Haywood and Mike Miller to Portland

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
There is a $1 store, but there is no $99 store. Just sayin'
 
It's more like this.... it one person has $10 and no more room in their wallet, but they could just throw the $10 away or give it to someone other than me, instead they offer me $12 so they have room to add $10 back to their wallet, and I can choose to throw the $10 away and keep the $2 for doing them a favor. I still have $2 than I had yesterday.
 
If you put $1 on a train going westbound that is traveling at 25 mph, and on Tuesday someone puts $99 on an eastbound train that travels at 35 mph, and as the trains go past each other, the eastbound train derails, causing the $99 to be thrown out of the train, how much of that money blows in the open windows of the still-moving westbound train?

barfo
 
SlyPokerDog said:
LOL! I'm go and read it from time to time. There are some people who make some quality posts in there.
Click to expand...
That's the sad part. Some folks put a lot of effort into writing thoughtful, fair minded and educational posts. But as soon as their opinions are posted they are savagely and irrationally attacked by a packs of extremist idiots (of all stripes) whose only goal is to insult and demean. But then, that sounds like our current congress......thankfully all the smart, refined people hang out here!
 
14 sailors are traveling around the country on a tour bus owned by an alien that has unlimited access to government funds. 2 sailors are given new orders to join the 14 sailors. Since the tour bus only holds 15, one of new sailors is made to walk the plank without pay.

The other new sailor is paid out of a secret black slush fund that has already been taken off of the phony audit books.

To keep the alien quit, he can pick two extra sailors in the future to replace any sailors that get too old or too injured to push-start the bus.

The question is, does the alien make the second sailor that has been paid from the slush fund also walk the plank?
 
Last edited:
If Cavs found 99 dollars and we got 1 who lost the 100?
 
Schilly said:
It's more like this.... it one person has $10 and no more room in their wallet, but they could just throw the $10 away or give it to someone other than me, instead they offer me $12 so they have room to add $10 back to their wallet, and I can choose to throw the $10 away and keep the $2 for doing them a favor. I still have $2 than I had yesterday.
Click to expand...


I think it's more like someone who has some Euros that they haven't been able to exchange yet. So they give you 50 in Euros + 10 bucks US to put the 50 Euros on a pre-paid card.

They can use the pre-paid card later, you gained 10 bucks and there you go, you have 2 draft picks in 5 years.
 
I was moderately happy for Clyde when he got his ring. (Not thrilled but....rooted for him) He gave us 11 1/2 years. Only 2 1/2 years more than LMA, but it feels different. I guess because Clyde was no longer in his prime, our window had closed, and even though he did force his way out of town, it was only after they fired Petrie, which led to RA quitting.

LMA chose to leave in his prime. I don't hate him, but I will not root for him to get his ring. I will be indifferent if they play the Cav's
 
They are both 30+ years old. WTF.
 
magnifier661 said:
Damn straight! He was killed because the robber knew he was a wannabe hipster baller and made them waste their time.
Click to expand...

He's posting so he must have gotten out of the dumpster.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Some people simply cant be pleased. Period. some people actually enjoy living a life of depression and sulking at every thing that happens in their lives and around them.

I would like to kjnoq, can NO turn around and use these picks for trades? In other words, Do we have to hang onto them unilt the draft year?
If not, then everyone should quit bitchin and let NO FINISH, before you cry.
Click to expand...

You guys just don't recognize how motivated the seller was. The Cavs owner was very, very desperate to save tens of millions of dollars. Olshey bailed him out for only 2 2nd round picks.

Whether we can trade the picks for something better is irrelevant. The Cavs were willing to pay a lot, lot, lot more if Olshey had held their feet to the furnace. Instead, he settled with them only about 3 days after they publicly put up a "For Sale" sign across the sports media.

They probably knew that he's in a hurry to go on his South Seas island vacation that he mentioned at one of the July press conferences. It pays for the opposition to study each GM's comments for such details.
 
julius said:
Some of you guys are upset that they got 2 free draft picks that won't come to fruition for 4 or 5 years?

Really?
Click to expand...

Mediocre Man said:
Who says we need to wait 4 years to deal the picks? How anyone can complain about adding assets for free is beyond me
Click to expand...

I'm back in the middle of the thread, and there are dozens of comments like these, each with about 5 likes. You just don't understand the concept of not getting full value in a transaction. Do any of you own something you got from your parents for free? Will you sell it to me for a penny? No?


How anyone can complain about adding assets for free is beyond me.


Your error is that you think that since the asset we owned had cost us nothing, that we should therefore give it away for much less than we could get.


We took on a second player the Cavs wanted to get rid of? We paid cash? We only got 2 no. 2s? Just for saving them from their Haywood blunder only, the Cavs were willing to give us a very late no. 1 without the Mitchell & cash bullshit. They announced that in a media campaign, begging for one of 3 teams to bail them out. The other 2 GMs knew the asset was worth far, far more. Olshey may be a talent evaluator, but he's no asset evaluator.
 
How much would two 2nd round picks cost? More than NO paid.

The Cavs could have waived Haywood and that would have cost them zero. The Blazers will waive him and it will cost the Blazers zero.

Miller can be waived and more than half his salary paid by his next team, if he only signs for vet minimum.

Two transactions. Each required the Blazers to give up some sort of consideration. $75k each deal, $150K. It's the least the Blazers could give up.

The Cavs gained two traded player exceptions , which give them flexibility to trade for players with $10.5m and ~$3m. They'd have to have paid 1/2 Miller'so salary plus tax and got no TPEs otherwise.

NO effectively paid about $1.3m for two second round picks. They're probably worth $1m each on draft day.
 
Last edited:
Schilly said:
How in the he'll can anyone justify this as a losing trade... delusional negativity man, delusional negativity. We gave up zero... zero in terms of tangible assets to add 2 further future assets. We could have bought them for the same price, but that would eat into our yearly allotment of cash considerations much more. Ohh it ate 2.8mil out of our cap space, we have to spend that money no matter what anyway, why not spend it on assets than just giving each of the players on roster a bonus at the end of the season.

We still have enough cap space to absorb a near max guy and we have small contracts that can be waived without it being a financial issue even remotely. Let's get real here anyway, the players unloaded to be absorbed are done so because nobody else thinks they are worth the money they are making, see David Lee.

In all.seriousness if a person is finding fault with this trade, they literally have tunnel vision on making this summer out to be as negative as possible. I've lost a shitload of respect for several posters I thought to be rational good posters.
Click to expand...

(with TEN likes)

Blah blah. If you don't know the difference between "what we gave up" and "what we could have gotten" I can't help you.
 
Denny Crane said:
How much would two 2nd round picks cost? More than NO paid.

The Cavs could have waived Haywood and that would have cost them zero. The Blazers will waive him and it will cost the Blazers zero.

Miller can be waived and more than half his salary paid by his next team, if he only signs for vet minimum.

Two transactions. Each required the Blazers to give up some sort of consideration. $75k each deal, $150K. It's the least the Blazers could give up.

The Cavs gained two traded player exceptions , which give them flexibility to trade for players with $10.5m and ~$3m. They'd have to have paid 1/2 Miller'so salary plus tax and got no TPEs otherwise.

NO effectively paid about $1.3m for two second round pucks. They're probably worth $1m each on draft day.
Click to expand...

Same answer. Your issue is what we gave up and got. My issue is what we should have given up and gotten.

Your $75K number is invented just to help your argument. Source? It could be anywhere between that and $3.4 million.
 
jlprk said:
(with TEN likes)

Blah blah. If you don't know the difference between "what we gave up" and "what we could have gotten" I can't help you.
Click to expand...
you really think we could've gotten more when they had other teams to deal with? What exactly do you think he could've gotten????
 
jlprk said:
Same answer. Your issue is what we gave up and got. My issue is what we should have given up and gotten.

Your $75K number is invented just to help your argument. Source? It could be anywhere between that and $3.4 million.
Click to expand...

There's no point in paying more than $75K. The point was to give up the minimal consideration to satisfy the CBA rules.

We shouldn't have somehow gotten much more. Maybe a slicker negotiator might have gotten the two picks for $1 less.

As Shilly pointed out, the team actually has to pay the league minimum payroll, so all but $150K of that $1.3m would have been spent anyway.

The opportunity cost is about a half of Miller's pay worth of cap space .
 
jlprk said:
Same answer. Your issue is what we gave up and got. My issue is what we should have given up and gotten.
Click to expand...
Your issue is your fallacious perception of what someone in a job you've never had should be able to do with resources you've never managed in situations you've never experienced. But I'm sure your analysis is spot on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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