, his dreams of a HUGE contract at anything close to max are premature, at least in Portland. The Lakers have shown they are willing to severely overpay just to get career back ups to sign with them. Maybe that's his best option (assuming it's not a total smoke screen by his agent).

BNM

At least we agree on one thing: Hark isn't worth anywhere near the max

 

[Denny Crane]

Snell only makes 2.3M, which means the most Hark could make in his first year in such a deal would be 3.5M (otherwise Chicago wouldn't be able to take him back in trade). He'd be better off taking the QO.

I don't think they'd pay him max anyway. But I do think he'd be in their rotation.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Paying the LT this year has no impact on our ability to do so next year.

But if there is no reason to pay it this year, why get into the much more onerous repeat offender scenario. At that point, it's not just about Paul Allen's money, there are other much more significant penalties that would impact our ability to sign players and make trades. Going into LT territory to sign your 10th man doesn't make sense under any circumstances. Given that C.J. will get a significant raise next summer, pushing us into the LT this year makes absolutely no sense due to the repeat offender penalties we'd be hit with moving forward.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

At least we agree on one thing: Hark isn't worth anywhere near the max

Definitely, and until someone actually signs him to a max offer sheet, I call bullshit. I think it's just his agent starting rumors in effort to up his client's value. Neil is smart enough not to fall for that bullshit. The Lakers on the other hand...

BNM

 

[Denny Crane]

I would pay the LT if we were a WCF team already. I'd want to be able to try at least twice before the repeater penalties kick in.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I would pay the LT if we were a WCF team already. I'd want to be able to try at least twice before the repeater penalties kick in.

Yep, once you get into repeat offender status you'd better be damn happy with your current roster, because the penalties make it exceedingly difficult to improve your roster. The whole repeat offender thing is designed to keep owners with deep pockets, like Mark Cuban and Paul Allen, from completely ignoring the salary cap. If it was just money, these billionaires could say fuck it and just spend away. The penalties make it harder to do what they want to do, improve their rosters until they are title contenders. In the case of owners with deep pockets, that's a much more significant deterrent than several million dollars in luxury tax penalties.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Yep, once you get into repeat offender status you'd better be damn happy with your current roster, because the penalties make it exceedingly difficult to improve your roster. The whole repeat offender thing is designed to keep owners with deep pockets, like Mark Cuban and Paul Allen, from completely ignoring the salary cap. If it was just money, these billionaires could say fuck it and just spend away. The penalties make it harder to do what they want to do, improve their rosters until they are title contenders. In the case of owners with deep pockets, that's a much more significant deterrent than several million dollars in luxury tax penalties.

BNM

As Denny mentioned, the repeat status is for the third year in four. I imagine that we'd know by the end of next year whether or not this is a contender. Retaining all the significant assets now gives us the best chance of becoming a contender in that time frame--whether via internal growth or conversion of assets into a third star. Even if Harkless is retained with a contract that puts us over the luxury tax this year, we have until February 2017 until that luxury tax status is official, and until February 2019 before repeater tax status affects us. I'm loathe to give Harkless away now for fear of what it might cost us 31 months down the road.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

As Denny mentioned, the repeat status is for the third year in four. I imagine that we'd know by the end of next year whether or not this is a contender. Retaining all the significant assets now gives us the best chance of becoming a contender in that time frame--whether via internal growth or conversion of assets into a third star. Even if Harkless is retained with a contract that puts us over the luxury tax this year, we have until February 2017 until that luxury tax status is official, and until February 2019 before repeater tax status affects us. I'm loathe to give Harkless away now for fear of what it might cost us 31 months down the road.

Agree with this. I don't want us to have to pay the tax down the line unless we are getting to finals but I also think (and hope POR Brass knows) that we need a consolidation trade at some point anyways. So Harkless maybe part of that down the line or may get a bigger role because someone else is part of that. Either way, we have time to figure it out.

 

[Boob-No-More]

As Denny mentioned, the repeat status is for the third year in four. I imagine that we'd know by the end of next year whether or not this is a contender. Retaining all the significant assets now gives us the best chance of becoming a contender in that time frame--whether via internal growth or conversion of assets into a third star. Even if Harkless is retained with a contract that puts us over the luxury tax this year, we have until February 2017 until that luxury tax status is official, and until February 2019 before repeater tax status affects us. I'm loathe to give Harkless away now for fear of what it might cost us 31 months down the road.

I suppose it depends on how you define "significant assets". Is overpaying our 10th man and going over the LT threshold this year worth it given the possible future implications? I don't think so. Nobody else has even made Harkless an offer. If we overpay him and he's not part of our regular rotation, I don't see his trade value increasing. Harkless on a reasonable contract could be a trade asset, although the last time he was traded he was still on very reasonable rookie deal and only fetched a top 55 protected 2nd round pick (aka: nothing). An overpaid Harkless is not a valuable trade commodity. Just the opposite.

BNM

 

[Blazinaway]

I suppose it depends on how you define "significant assets". Is overpaying our 10th man and going over the LT threshold this year worth it given the possible future implications? I don't think so. Nobody else has even made Harkless an offer. If we overpay him and he's not part of our regular rotation, I don't see his trade value increasing. Harkless on a reasonable contract could be a trade asset, although the last time he was traded he was still on very reasonable rookie deal and only fetched a top 55 protected 2nd round pick (aka: nothing). An overpaid Harkless is not a valuable trade commodity. Just the opposite.

BNM

with the "overpays" we already did this summer in perhaps Turner and Crabbe IMO we simply cannot overpay Hark with the need to pay CJ big bucks next summer, just can't do it especially with a team that has not proven and does yet look like a "real" contender, a good team yes but not a real contender IMO

 

[Denny Crane]

As Denny mentioned, the repeat status is for the third year in four. I imagine that we'd know by the end of next year whether or not this is a contender. Retaining all the significant assets now gives us the best chance of becoming a contender in that time frame--whether via internal growth or conversion of assets into a third star. Even if Harkless is retained with a contract that puts us over the luxury tax this year, we have until February 2017 until that luxury tax status is official, and until February 2019 before repeater tax status affects us. I'm loathe to give Harkless away now for fear of what it might cost us 31 months down the road.

The thing is, I believe we will pay the LT next year, to keep the assets together, as you say.

You don't want to have 2 of the 4 years on the books at the end of next year. I think I'd rather keep Plums than Harkless if it came down to that, and paying the LT.

The way Harkless stays is on the QO or if he signs a deal that keeps us under LT (considering bonuses that could push us over). If he does sign a small enough deal, it forces our hand to trade (whoever) to clear space in two years, which is fine.

Mo has a lot of potential, but he wasn't THAT good, was he? Is he going to bet on himself and take the QO? Fine if he does. If he has a huge breakout season, we can still pay him the most, no hard feelings. And we'd deal with the 1st year of LT next year.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I suppose it depends on how you define "significant assets". Is overpaying our 10th man and going over the LT threshold this year worth it given the possible future implications? I don't think so. Nobody else has even made Harkless an offer. If we overpay him and he's not part of our regular rotation, I don't see his trade value increasing. Harkless on a reasonable contract could be a trade asset, although the last time he was traded he was still on very reasonable rookie deal and only fetched a top 55 protected 2nd round pick (aka: nothing). An overpaid Harkless is not a valuable trade commodity. Just the opposite.

BNM

The bolded is speculation. We have no idea. And if Aminu is now being considered a PF, Harkless would be our 2nd backup for the wing positions. There will be plenty of minutes for him, IMO.

 

[Boob-No-More]

The bolded is speculation. We have no idea. And if Aminu is now being considered a PF, Harkless would be our 2nd backup for the wing positions. There will be plenty of minutes for him, IMO.

Well no one has formally made an offer.

Not really. Aminu will still see plenty of time at the back up 3 and Crabbe will play the 3 next to Dame and C.J. in small ball situations. I see Turner getting the bulk of the minutes at the 3, followed by Aminu and Crabbe. Harkless sucks at the 2, with no handle and a weak jump shot. He should never see minutes there. C.J. starts. with Crabbe getting the bulk of the back up minutes followed by Turner. That puts us three deep at the wing positions without Harkless being part of the regular rotation. Who, exactly does Harkless steal minutes from? Turner? Aminu? Crabbe? They are all better than he is.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Well no one has formally made an offer.

Not really. Aminu will still see plenty of time at the back up 3 and Crabbe will play the 3 next to Dame and C.J. in small ball situations. I see Turner getting the bulk of the minutes at the 3, followed by Aminu and Crabbe. Harkless sucks at the 2, with no handle and a weak jump shot. He should never see minutes there. C.J. starts. with Crabbe getting the bulk of the back up minutes followed by Turner. That puts us three deep at the wing positions without Harkless being part of the regular rotation. Who, exactly does Harkless steal minutes from? Turner? Aminu? Crabbe? They are all better than he is.

BNM

If Aminu sees lots of minutes at the 3, then sure. If Aminu is primarily playing the 4--which Olshey indicated is the plan--then we have Dame, CJ, Crabbe, and Turner at the 1/2/3. All depends on how many mpg you expect from those 4. If 35 mpg for Dame/CJ and 28 mpg for Crabbe/Turner, that leaves 18 mpg at the 3 for Harkless. Not unreasonable.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Olshey very publicly announced that Turner will start. At that moment, Harkless lost his starting job.

So, earn it back. Minutes are earned, not given, based on quality of play. If Mo is pissed about losing a starting role that was only his because Terry moved Vonleh to the bench, come into training camp and preseason and mop up the floor with Turner. If you do, I guarantee Terry will give you the minutes you deserve. If you don't, you have no right to mope about losing your starting role.

Mo is reportedly asking for more money than we gave Turner. If you want more money than the guy in front of you, you damn well better outplay him. If you don't/can't, STFU.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Mo is reportedly asking for more money than we gave Turner. If you want more money than the guy in front of you, you damn well better outplay him. If you don't/can't, STFU.

BNM

Besides this completely unsubstantiated and unsupported article that was linked earlier in this thread, have there been any other "reports" on the contract Harkless is seeking? I'm not putting any stock in a rumor posted by "Sai M." from morningnewsusa.com.

 

[KingSpeed]

Well no one has formally made an offer.

Not really. Aminu will still see plenty of time at the back up 3 and Crabbe will play the 3 next to Dame and C.J. in small ball situations. I see Turner getting the bulk of the minutes at the 3, followed by Aminu and Crabbe. Harkless sucks at the 2, with no handle and a weak jump shot. He should never see minutes there. C.J. starts. with Crabbe getting the bulk of the back up minutes followed by Turner. That puts us three deep at the wing positions without Harkless being part of the regular rotation. Who, exactly does Harkless steal minutes from? Turner? Aminu? Crabbe? They are all better than he is.

BNM

How do you know he hasn't received an offer? It only has to go public if he signs the offer sheet.

 

[Boob-No-More]

If Aminu sees lots of minutes at the 3, then sure. If Aminu is primarily playing the 4--which Olshey indicated is the plan--then we have Dame, CJ, Crabbe, and Turner at the 1/2/3. All depends on how many mpg you expect from those 4. If 35 mpg for Dame/CJ and 28 mpg for Crabbe/Turner, that leaves 18 mpg at the 3 for Harkless. Not unreasonable.

Aminu will start at the 4, but we also have a logjam there with Davis and Leonard as back ups. Meyers will also see minutes at the 5, but we have Plumlee and Ezeli in front of him there. So, that means more minutes at the 3 for Aminu, and that shouldn't come as a surprise. He started the bulk of our games at the 3 last season and was almost exclusively a SF for his entire NBA career, until Terry benched Vonleh at the end of last season.

He's a better 3 than Mo (which is why he was starting ahead of him) and when Ed or Meyers plays the 4, Aminu will see plenty of time at the 3 - especially with Davis. Terry likes to have at least three 3-point shooters on the court at all times. You can't play Mo and Ed together with Turner and/or Plumlee or Ezeli because that leaves you with, at most two 3-point threats on the court.

I don't like to get into specific minute breakdowns, because it will vary night to night depending on match ups and who's playing well, but Turner will start and get the bulk of the minutes at the 3, which is really the only position Mo can play effectively. I fully expect Turner to get at least 32 MPG so Terry can always have at least two ball handlers/distributors on the floor (other than garbage time, when it doesn't matter). Aminu and Crabbe will split the back up SF minutes.

With the logjam at the 4, I don't expect Aminu to play more than 20 MPG at PF. In the playoffs, we didn't have either Meyers or Ezeli. That meant Aminu played a lot of minutes at the 4, because Ed Davis, our only other healthy big man worthy of PT, had to play exclusively the back up 5. Now Meyers is back and we added Ezeli. That means Ed Davis will move back to his natural back up PF role, with Ezeli getting the bulk of minutes at the back up 5. Meyers will get minutes backing the 4 and 5 spots. Effectively adding two more big men capable of playing the 4 will reduce Aminu's time at PF.

So, I still see the SF position divided between the starter Turner, with Aminu as his primary back up and Crabbe getting minutes there in small ball line ups. And that's why Mo is at a disadvantage, he can really only play one position effectively - SF. Turner can play the 3 and 2, Aminu the 3 and 4, C.J. the 2 and 1 and even Meyers will see back up minutes at both the 4 and 5. With three players, all better, all more versatile, ahead of Mo at the 3, I just don't see where he gets his minutes.

BNM