It will be easier to make trades this summer

[Natebishop3]

But I thought "it's stupid to let 'assets' go for nothing" which is why it was absolutely crucial Portland overpaid Crabbe and Meyers?

Have a meme to resolve that?

It IS stupid to let assets go for nothing.... which is why we traded Plumlee for a younger center who actually has an offensive game.

 

[Minstrel]

It IS stupid to let assets go for nothing.... which is why we traded Plumlee for a younger center who actually has an offensive game.

Yeah, but you were saying Portland wouldn't/shouldn't have re-signed him even had he not been traded.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

and d

and did Kyle Korver ever make the kind of money Crabbe is making in ANY CBA environment? He made SIX mil per the past 4 years - as a % of the cap that is WAY less then Crabbe gets - do the math

1) Now you're changing your argument
2) I agree that matching Crabbe was controversial, but the jury is still out on that one.
3) Re: "Do the Math" - STFU

 

[Blazinaway]

1) Now you're changing your argument
2) I agree that matching Crabbe was controversial, but the jury is still out on that one.
3) Re: "Do the Math" - STFU

why should I STFU,LOL, cause you can'r refute it, he way fukkin overpaid for the player he currently is and I don't care how you try to slice it

 

[Natebishop3]

Yeah, but you were saying Portland wouldn't/shouldn't have re-signed him even had he not been traded.

Wrong. You said we had to let Plumlee go because we couldn't afford him as a result of the contracts from last summer. I'm saying he was never going to be worth the contract in the first place. It didn't matter if we could afford him or not. So I have been saying we need to trade Plumlee since last summer (you can look it up.)

 

[Minstrel]

Wrong. You said we had to let Plumlee go because we couldn't afford him as a result of the contracts from last summer. I'm saying he was never going to be worth the contract in the first place. It didn't matter if we could afford him or not.

Right, so you were saying, in the absence of a trade, that Portland shouldn't be extending him (therefore, being able to afford him didn't matter).

 

[Denny Crane]

space and flexibility are two vastly different things.

Exactly.

What is this "cap flexibility" thing? I've never heard of it.

If you are within $1 of the cap, you need an exception of some kind to go over. I'm talking cap, not the luxury tax threshold, which is much higher than the cap. You can make a trade, but only for a player who is relatively close in salary to the one you're sending out.

If we were $1 under the cap, we couldn't sign a FA for more than the MLE or BAE or vet minimum. That's not much flexibility.

But if you have $1 less than the LT in salaries, you have all that flexibility - to trade contracts of assorted sizes, no matter how much over the cap you are (but under the LT).

 

[Natebishop3]

Right, so you were saying, in the absence of a trade, that Portland shouldn't be extending him (therefore, being able to afford him didn't matter).

In absence of a trade, Plumlee could break his knee in half because he was playing too much DDR. Or maybe he would decide that he wants to go into male modeling. That's not the point of this discussion.

We are debating why the Blazers didn't keep Plumlee. You attributed it to the contracts that were signed and I'm attributing it to the fact that they were never going to keep him in the first place. If he had gotten to free agency, I suspect they would have let him walk, but he didn't. Neil did the right thing and traded him for valuable assets.

 

[Denny Crane]

We didn't keep Plums because we traded him for a much better player.

If that deal wasn't there to be had, maybe Neil would sign him in the summer at a huge price. We'll never know.

 

[Minstrel]

We are debating why the Blazers didn't keep Plumlee.

No, we aren't actually. That was never my point. I wasn't saying that Olshey made the trade only because he couldn't afford Plumlee. I was saying that if a trade had not materialized (trades are never guaranteed, even if you want to move a guy), Portland would have had to let Plumlee go because of those contracts. And while Plumlee may or may not be worth what he'll get, he's more worth the money than Crabbe or Leonard is.

Also, I provided another example--that Portland couldn't enter the Noel bidding, because they couldn't possibly have afforded to re-sign him. Again, the point is not whether you believe they should have gone after him or not. Pretend Noel is a player you actually would like (if you don't like him). My point should be clear: you DO have opportunity cost by overpaying Crabbe and Leonard, even if that wasn't cap space you could roll over to the next season.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, we aren't actually. That was never my point. I wasn't saying that Olshey made the trade only because he couldn't afford Plumlee. I was saying that if a trade had not materialized (trades are never guaranteed, even if you want to move a guy), Portland would have had to let Plumlee go because of those contracts. And while Plumlee may or may not be worth what he'll get, he's more worth the money than Crabbe or Leonard is.

Also, I provided another example--that Portland couldn't enter the Noel bidding, because they couldn't possibly have afforded to re-sign him. Again, the point is not whether you believe they should have gone after him or not. Pretend Noel is a player you actually would like (if you don't like him). My point should be clear: you DO have opportunity cost by overpaying Crabbe and Leonard, even if that wasn't cap space you could roll over to the next season.

Au contraire, mon frere.

NO could clear enough salary under the LT to sign Plums, if that's what he wanted to do.

NO could clear enough salary under the LT to re-sign Noel, if that's what he wanted to do.

 

[Minstrel]

Au contraire, mon frere.

NO could clear enough salary under the LT to sign Plums, if that's what he wanted to do.

NO could clear enough salary under the LT to re-sign Noel, if that's what he wanted to do.

You and I have very different opinions on how tradeable those contracts are. If you think Crabbe, Turner and Leonard are extremely tradeable contracts, fine, we disagree. I've had those debates plenty of times, with you and others. I was arguing a different point, that the space between the cap and luxury tax was "use it or lose it." It wasn't--there were other ways Portland could have used it rather than re-sign Crabbe and Leonard. Even if you think those were the right moves, it's certainly false to say that the space could only have been used for those players.

 

[Denny Crane]

You and I have very different opinions on how tradeable those contracts are. If you think Crabbe, Turner and Leonard are extremely tradeable contracts, fine, we disagree. I've had those debates plenty of times, with you and others. I was arguing a different point, that the space between the cap and luxury tax was "use it or lose it." It wasn't--there were other ways Portland could have used it rather than re-sign Crabbe and Leonard. Even if you think those were the right moves, it's certainly false to say that the space could only have been used for those players.

Of course they're tradable. We have 3 #1 picks to sweeten deals if the worst is true about how tradable our players are.

Without salary cap exceptions, or already being over the cap and trading players for like salary, there are only ways to get over the cap by tiny increments.

 

[Minstrel]

Without salary cap exceptions, or already being over the cap and trading players for like salary, there are only ways to get over the cap by tiny increments.

Like re-signing other free agents of one's own, like Plumlee if Olshey hadn't been able to find a good trade, or trading for someone who's cheap now but due a big salary jump extension, like Noel. Those aren't tiny increments.

The only way that space between the cap and the luxury tax was "use it or lose it" was if this season was the last one the franchise was ever going to play.

 

[Natebishop3]

No, we aren't actually. That was never my point. I wasn't saying that Olshey made the trade only because he couldn't afford Plumlee. I was saying that if a trade had not materialized (trades are never guaranteed, even if you want to move a guy), Portland would have had to let Plumlee go because of those contracts. And while Plumlee may or may not be worth what he'll get, he's more worth the money than Crabbe or Leonard is.

Also, I provided another example--that Portland couldn't enter the Noel bidding, because they couldn't possibly have afforded to re-sign him. Again, the point is not whether you believe they should have gone after him or not. Pretend Noel is a player you actually would like (if you don't like him). My point should be clear: you DO have opportunity cost by overpaying Crabbe and Leonard, even if that wasn't cap space you could roll over to the next season.

We might have had to let Plumlee go regardless. Meyers got 9 million last year. I have no idea what the market will be this year. Will teams tighten their belts? Maybe. Maybe they won't. I don't know yet what will happen, but Plumlee was a bargain at his current price. His limitations as a player would make it extremely difficult to swallow a large pay increase.

I still think Crabbe is tradable with his current contract, and getting something out of him is still better than getting nothing and letting him walk. The jury is still out. If we are either unable to trade him this summer, or unable to make a move that brings him into the starting lineup, then I will concede that the decision was probably a bad one, but I do not think the contracts of Crabbe/ Leonard were the dictating factor on whether we would have kept Plumlee.

I do not believe that Paul would pass on an upgrade because of the financials. If we wanted Noel, we could have made a move for Noel. I don't think the money would have changed their minds. And if we HAD traded for Noel, why couldn't we have cleared cap before free agency to make his contract more palatable?

 

[Denny Crane]

Like re-signing other free agents of one's own, like Plumlee if Olshey hadn't been able to find a good trade, or trading for someone who's cheap now but due a big salary jump extension, like Noel. Those aren't tiny increments.

The only way that space between the cap and the luxury tax was "use it or lose it" was if this season was the last one the franchise was ever going to play.

We got over the cap by resigning our free agents. NO could go over the LT to re-sign Plums if he were to choose that route. Or he could clear the salary space by trading the players you say he shouldn't have signed. If we didn't sign those guys, we'd have gone from a surprise 44 win team to one that shed several contributing players in exchange for vet minimums. All to carry a boatload of unused cap space. That's a rather silly strategy.

Trading for a cheap contract that turns into a Bird extension to go over the cap is still an exception, as I said.

If anything, maybe YOU overvalue Plums. I liked him fine, but never saw him as much more than a reserve getting lots of PT for lack of anyone else. To pay him some outrageous amount at the expense of those we kept would have been terrible.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

We might have had to let Plumlee go regardless...Plumlee was a bargain at his current price. His limitations as a player would make it extremely difficult to swallow a large pay increase.

I still think Crabbe is tradable with his current contract, and getting something out of him is still better than getting nothing and letting him walk.

I guess I don't see the logic that says that paying Crabbe $18M+/year this past summer made sense, but paying Plumlee something similar this coming summer would not. Plumlee seems significantly less "limited" than Crabbe.

 

[Denny Crane]

We might have had to let Plumlee go regardless. Meyers got 9 million last year. I have no idea what the market will be this year. Will teams tighten their belts? Maybe. Maybe they won't. I don't know yet what will happen, but Plumlee was a bargain at his current price. His limitations as a player would make it extremely difficult to swallow a large pay increase.

I still think Crabbe is tradable with his current contract, and getting something out of him is still better than getting nothing and letting him walk. The jury is still out. If we are either unable to trade him this summer, or unable to make a move that brings him into the starting lineup, then I will concede that the decision was probably a bad one, but I do not think the contracts of Crabbe/ Leonard were the dictating factor on whether we would have kept Plumlee.

I do not believe that Paul would pass on an upgrade because of the financials. If we wanted Noel, we could have made a move for Noel. I don't think the money would have changed their minds. And if we HAD traded for Noel, why couldn't we have cleared cap before free agency to make his contract more palatable?

Wing players are going to be a valued commodity this summer.

 

[craigehlo]

I do not believe that Paul would pass on an upgrade because of the financials. If we wanted Noel, we could have made a move for Noel. I don't think the money would have changed their minds. And if we HAD traded for Noel, why couldn't we have cleared cap before free agency to make his contract more palatable?

Yea, I doubt he would have received a huge contract seeing has how cool the trade market was for him up to the deadline. They could have cleared cap to make it work. I think they want a PF that can both shoot and defend and they are probably going to loo for it with their own pick in the draft. Noel has had plenty of time to show the league what he can do, and the answer was a resounding "meh."

 

[e_blazer]

You and I have very different opinions on how tradeable those contracts are. If you think Crabbe, Turner and Leonard are extremely tradeable contracts, fine, we disagree. I've had those debates plenty of times, with you and others. I was arguing a different point, that the space between the cap and luxury tax was "use it or lose it." It wasn't--there were other ways Portland could have used it rather than re-sign Crabbe and Leonard. Even if you think those were the right moves, it's certainly false to say that the space could only have been used for those players.

Who says that those are the players the Blazers plan to trade? I think there's a good possibility that it's CJ that is planned to be used this summer as trade bait to bring back a scoring PF or SF and that the plan is to keep Crabbe and Turner, along with Lillard, in a 3 guard rotation. We've all bloviated around here about how defensively challenged our current pairing of Lillard and CJ is. Do we somehow think that the Blazers haven't noticed this as well? By waiting until CJ's PPP is gone, they open up a whole universe of highly-paid players that he can be traded for. Do that and use the draft picks this summer to grab some real prospects to groom for the future and things could well be on the upswing by next fall.

 

[Minstrel]

We might have had to let Plumlee go regardless. Meyers got 9 million last year. I have no idea what the market will be this year. Will teams tighten their belts? Maybe. Maybe they won't. I don't know yet what will happen, but Plumlee was a bargain at his current price. His limitations as a player would make it extremely difficult to swallow a large pay increase.

I still think Crabbe is tradable with his current contract, and getting something out of him is still better than getting nothing and letting him walk. The jury is still out. If we are either unable to trade him this summer, or unable to make a move that brings him into the starting lineup, then I will concede that the decision was probably a bad one, but I do not think the contracts of Crabbe/ Leonard were the dictating factor on whether we would have kept Plumlee.

I do not believe that Paul would pass on an upgrade because of the financials. If we wanted Noel, we could have made a move for Noel. I don't think the money would have changed their minds. And if we HAD traded for Noel, why couldn't we have cleared cap before free agency to make his contract more palatable?

If you think Allen will pay an unlimited amount of money, even when the team is nowhere near title contention, then I agree that it really doesn't matter who they pay or by how much. I just don't think that's plausible. Maybe if the Blazers were the Warriors, with a title in the bag and more titles possible, he'd be willing to spend any amount of money. But for a team that's still well below .500? I doubt it. I doubt he'd have gone into the luxury tax for the likes of Plumlee or Noel (nor would I really blame him for that). I think that, as long as the team isn't a title contender, money will matter. I think Allen will be fine spending up to the luxury tax line, but he isn't going to want to go into the tax and start triggering repeater penalties.

 

[Chris Craig]

 

[BBert]

We've already seen that that's not true. Portland couldn't have kept Plumlee because of those deals, whereas they could have in the absence of them. It also prevented Portland from being serious players for Noel, because there's no way they could afford to extend him. Now, I do think Olshey made a good trade with Plumlee, but the idea that the space between the cap and luxury tax is "use it or lose it, so it's okay to completely waste it" is not true.



The "current market" is over. Analysts like Zach Lowe have been saying that teams over-leveraged (like, uh, one team we know) and are now scrambling to cut costs because they can't afford to sign their own impending free agents. The cap is barely going up, many fewer teams will have major cap space. Last season was unusual and created a bubble--contracts like Crabbe's, Turner's and Leonard's are the equivalent of stock in tech start-ups that were all hype. They're not going to suddenly start looking better with time.

I don't care one iota if the Blazers "couldn't" keep Plumlee due to cap considerations. Trading Plumlee for Nurkic and a pick was a good move, with or without his pending big payday or our cap and luxury tax situation.

 

[Chris Craig]

 

[Minstrel]

Who says that those are the players the Blazers plan to trade? I think there's a good possibility that it's CJ that is planned to be used this summer as trade bait to bring back a scoring PF or SF and that the plan is to keep Crabbe and Turner, along with Lillard, in a 3 guard rotation. We've all bloviated around here about how defensively challenged our current pairing of Lillard and CJ is. Do we somehow think that the Blazers haven't noticed this as well? By waiting until CJ's PPP is gone, they open up a whole universe of highly-paid players that he can be traded for. Do that and use the draft picks this summer to grab some real prospects to groom for the future and things could well be on the upswing by next fall.

Trading McCollum doesn't change much, unless they're dumping his salary which is obviously not going to happen. Presumably, if they trade McCollum, it'll be for similar value, either in another highly-paid star who fits better or else a couple of players who add up to about the same. I don't think it's plausible that the trade McCollum for, like, draft picks or unproven players. That would be tantamount to starting all over in building around Lillard and I don't see the team doing that.

So if they do end up trading McCollum for similar value and similar salary, Portland is still in the same financial situation in terms of building out the rest of their roster as they are now.

 

[BBert]

It IS stupid to let assets go for nothing.... which is why we traded Plumlee for a younger center who actually has an offensive game.

And the body of a defensive big.

 

[Denny Crane]

Trading McCollum doesn't change much, unless they're dumping his salary which is obviously not going to happen. Presumably, if they trade McCollum, it'll be for similar value, either in another highly-paid star who fits better or else a couple of players who add up to about the same. I don't think it's plausible that the trade McCollum for, like, draft picks or unproven players. That would be tantamount to starting all over in building around Lillard and I don't see the team doing that.

So if they do end up trading McCollum for similar value and similar salary, Portland is still in the same financial situation in terms of building out the rest of their roster as they are now.

CJ for Embiid (or Ben Simmons) probably works, because Philly is way under the cap.

Huge difference in salaries. It's not a horrible trade if we were to give up CJ.

 

[BBert]

In absence of a trade, Plumlee could break his knee in half because he was playing too much DDR. Or maybe he would decide that he wants to go into male modeling. That's not the point of this discussion.

We are debating why the Blazers didn't keep Plumlee. You attributed it to the contracts that were signed and I'm attributing it to the fact that they were never going to keep him in the first place. If he had gotten to free agency, I suspect they would have let him walk, but he didn't. Neil did the right thing and traded him for valuable assets.

The Blazers were never going to be a contender with Plumlee as our starting center. Backup, sure. We needed a big body down low with some offensive game. Nurkic is not a sure thing -- no one is -- but I'm glad we're giving him a shot.

 

[Natebishop3]

I guess I don't see the logic that says that paying Crabbe $18M+/year this past summer made sense, but paying Plumlee something similar this coming summer would not. Plumlee seems significantly less "limited" than Crabbe.

Conventional wisdom states:

Guards who can shoot the three > centers who can pass the ball.

Plumlee is talented, but he's a weak defender and a poor scorer. He has no outside shot to speak of. He's not an exceptional rebounder so he doesn't really excel at any of the things that you want in a center.

Crabbe will always have a more marketable skill as a shooter. He's still young. He has good size. There is the illusion that he's a decent defender. If there's a team out there who wants a starting shooting guars, I think we can make a trade.

 

[Minstrel]

CJ for Embiid (or Ben Simmons) probably works, because Philly is way under the cap.

As I said, I doubt Portland is going to trade McCollum for an unproven player like Simmons. Nor do I think any team is going to trade a cheap, emerging star like Embiid for an expensive star in McCollum. Having a star that is currently cheap is a gigantic advantage, because it allows them the cap space to add more salaries around Embiid. They'd give up that advantage by trading him for someone like McCollum.