Haywood and Mike Miller to Portland

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Shooter said:
Yes, but an opportunity we won't realize for
4 years. We're in rebuilding mode now and we need players. Four years from now we should hopefully be playing for a title and won't even need somebody else's second round picks.
Click to expand...

Picks are one of the scarcest commodities of NBA teams. How you and me buy goods with money NBA teams buy players with picks. The Blazers are in a better position to buy a player because of this trade. Shortsided win now thinking as in your post is why Brooklyn, New York and the Lakers are in the pickles they've created.
 
Draco said:
That sounds like his trade kicker that yes he gets and Cleveland paid for.
Click to expand...
Yep. Bfw already clued me in to that. But thanks. Gives me hope that Neil might still deal Miller for another asset.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
Just a few inbred fish in a very small polluted pond.

And Lanny! Trying to be the voice of reason.
Click to expand...
I made the bad mistake of wandering into the OLive forum this weekend after a long absence. If you folks ever see a husky old guy wandering the streets with "stupid" tattooed on his forehead, that would be me....
 
ripcityboy said:
True Blazer fan, if you can't have it yourself, light it on fire so no one else can either! I am proud of you!
Click to expand...


haha
I have some people/teams I don't mind seeing get there. but LeBron has never been one of those. EVER.
 
Schilly said:
And we still have more to absorb than they do. We gave up zero assets, zero flexibility. All we have up was some cash. They can't combine their trade exceptions with each other or with other players, we don't need trade exceptions. There is absolutely zero harm done to the Blazers here. We gained 2 future 2nd rounders. In the past Neil has turned those into Robinson, Lopez and Harkless... All of whom have more actual value than a 2nd round pick.

I swear if Neil were walking down the street and found a $5 Bill people would complain he didn't do a good enough job because he didn't find a $20.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, ppl would also complain about HOW (technique, speed, approach, etc.) Neil bent over to snag that $5!:blahblah:
 
Draco said:
False
Click to expand...

Good catch.

You'd think the buyout would affect what the team pays in salary only, but not the cap space. The team does get to stretch the guaranteed amount over 2x the remaining years plus one year; that's cap relief. Also if the player is signed elsewhere, the team gets to offset what it owes. And the team's incentive is to gain back a roster spot.

The player has no incentive other than to get out of Dodge ASAP. I mean, there's really no incentive for a player to take a big pay cut via a buyout.
 
Denny Crane said:
Good catch.

You'd think the buyout would affect what the team pays in salary only, but not the cap space. The team does get to stretch the guaranteed amount over 2x the remaining years plus one year; that's cap relief. Also if the player is signed elsewhere, the team gets to offset what it owes. And the team's incentive is to gain back a roster spot.

The player has no incentive other than to get out of Dodge ASAP. I mean, there's really no incentive for a player to take a big pay cut via a buyout.
Click to expand...

The team can decide if they want to stretch the salary over multiple years or not. With the Blazers having so much space they won't stretch it.

If Miller were indifferent about playing in Portland or not and had no large earning opportunities elsewhere there would be zero incentive for him to give up money in a buyout. But he can sign a new contract with another team. In Millers case that deal for the minimum would be for $1.5 million. So if he gives up less than that in a buyout and signs elsewhere he will get more total money plus play for the team of his choice.
 
This discussion reminds me of the famous hypothetical used by Economists.

There's $100 sitting on the table. I grab $99, and hand you $1 to shut up and go away. According to the academics,this is a perfectly rational offer and you have no reason to say "no". Hey - it's a free dollar!

Of course, even the Economists admit that this approach rarely works in real life - but it is a very sound theory!
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
I made the bad mistake of wandering into the OLive forum this weekend after a long absence. If you folks ever see a husky old guy wandering the streets with "stupid" tattooed on his forehead, that would be me....
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm go and read it from time to time. There are some people who make some quality posts in there.
 
Draco said:
The team can decide if they want to stretch the salary over multiple years or not. With the Blazers having so much space they won't stretch it.

If Miller were indifferent about playing in Portland or not and had no large earning opportunities elsewhere there would be zero incentive for him to give up money in a buyout. But he can sign a new contract with another team. In Millers case that deal for the minimum would be for $1.5 million. So if he gives up less than that in a buyout and signs elsewhere he will get more total money plus play for the team of his choice.
Click to expand...

You make the case that a player making near vet minimum might have a little incentive to leave.

There is a tradeoff of cap space this year for cap space 3 years from now. The Blazers should take the hit this year, of course. Next year, even $500K of cap space ($1.5M stretched 3 years) might matter. I just pointed out the teams CAN get cap relief.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
We've tried, many many times . He just doesn't like the format of the forum.
Click to expand...

I used to be the same but at the 'other' you could post something and not get a reply for a couple hours. There is very lil reasonable discussion there. I'd move...and I did. Like the format or not.
 
oldmangrouch said:
This discussion reminds me of the famous hypothetical used by Economists.

There's $100 sitting on the table. I grab $99, and hand you $1 to shut up and go away. According to the academics,this is a perfectly rational offer and you have no reason to say "no". Hey - it's a free dollar!

Of course, even the Economists admit that this approach rarely works in real life - but it is a very sound theory!
Click to expand...
That applies here how?
 
Schilly said:
That applies here how?
Click to expand...

I imagine it's, Cavs got 99, we got 1. And though it was "free" people will still complain, because of what the other side got, even though the potential alternative to us was 0 instead of 1 dollar.
 
RR7 said:
I imagine it's, Cavs got 99, we got 1. And though it was "free" people will still complain, because of what the other side got, even though the potential alternative to us was 0 instead of 1 dollar.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
oldmangrouch said:
This discussion reminds me of the famous hypothetical used by Economists.

There's $100 sitting on the table. I grab $99, and hand you $1 to shut up and go away. According to the academics,this is a perfectly rational offer and you have no reason to say "no". Hey - it's a free dollar!

Of course, even the Economists admit that this approach rarely works in real life - but it is a very sound theory!
Click to expand...

Slightly different, and more applicable, would be a scenario in which you and I both get nothing unless I choose to give you $99 and take $1 for myself. People are supposedly so offended in reality by the inherent unfairness of the proposition that they would often reject it, I presume?

It reminds me a lot of "Shark Tank". My son, who is 9, can't understand why so many entrepreneurs on that show hold so tightly to their equity ("I can't give up so much of this product/company I created") that they miss out on the opportunity to partner with these successful billionaires. "Why does it matter that they want 50% of the company?" my son says. "They'll make the company way more successful. These people should be willing to give up however much equity it takes to get a 'shark' on board!"

Perhaps it's naivete, but I tend to agree with him. A small percentage of something is better than 100% of nothing. I guess that's why I'm not complaining about this deal either.
 
I guess I'm confused about how we did Cleveland a huge favor. Couldn't they have dealt Haywood to s team that wants to cut him like Brooklyn? Why is a tpe more valuable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Natebishop3 said:
I guess I'm confused about how we did Cleveland a huge favor. Couldn't they have dealt Haywood to s team that wants to cut him like Brooklyn? Why is a tpe more valuable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

For whom would they have dealt him to Brooklyn? Joe Johnson? They would have had to include another $10M in salary to make that work.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I guess I'm confused about how we did Cleveland a huge favor. Couldn't they have dealt Haywood to s team that wants to cut him like Brooklyn? Why is a tpe more valuable?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

A) A deal where they took a player back wouldn't have helped their Lux Tax situation.

B) If disaster strikes (EG Love or Irving getting hurt again) they can use the TPE to add a $10 Mil player even though they are way over the cap.
 
oldmangrouch said:
This discussion reminds me of the famous hypothetical used by Economists.

There's $100 sitting on the table. I grab $99, and hand you $1 to shut up and go away. According to the academics,this is a perfectly rational offer and you have no reason to say "no". Hey - it's a free dollar!

Of course, even the Economists admit that this approach rarely works in real life - but it is a very sound theory!
Click to expand...

And that dollar will benefit a poor person more than the $99 will benefit a wealthy person.
 
Red Rooster said:
And that dollar will benefit a poor person more than the $99 will benefit a wealthy person.
Click to expand...

Thats not even remotely true. You give a homeless man with nothing $1, and he will do what with it? Give a wealthy person $100 and he will invest it and make more, which is why he is wealthy. Then turn around and give to charity for the tax break, thus benefiting the poor man
 
Red Rooster said:
And that dollar will benefit a poor person more than the $99 will benefit a wealthy person.
Click to expand...

Also, the person with $99 is more likely to be robbed, anally raped, and left to die in a dumpster.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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