Haywood and Mike Miller to Portland

[Draco]

Which still doesn't answer my question. The 2019 pick has some value - but is it worth more than Christmas?

The Blazers clearly think so. Adding Christmas would also cost a roster spot in a year where we have 14 guaranteed contracts plus Cliff Alexander.

 

[Draco]

I hear a lot of people saying we gave up NOTHING. That is incorrect. Having $3 million of extra cap room could be worth something. It very well may amount to nothing but we have 11 months to try and use it first. Not having that small extra amount of space is an advantage we no longer have. I'm all in favor of the trade and think the 2 picks are a solid haul. Maybe Miller can be bought out or traded for a smaller contract. But anyone saying we gave up nothing in this deal is technically wrong.

 

[Schilly]

It's less hypothetical than the $75K number that you guys keep bandying about as the total price we paid to avoid getting a Cavs player for free. I see that right after the trade with us, they traded Dellavedova. They delayed that in case we wanted him. They have well over 15 players and we could have gotten one or two substitutes worth more than a 2nd round pick.

I'm still in the middle of this thread, reading your sarcastic posts.

What? They didn't trade Dellavedova, he was a restricted free agent who accepted the qualifying offer for 1 year. The $75 price has nothing to do with avoiding getting a player for free, a team is required to send some commodities to the other team in a trade, $75k is the minimum amount allowed. So we either had to send a player, the rights to an unsigned player, a draft pick or cash. Cash is the least valuable asset, as it isn't a roster/talent commodity.

Maybe we tried to get Dellevadova in a S&T and he said "forget that" and instead accepted the Qualifying offer which also enables a no trade clause.

I just don't get this idea that it was a bad trade for the Blazers. We gave up nothing but cash, which has been pointed out has to be spent anyway, and ended up with 2 assets we didn't have before. Sure the Cavs got Trade Exceptions, but how many trade exceptions especially in the $10mil range are ever actually used before they expire, that might not pan out.

Meanwhile people who are critical always site the "could have gotten more" angle, but personally I am of the thought that of he could have gotten more, he would have. I find it interesting that fans who don't work in the industry so often make this assumption. Beyond that in a case like we have where we have cap space to make lopsided trades we need to have assets in place to make said trades happen. There aren't.many salary dump trades where a player of any value on the court is dumped on a team with cap space. Instead cap space team is compensated with draft picks.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The Blazers clearly think so. Adding Christmas would also cost a roster spot in a year where we have 14 guaranteed contracts plus Cliff Alexander.

I have to say I respectfully disagree. IMHO, Christmas is a better prospect than Alexander.

 

[Schilly]

I hear a lot of people saying we gave up NOTHING. That is incorrect. Having $3 million of extra cap room could be worth something. It very well may amount to nothing but we have 11 months to try and use it first. Not having that small extra amount of space is an advantage we no longer have. I'm all in favor of the trade and think the 2 picks are a solid haul. Maybe Miller can be bought out or traded for a smaller contract. But anyone saying we gave up nothing in this deal is technically wrong.

I think the assumption is we still have $19mill in capspace, so unless we have some crazy trade come up where we need to absorb $19mill in contract, then we really haven't given up much flexibility in the big picture. I kind of think we don't need to absorb a $19+ million player that another team doesn't want anymore.

 

[Schilly]

So do the Cavs.... Question I have is would you rather we didn't get the 2nd round picks and also didn't get Christmas because the 76ers were willing to do it just for the picks?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

What the hell? You want me to quote them all? I'm plowing through acres of sarcastic manure in the middle of the thread.

So do you want me to cite them for you in a big long post? Are you on acid, or did you simply recently go blind?

The number is 75K or 150K, often posted as the only price we paid, in effect. I'll go through the pages if you want me to make a long post to show you.

It's less hypothetical than the $75K number that you guys keep bandying about as the total price we paid to avoid getting a Cavs player for free. I see that right after the trade with us, they traded Dellavedova. They delayed that in case we wanted him.

Tell me more about this Dellavedova trade the Cavs did. Tell me more about how the Cavs delayed trading him in case we wanted him. Please, I really want to hear all about this. Details? Links? Please explain how you are not pulling shit out of your ass and making things up just to prove some strange point.

 

[jlprk]

Think of it from the other end; would we have traded Kaman and a first round pick at the draft to get a trade exception? No change in hell.

You are making Kaman's cost to us equivalent to Haywood's cost to the Mavs, which is on the order of 6-7 times as much. And you are making our ~#20 1st round pick equivalent to their ~#30 first round pick.

 

[BonesJones]

Knee-jerk Denny responses to me continue to justify what we got/paid, not what we should have got/paid, given the enormous gain to the desperate Cavs owner.
----------


I said my answer to your question several times in this current thread. The first time I said this was in the earlier Haywood thread, and here's the quote. In the many posts after this post, no one in that thread disagreed, and some explicitly agreed:



agrees with me:


says we should go for even more, a player, since the Cavs must dump some:


In case someone says the Cavs wouldn't have included a player we want for the TPE...they had just done the same:

You realize that a Cavs 1st round pick more than likely will be 28th, 29th or 30th? Instead we get the highest out of Minny's and the Lakers 2nd, which more than likely will be in the top 40. So you're really complaining about how we got another 2nd round pick to be 10 spots lower and in the draft, in a spot that's arguably just as good because we don't have to give a gaurunteed contract. But keep having a negative view on everything... Olshey knows what he's doing, you don't.

 

[jlprk]

Tell me more about this Dellavedova trade the Cavs did. Tell me more about how the Cavs delayed trading him in case we wanted him. Please, I really want to hear all about this. Details? Links? Please explain how you are not pulling shit out of your ass and making things up just to prove some strange point.

Well, I have 3 things going. I'm cooking, reading the middle of the thread, and trying to read theend of the thread. So I'll answer you later. Something on the stove is boiling over.

You accused me of making stuff up, about the $75K, I thought. I was looking right at the many posts saying $75K or $150K. I may have to reword Delladevova, whom I can't even spell, much less write about his contract. But he was an aside, a twitter I cited from someone else's post in the earlier Haywood thread. The main theme is...that Olshey could have gotten more.

 

[Schilly]

I remember a poster recently complaining about not having roster spots left to use in a lopsided trade, yet now is complaining that we go future assets instead of a player.

 

[BonesJones]

You are making Kaman's cost to us equivalent to Haywood's cost to the Mavs, which is on the order of 6-7 times as much. And you are making our ~#20 1st round pick equivalent to their ~#30 first round pick.

Haywood's "cost" to the Cavs isn't viable since they wouldve cut him before he cost them anything

 

[Schilly]

Well, I have 3 things going. I'm cooking, reading the middle of the thread, and trying to read theend of the thread. So I'll answer you later. Something on the stove is boiling over.

You accused me of making stuff up, about the $75K, I thought. I was looking right at the many posts saying $75K or $150K. I may have to reword Delladevova, whom I can't even spell, much less write about his contract. But he was an aside, a twitter I cited from someone else's post in the earlier Haywood thread. The main theme is...that Olshey could have gotten more.

Really what more could he have gotten. No sarcasm here I want a real answer as opposed to a blanket statement.

 

[BonesJones]

Well, I have 3 things going. I'm cooking, reading the middle of the thread, and trying to read theend of the thread. So I'll answer you later. Something on the stove is boiling over.

You accused me of making stuff up, about the $75K, I thought. I was looking right at the many posts saying $75K or $150K. I may have to reword Delladevova, whom I can't even spell, much less write about his contract. But he was an aside, a twitter I cited from someone else's post in the earlier Haywood thread. The main theme is...that Olshey could have gotten more.

The main theme is...you don't know squat

 

[oldmangrouch]

I remember a poster recently complaining about not having roster spots left to use in a lopsided trade, yet now is complaining that we go future assets instead of a player.

Not me. Look at the other thread - I have been on the bandwagon to acquire Christmas from the beginning.

 

[Draco]

I have to say I respectfully disagree. IMHO, Christmas is a better prospect than Alexander.

Yeah but is Christmas better than Alexander (or whoever makes that 15th spot this year) plus that 2019 pick? If the Blazers wanted Christmas they would've got him.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Well, I have 3 things going. I'm cooking, reading the middle of the thread, and trying to read theend of the thread. So I'll answer you later. Something on the stove is boiling over.

You accused me of making stuff up, about the $75K, I thought. I was looking right at the many posts saying $75K or $150K. I may have to reword Delladevova, whom I can't even spell, much less write about his contract. But he was an aside, a twitter I cited from someone else's post in the earlier Haywood thread. The main theme is...that Olshey could have gotten more.

Dude, you completely made up the entire "I see that right after the trade with us, they traded Dellavedova. They delayed that in case we wanted him." Made up! Invented! The Cavs didn't delay trading Della to us because they never traded him. You got your facts completely wrong and then made up your own scenario. A scenario of the Cavs waiting to trade Della to us before they traded him to some imaginary team.

 

[Draco]

I think the assumption is we still have $19mill in capspace, so unless we have some crazy trade come up where we need to absorb $19mill in contract, then we really haven't given up much flexibility in the big picture. I kind of think we don't need to absorb a $19+ million player that another team doesn't want anymore.

Well the Heat are $8 million over the luxury tax so maybe we do a trade with them? Then we have $11 million of cap space. Having $14 instead of $11 could definitely help in a trade. I guess maybe its splitting hairs; but each of these trades do cost us something small and give us a small return. Its misleading to round down the cost to zero then round up the benefit while comparing that benefit to zero.

I'd be fine if we do 6 more trades like this and end up with a dozen second round picks for all our cap space. I'm sure some fans are expecting much more though. Cap space isn't worth what it once was this isn't 2003 where expiring contracts and cap space are a scarce asset.

 

[jlprk]

I remember a poster recently complaining about not having roster spots left to use in a lopsided trade, yet now is complaining that we go future assets instead of a player.

I didn't read that one. I remember when I argued the opposite of that, that by guaranteeing 22-year-old high schooler Montero a spot, we'd miss out on someone with experience. Many (you?) said, ridiculous, we can cut Montero anytime we want if necessary. Only a week later, Olshey can't take free Cavs because, some say, we have a full roster.

The Haywood argument (it was a good deal vs. it should have been a much better deal) was kind of like the Montero case. Many (you? I don't remember) just looked at Montero's potential, while I steered them to talking about the more certain talents of the player who would have filled that spot. They were unable to think that way, too busy drooling over Montero. A different pair of opposites, but it had similarities to this Haywood argument.

 

[jlprk]

Dude, you completely made up the entire "I see that right after the trade with us, they traded Dellavedova. They delayed that in case we wanted him." Made up! Invented! The Cavs didn't delay trading Della to us because they never traded him. You got your facts completely wrong and then made up your own scenario. A scenario of the Cavs waiting to trade Della to us before they traded him to some imaginary team.

I'll check, but you must be right since I didn't check when I typed it. So you got me on one sentence out of a hundred. Congrats. As I said, Dellacan'tspellit is very trivial to the overall theme, that Olshey should have gotten more. In fact, it was the first time I'd ever typed his name. I notice you're not arguing against the fact that the Cavs have an excess of players, and we could have gotten one. Just that I named the wrong one.

 

[BonesJones]

Well the Heat are $8 million over the luxury tax so maybe we do a trade with them? Then we have $11 million of cap space. Having $14 instead of $11 could definitely help in a trade. I guess maybe its splitting hairs; but each of these trades do cost us something small and give us a small return. Its misleading to round down the cost to zero then round up the benefit while comparing that benefit to zero.

I'd be fine if we do 6 more trades like this and end up with a dozen second round picks for all our cap space. I'm sure some fans are expecting much more though. Cap space isn't worth what it once was this isn't 2003 where expiring contracts and cap space are a scarce asset.

I could see us taking on Chris Anderson with a pick.
But we better ask for a 1st because I know they'll definitely give us one for sure.. we better not end up with 2 second rounders because those are bad.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I'll check, but you must be right since I didn't check when I typed it. So you got me on one sentence out of a hundred. Congrats. As I said, Dellacan'tspellit is very trivial to the overall theme, that Olshey should have gotten more. In fact, it was the first time I'd ever typed his name. I notice you're not arguing against the fact that the Cavs have an excess of players, and we could have gotten one. Just that I named the wrong one.

Again, you're making up facts to fit your scenario. There are moves Olshey could have made if he wanted one of the Cavs excess players. You keep acting like he wanted one but couldn't get them because he somehow screwed himself. We don't know if he wanted any of those players and if he did, he was somehow too incompetent to figure out how to get them? I know that's the narrative you're throwing out there but there is no proof.

 

[Draco]

I could see us taking on Chris Anderson with a pick.
But we better ask for a 1st because I know they'll definitely give us one for sure.. we better not end up with 2 second rounders because those are bad.

They literally cannot trade a first round pick away since they've already traded 3 away and have a year of delayed protections on two of them.

They could give us a first round pick swap option though. Has a chance of being worth absolutely nothing if they are better than us but has a chance of us getting the #1 pick.

 

[BonesJones]

They literally cannot trade a first round pick away since they've already traded 3 away and have a year of delayed protections on two of them.

They could give us a first round pick swap option though. Has a chance of being worth absolutely nothing if they are better than us but has a chance of us getting the #1 pick.

Olshey can get more. Olshey can't settle. Olshey has to do better.

 

[jlprk]

Again, you're making up facts to fit your scenario. There are moves Olshey could have made if he wanted one of the Cavs excess players. You keep acting like he wanted one but couldn't get them because he somehow screwed himself. We don't know if he wanted any of those players and if he did, he was somehow too incompetent to figure out how to get them? I know that's the narrative you're throwing out there but there is no proof.

The narrative I'm throwing out is that Olshey's vision, learned from his years under Donald Sterling, is to turn the team into a run-down car. His dream is that we will get an earlier pick each year and after a few years, hit the bonanza in the draft. Allen's vision has always been to win now, except maybe sacrifice for a couple of years at the most. When Pritchard didn't deliver fast enough, he was out.

It has to do with Olshey's long-term strategy possibly lasting as long as the Clippers' one did, not with his competence. He's turning down opportunities to improve now, which I understand, but sometimes he overdoes it.

At least this time you didn't call me a liar. In the other post, you quoted me saying the $75K thing, which is what I noticed, then continued the quote to being about Delly, which I didn't notice, so I reacted to the $75K issue since I was looking right at the posts saying $75K. But you were talking about the second part of the quote. After calling me a liar, you got ME to say I'm sorry. Pretty clever there, maybe I should have fought that more. Well, at least this time, you only phrased the same accusation as, I'm making up stuff. Maybe next time you'll even debate instead of accusing.

 

[BonesJones]

The narrative I'm throwing out is that Olshey's vision, learned from his years under Donald Sterling, is to turn the team into a run-down car. His dream is that we will get an earlier pick each year and after a few years, hit the bonanza in the draft. Allen's vision has always been to win now, except maybe sacrifice for a couple of years at the most. When Pritchard didn't deliver fast enough, he was out.

It has to do with Olshey's long-term strategy possibly lasting as long as the Clippers' one did, not with his competence. He's turning down opportunities to improve now, which I understand, but sometimes he overdoes it.

At least this time you didn't call me a liar. In the other post, you quoted me saying the $75K thing, which is what I noticed, then continued the quote to being about Delly, which I didn't notice, so I reacted to the $75K issue since I was looking right at the posts saying $75K. But you were talking about the second part of the quote. After calling me a liar, you got ME to say I'm sorry. Pretty clever there, maybe I should have fought that more. Well, at least this time, you only phrased the same accusation as, I'm making up stuff. Maybe next time you'll even debate instead of accusing.

What the hell makes you believe that he's trying to turn this organization into a "run-down car"? Or that he plans to be bad for years hoping he hits a homer in the draft? And what exactly are these "opportunities to get better" he turned down? You keep coming up with unsupported claim after unsupported claim to fit your own pessimistic vision.

 

[jlprk]

And what exactly are these "opportunities to get better" he turned down? You keep coming up with unsupported claim after unsupported claim to fit your own pessimistic vision.

For someone who hates my posts, you sure have a poor memory of what they said. Here's the post that probably best answers your question about lost opportunities. It includes the previous time you requested assistance to remember what I'd said.

http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/3688248/

By the way, do you have supported claim after supported claim to fit your own goober vision?

 

[BonesJones]

For someone who hates my posts, you sure have a poor memory of what they said. Here's the post that probably best answers your question about lost opportunities. It includes the previous time you requested assistance to remember what I'd said.

http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/3688248/

By the way, do you have supported claim after supported claim to fit your own goober vision?

All you do is beat around the sad little bush. If you had a solid point you could answer those questions easily, but instead you failed to make a valid point, and posted a link to more failure to make a point. Answer those questions concisely and provide something to back up your claims.

By the way, I don't hate your posts, I just hate the doom-and-gloom, sky-is-falling type of fans

 

[oldmangrouch]

By the way, I don't hate your posts, I just hate the doom-and-gloom, sky-is-falling type of fans

We all have our own coping mechanisms. For some of us, it is just easier to accept that the coming season is going to be brutal and focus on what can be done for the future.

On some level, all sports teams are selling hope. The Blazers really aren't doing a great job of that right now.

 

[BonesJones]

We all have our own coping mechanisms. For some of us, it is just easier to accept that the coming season is going to be brutal and focus on what can be done for the future.

On some level, all sports teams are selling hope. The Blazers really aren't doing a great job of that right now.

I understand if someone's down about not making the playoffs next year. Or if they're down because they feel we won't be good for a few years. I dislike someone making up outlandish shit in order to bash Olshey and the FO. Lies like "he's trying to make us bad for years" and "he's turning down opportunities to make us better" are the things I hate. People that are so pessimistic they feel the need to trash the organization for no reason to make themselves feel better.