If KCP/Otto Porter get max deals..

[PtldPlatypus]

Crabbe isn't a free agent.

Remember the last time he was a free agent?

Yep. A team with virtually no assets gave him a ridiculous offer they thought we'd be smart enough to ignore, and we unfortunately weren't.

 

[Scalma]

How much of that is due to differences in their mentalities, though? I've never seen anything in game to suggest that Crabbe doesn't have plenty of opportunity to shoot--he simply doesn't take a lot of the opportunity afforded to him. If he truly is the elite shooter his supporters claim him to be, he should be willing to take significantly more than 8.2 shots per game.

If you want to argue facts, go ahead. Not for me though. I'm good on that.

 

[Scalma]

Yep. A team with virtually no assets gave him a ridiculous offer they thought we'd be smart enough to ignore, and we unfortunately weren't.

Story would be different if he was UNRESTRICTED. Teams would be lining up for him.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Once again, not doing that, because that doesn't reflect his new teammates, system, or chemistry with them. I'm curious how he does with PDX moving forward, nothing else.

Well yeah, that's what matters, but he had great chemistry with his teammates and coaches in BOS and had the best season of his career there. They regretted losing him, but no way in hell we're they going to outbid POR to keep him.

It's insane because he can't play in playoff games. He CANNOT be on the floor despite his amazing defense. And he really can't be in 4th quarters. He is ZBo without the ball. He is a blackhole on offense without having the ball.

He just average 37 MPG in the playoffs with 11.6 PTS/G, 6.2 REB/G, 1.8 AST/G, 2.4 STL/G, 3.4 BLK/G with a PER of 16.2 a TS% of .525 a BLK% of 8.8 and a DBPM of 6.1. Yep, he missed some FTs, as expected, but he did so any other things well he was on the floor for 37 minutes a game and his overall contributions were decidedly positive (BPM = +4.3).

By contrast, Evan Turner played 31 MPG, averaged 10.3 PTS/G, 5.8 REB/G, 3.8 AST/G, 1.8 STL/G, 0.5 BLK/G with a PER of 12.8 a TS% of .512 a BLK% of 1.4 and a DBPM of 5.5. Turner played well in the playoffs, his total contribution was positive (BPM = +2.2), but Roberson played better.

Andre Roberson is a situation player. Evan Turner is not.

Roberson is a starter. Turner is not. Roberson has a clear cut role - guard the other team's best perimeter scorer. What's Turner's role? Is he a SF, a SG or a PG? You can't play him at SF against bigger SFs. You can't play him against quick PGs and you can't really play him at SG because he can't shoot. He's the classic jack of all trades (well except for shooting), master of none. That's why he isn't and won't be a starter in this league. He's average at some things, below average at some, awful at a few and elite at none. At least Roberson is elite at the 50% of the game when the other team has the ball.

BNM

 

[Sweetriverphil]

Yep. A team with virtually no assets gave him a ridiculous offer they thought we'd be smart enough to ignore, and we unfortunately weren't.

Brooklyn wasn't looking out for Portland's best interest. They did their absolute best to get Allen Crabbe. You can certainly argue about how unimpressive he was last season, and you'd be right, but plenty of people around the league believe in Allen Crabbe's potential and not all of them are delusional Blazer fans like me.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Give Crabbe Redicks shots and he'll produce about the same. Redick puts up 6 threes a game, Crabbe less than 4. Redick 11.8 FGA, Crabbe 8.2.

But again, my BBIQ is low.

They play the same minutes (actually, Crabbe plays a fraction more). So, why does Crabbe take so many fewer shots? He's usually the second or 3rd option, when he's in the game. Redick starts and is, at best the third option when he's in the game.

The difference is Crabbe is passive and tentative. He absolutely will not shoot unless he is wide open. Redick is cold blooded and will not hesitate to take a shot with a hand in his face. That's why Redick is a solid starter and Crabbe is a below average 6th man.

BNM

 

[Scalma]

They play the same minutes (actually, Crabbe plays a fraction more). So, why does Crabbe take so many fewer shots? He's usually the second or 3rd option, when he's in the game. Redick starts and is, at best the third option when he's in the game.

The difference is Crabbe is passive and tentative. He absolutely will not shoot unless he is wide open. Redick is cold blooded and will not hesitate to take a shot with a hand in his face. That's why Redick is a solid starter and Crabbe is a below average 6th man.

BNM

Zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Boob-No-More]

Zzzzzzzzzzz

I agree. Crabbe's passive, uninspired play puts me to sleep, too.

BNM

 

[Scalma]

I agree. Crabbe's passive, uninspired play puts me to sleep, too.

BNM

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

Ah yes, the obligatory ad hominem attack. Can't argue the facts attack the poster.

BNM

 

[Scalma]

Ah yes, the obligatory ad hominem attack. Can't argue the facts attack the poster.

BNM

"Absolutely will not shoot unless he is wide open" is not a fact, but keep crying about Crabbe anyway. You'll have another couple of seasons to do so.

 

[Boob-No-More]

"Absolutely will not shoot unless he is wide open" is not a fact, but keep crying about Crabbe anyway. You'll have another couple of seasons to do so.

Ok, then you explain why he plays as many minutes as Redick, plays fewer minutes with the starters, yet take so many fewer shots per game than Redick.

Redick puts up 6 threes a game, Crabbe less than 4. Redick 11.8 FGA, Crabbe 8.2.

Redick is out there starting with CP3 and Blake Griffin, two high USG% all stars, yet he manages to get plenty of shots. Crabbe comes into the game when Dame goes to the bench. He is the 2nd option on offense, yet he can't seem to get many shots. Why is that?

BNM

 

[RipCityDSCPL]

Guess my BBIQ is low then. 25 year old Crabbe > 33 year old Redick. Unless we're only talking about a one year contract, which were obviously not.

Reddick wasn't even available to be signed when Crabbe was so this 'example' is a non starter.

 

[Minstrel]

Crabbe is easily the worst player ever to tear a fanbase apart. On the other hand, Meyers Leonard might be the worst player ever to pull an entire fanbase together. So we have both dynamics working for us.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Brooklyn wasn't looking out for Portland's best interest. They did their absolute best to get Allen Crabbe. You can certainly argue about how unimpressive he was last season, and you'd be right, but plenty of people around the league believe in Allen Crabbe's potential and not all of them are delusional Blazer fans like me.

I think you might have missed my point. I was basically saying that Brooklyn likely didn't believe Crabbe was actually worth the contract they offered him. Because of his RFA status, the only way they could get him is if they gave him a deal that was so ridiculous, the Blazers would say, "Yeah, we like him, but not THAT much!". They believed $75/4 with a 15% kicker to be in that realm of ridiculousness, and they should have been correct.

My point is that the size of his offer sheet wasn't evidence of that being his market value so much as it was evidence of it being far more than his true market value.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Crabbe is easily the worst player ever to tear a fanbase apart. On the other hand, Meyers Leonard might be the worst player ever to pull an entire fanbase together. So we have both dynamics working for us.

Profound.

 

[Sweetriverphil]

Crabbe is easily the worst player ever to tear a fanbase apart. On the other hand, Meyers Leonard might be the worst player ever to pull an entire fanbase together. So we have both dynamics working for us.

I had no idea Allen Crabbe was such a divisive figure. Is it because of his hair?

 

[Minstrel]

I had no idea Allen Crabbe was such a divisive figure. Is it because of his hair?

It's because there's a loud group of people who thinks Crabbe is a very good player who's well worth his salary and a loud group of people who thinks Crabbe is terrible and hugely overpaid. And the arguments light up this forum every week or so.

 

[Sweetriverphil]

I think you might have missed my point. I was basically saying that Brooklyn likely didn't believe Crabbe was actually worth the contract they offered him. Because of his RFA status, the only way they could get him is if they gave him a deal that was so ridiculous, the Blazers would say, "Yeah, we like him, but not THAT much!". They believed $75/4 with a 15% kicker to be in that realm of ridiculousness, and they should have been correct.

My point is that the size of his offer sheet wasn't evidence of that being his market value so much as it was evidence of it being far more than his true market value.

I understand that Brooklyn's offer is unique in the sense that they had money to burn, but they offered that contract in part because they believed that Crabbe had the potential to live up to such a contract. What do you think his "true market value" is by the way?

 

[Sinobas]

And JJ Redick gets 18-20 mill, are Crabbe and Evan Turner really *that* overpaid?

http://nypost.com/2017/06/30/nets-have-30m-in-cap-space-how-they-could-spend-it/

Redick is a lot better then Crabbe and Turner.

It's not just about PA's money. Once you've pad the LT in 3 out of 4 seasons, the CBA has harsh penalties that money can't overcome.

But we start with the tax penalty anyway. At over $20M, a $10M contract for bench player costs the team $47.5M+ in tax. That's a HUGE contract When the LT costs a $billionaire over $100M/season, it's got to hurt.


View attachment 14940

Then there's the reduced size of MLE.

If a team is $4M+ over the LT, they cannot receive players in a S&T. THIS IS HUGE.

Yeah. You want to revise stance you took last offseason that Olshey's signings were wise?

 

[Minstrel]

I understand that Brooklyn's offer is unique in the sense that they had money to burn, but they offered that contract in part because they believed that Crabbe had the potential to live up to such a contract.

That's almost certainly true. But do they still believe that? Another year of no career progression while moving another year closer to his theoretical prime is a relatively big deal when it comes to projecting him forward.

 

[Sweetriverphil]

It's because there's a loud group of people who thinks Crabbe is a very good player who's well worth his salary and a loud group of people who thinks Crabbe is terrible and hugely overpaid. And the arguments light up this forum every week or so.

What about the people who think he's a decent player that has a bad contract but it's not the end of the world?

 

[Minstrel]

What about the people who think he's a decent player that has a bad contract but it's not the end of the world?

You have the flexibility to pick your side in the Crabbe Wars. But pick carefully--the eventual victors may not leave many of the other side alive. Not choosing a side will surely doom you as well.

 

[Pinwheel1]

Roberson is a starter. Turner is not. Roberson has a clear cut role - guard the other team's best perimeter scorer. What's Turner's role? Is he a SF, a SG or a PG? You can't play him at SF against bigger SFs. You can't play him against quick PGs and you can't really play him at SG because he can't shoot. He's the classic jack of all trades (well except for shooting), master of none. That's why he isn't and won't be a starter in this league. He's average at some things, below average at some, awful at a few and elite at none. At least Roberson is elite at the 50% of the game when the other team has the ball.

BNM

So give ET a clear cut role. Have him guard the other team's best perimeter scorer. He is basically the same size as Roberson. What big SF's can he not guard? (Besides the ones no one can cover)

 

[Sweetriverphil]

That's almost certainly true. But do they still believe that? Another year of no career progression while moving another year closer to his theoretical prime is a relatively big deal when it comes to projecting him forward.

I do think he has depressed his value, but he'd still find a deal for at least 15 million a year though I would think.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I understand that Brooklyn's offer is unique in the sense that they had money to burn, but they offered that contract in part because they believed that Crabbe had the potential to live up to such a contract. What do you think his "true market value" is by the way?

If in fact they did think that, it should be noted that it would only have been because his role on their team would have been vastly different than his role on ours (another reason Olshey should not have matched).

As to his true market value--ie, a number at which at least half the league's teams would consider him an asset rather than a liability--I don't think he's really worth any more than around $50/4 (but I'm not a GM, so what do I know?).

 

[Destroyer of Worlds]

Well yeah, that's what matters, but he had great chemistry with his teammates and coaches in BOS and had the best season of his career there. They regretted losing him, but no way in hell we're they going to outbid POR to keep him.



He just average 37 MPG in the playoffs with 11.6 PTS/G, 6.2 REB/G, 1.8 AST/G, 2.4 STL/G, 3.4 BLK/G with a PER of 16.2 a TS% of .525 a BLK% of 8.8 and a DBPM of 6.1. Yep, he missed some FTs, as expected, but he did so any other things well he was on the floor for 37 minutes a game and his overall contributions were decidedly positive (BPM = +4.3).

By contrast, Evan Turner played 31 MPG, averaged 10.3 PTS/G, 5.8 REB/G, 3.8 AST/G, 1.8 STL/G, 0.5 BLK/G with a PER of 12.8 a TS% of .512 a BLK% of 1.4 and a DBPM of 5.5. Turner played well in the playoffs, his total contribution was positive (BPM = +2.2), but Roberson played better.



Roberson is a starter. Turner is not. Roberson has a clear cut role - guard the other team's best perimeter scorer. What's Turner's role? Is he a SF, a SG or a PG? You can't play him at SF against bigger SFs. You can't play him against quick PGs and you can't really play him at SG because he can't shoot. He's the classic jack of all trades (well except for shooting), master of none. That's why he isn't and won't be a starter in this league. He's average at some things, below average at some, awful at a few and elite at none. At least Roberson is elite at the 50% of the game when the other team has the ball.

BNM

Roberson played better against a far worse team. Roberson also played *out of his mind* in the playoffs shooting 42% from 3 (mainly because there weren't rockets players within 10 ft of him when he shot, as they were disrupting everyone else on offense). Admittedly, he did very well on Harden. They still got destroyed due to their inability to score, facilitate or defend. OKC fans and reporters seem to agree. All signs also point to them letting him walk this off-season due to his inability on offense. Your clear cut role doesn't mean jackshit when it puts you so far negative on the offensive side of the ball. Elite defense doesn't make up for high school offense. It takes a historical season from Russ to keep you in contention, kind of like when the Suns guarded Batum with Steve Nash. It was great Batum could defend, but they ignored him on offense and it screwed our entire offense. There are a lot of really good defenders who aren't in the league because they can't make a shot.

Evan Turner' role is to relieve ball handling duties from Dame/CJ, allow them to play off the ball, direct the offense and gives us different lineup combinations while keeping more than 1 primary ballhandler on the court. Also, it's not like he can't shoot. He's not a great 3pt shooter. He is decent midrange. Also, he can take advantage of smaller ballhandlers (I recall him posting up Steph Curry, for instance) and to be honest, not a lot of size at SF that I'm worried about bullying ET. There are only a couple BIG sfs in the league and ET actually competes pretty well vs Durant and LBJ, with the extra juice in the tank I guess.

 

[Sweetriverphil]

As to his true market value--ie, a number at which at least half the league's teams would consider him an asset rather than a liability--

I don't even know what percentage of the league would fit that definition. Unless your team is nothing but rookies with high upside, most teams are full of liabilities.

 

[Destroyer of Worlds]

I think you might have missed my point. I was basically saying that Brooklyn likely didn't believe Crabbe was actually worth the contract they offered him. Because of his RFA status, the only way they could get him is if they gave him a deal that was so ridiculous, the Blazers would say, "Yeah, we like him, but not THAT much!". They believed $75/4 with a 15% kicker to be in that realm of ridiculousness, and they should have been correct.

My point is that the size of his offer sheet wasn't evidence of that being his market value so much as it was evidence of it being far more than his true market value.

I highly doubt this. I bet Brooklyn valued Crabbe, at or above, that price over the contract or else they wouldn't have offered it. They have to consider the fact that if it is such an outrageous offer, they might get stuck with it. They are still a business. With Wes/Millsap, we valued them at a certain price when they were undervalued. We sent a 'toxic' offer. We felt they were worth the 'toxic' offer. Brooklyn, for better or worse, probably felt Crabbe was worth near that value - or else they would be sending the same offer to every player if it was just about throwing out ridiculous RFA offers that they assume will be matched.

Kanter is another player that comes to mind. Olshey made that offer knowing good and well we could end up with him at that salary.

 

[Sinobas]

If I pay $500 for a stick of gum, I didn't over-pay, because I was obviously willing to pay that amount so I paid the market value for it.