It will be easier to make trades this summer

[Chris Craig]

 

[Pinwheel1]

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.

This is what it comes down to. Neil and PA are not going to let the Luxury tax get in the way of signing a player they really wanted. Not a player who is a difference maker. They would sign the player and worry about getting under the tax later. Now it could effect getting extra average players, but we have those already.

I just don't think they were sold on Plums or Noel being any better than Nurk. They all have different skill sets, but none of them is ideal.

 

[BBert]

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

QFT

 

[e_blazer]

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.

Who said anything about trading McCollum as a salary dump? Sure, it would be nice if the guy coming back was on a smaller salary, but the main thing is to use CJ to balance out the roster by getting a star at PF or SF. If you're worried about luxury tax implications, that doesn't come into play until a year from now. Obviously, you dump Ezeli's contract. Perhaps you can find trades for Leonard and/or Davis that cut salary. The Blazers could also choose to go ahead and pay LT for one year and give themselves more time to juggle contracts.

 

[Denny Crane]

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.

For several years Philly has followed your strategy, and for several years they've produced among the worst records in the league.

The pressure is on their management now to produce wins. They desperately need a wing scorer/shooter. It wouldn't surprise me if they would take Crabbe off our hands for something good in return.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

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.

Conventional wisdom also states:

If two players are on the same team, and in very similar minutes one has significantly better advanced stats than the other (PER, WS, WS/48, BPM, VORP, Drtg), then that player is probably worth more.

Crabbe has a good TS%, but he really doesn't do anything else better than Plumlee. Positions be damned, Plumlee is simply a better player, and he had a more positive impact on the Blazers' performance than Crabbe did.

EDIT: That said, I'm still happy about the Nurkic deal, and excited to see him play for us the remainder of the season.

 

[Natebishop3]

Conventional wisdom also states:

If two players are on the same team, and in very similar minutes one has significantly better advanced stats than the other (PER, WS, WS/48, BPM, VORP, Drtg), then that player is probably worth more.

Crabbe has a good TS%, but he really doesn't do anything else better than Plumlee. Positions be damned, Plumlee is simply a better player, and he had a more positive impact on the Blazers' performance than Crabbe did.

One was the starter, because who the hell else was going to play those minutes?

One is on the bench, because what chance does he have of playing more minutes than Dame or CJ?

Crabbe has never been given the opportunity to show what he can do. He's a shooting guard on a team that is jam packed with guards. Plumlee's primary competition was Meyers Leonard and Chris Kaman (last season.)

So to summarize, one had zero pressure on him and the other was trying to carve a niche with two ball-dominant combo guards.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

One was the starter, because who the hell else was going to play those minutes?

One is on the bench, because what chance does he have of playing more minutes than Dame or CJ?

Crabbe has never been given the opportunity to show what he can do. He's a shooting guard on a team that is jam packed with guards. Plumlee's primary competition was Meyers Leonard and Chris Kaman (last season.)

You're making my point.

On a team built around Dame/CJ, a player like Plumlee is going to be inherently more valuable than a player like Crabbe, and paying 18M+ to a player like Crabbe is going to make inherently less sense than paying 18M+ to a player like Plumlee.

 

[Minstrel]

For several years Philly has followed your strategy, and for several years they've produced among the worst records in the league.

The pressure is on their management now to produce wins. They desperately need a wing scorer/shooter.

Yeah, I absolutely think they want to start adding payroll and wins. Crabbe, though, is pretty cost-inefficient. We'll see.

 

[Natebishop3]

You're making my point.

On a team built around Dame/CJ, a player like Plumlee is going to be inherently more valuable than a player like Crabbe, and paying 18M+ to a player like Crabbe is going to make inherently less sense than paying 18M+ to a player like Plumlee.

It makes less sense if you're committing to those players long term, which we were not willing to do. I don't think we matched Crabbe's offer because he had that much value to us. We matched that offer because we felt that he had that much value around the league, and we were hoping to be able to trade him at a later date. Neither player was likely in the long term plans for this team.

But Plumlee only had value on his current contract. It's obvious that he was out of his depth. We needed an upgrade. Everyone knew it. Plumlee on a significantly higher contract was NOT more valuable, and not worth the risk of re-signing to hopefully trade later.

 

[Denny Crane]

You're making my point.

On a team built around Dame/CJ, a player like Plumlee is going to be inherently more valuable than a player like Crabbe, and paying 18M+ to a player like Crabbe is going to make inherently less sense than paying 18M+ to a player like Plumlee.

It turned out to be really easy to replace Plums. Not so sure it'd be so easy to replace Crabbe. NO has scored 3 straight Cs from the benches of other teams: RoLo, Plums, and now Nurkic. 3pt shooting wings who hit 43% of their 3s aren't that plentiful. Crabbe is 5th in the NBA in 3pt%, at least one aspect of the game that's "elite." For a C, Plums' assist number is quite good, but hardly "elite."

 

[Minstrel]

Who said anything about trading McCollum as a salary dump?

No one did, I was pointing out that absent that (which, as said, no one has or would suggest), it wouldn't help our financial situation in terms of building around Lillard+Whomever (right now, Whomever is McCollum). So unless you think that one McCollum deal to even out the roster is all the team needs, the team does need to make other moves. That's why the tradeability of those other guys matters.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

But Plumlee only had value on his current contract. It's obvious that he was out of his depth. We needed an upgrade. Everyone knew it. Plumlee on a significantly higher contract was NOT more valuable, and not worth the risk of re-signing to hopefully trade later.

But if Plumlee doesn't have value at a higher number, why exactly do you believe he was going to get paid more than he's worth this coming summer? Crabbe got his insane offer as a 23-year-old bench player because Brooklyn didn't know what kind of player he might be as a starter, and was offering based on potential improvement upon receiving a starting job. Plumlee, however, will be a 26 year old 2 year starter. Teams know who he is, and his perceived ceiling isn't much higher than his current level of play. Any offers he gets this summer will be based on the actual value of what he produces rather than a perceived notion of potential. The idea that he'll be paid far more than what he's worth doesn't jibe with reality.

 

[riverman]

You can't sell high if guys like Crabbe are not winning or putting up numbers consistently...or Meyers or Ed....I think management waited for someone to get out of a slump before the deadline and it didn't really happen. Neil figures he'll get the same type player back in a trade...Crabbe's contract will appeal more to a team next year after we've paid some of it or our guys make the leap the second half of the season and we make deals off season which is what I think we're looking at. Neil and Paul might be targeting the draft more seriously than I thought.

 

[Schilly]

I want to clear something up here. There are 3 ways to acquire players.

#1 Draft
#2 Trades
#3 Free Agency

We know #3 is not a smart thing for Portland to focus on... It just doesn't work. If we use draft picks to sweeten deals to make salary dump trades getting rid of Crabbe, Turner and Leonard then we have taken #1 out of the mix. By bringing in expiring contracts as a means of dumping salary we will have also minimized tradable assets making #2 more difficult, as expiring deals can't be moved after the trade deadline. Best way to fix this mess is to use the picks to bring in the given asset we get each year. Try to consolidate a couple of players by doing a 2 for 1 while taking back a smidge less $$$, maybe use 2nd round picks to sweeten that if you have to. Part of the reason we are in our situation is w don't have enough guys on rookie deals.

 

[e_blazer]

No one did, I was pointing out that absent that (which, as said, no one has or would suggest), it wouldn't help our financial situation in terms of building around Lillard+Whomever (right now, Whomever is McCollum). So unless you think that one McCollum deal to even out the roster is all the team needs, the team does need to make other moves. That's why the tradeability of those other guys matters.

I think one McCollum trade, along with two or three first round picks could put the team in a position to seriously contend in a 2-3 years. Given that Golden State and Cleveland aren't going anywhere anytime soon, I think that's a pretty good timeline.

 

[Natebishop3]

But if Plumlee doesn't have value at a higher number, why exactly do you believe he was going to get paid more than he's worth this coming summer? Crabbe got his insane offer as a 23-year-old bench player because Brooklyn didn't know what kind of player he might be as a starter, and was offering based on potential improvement upon receiving a starting job. Plumlee, however, will be a 26 year old 2 year starter. Teams know who he is, and his perceived ceiling isn't much higher than his current level of play. Any offers he gets this summer will be based on the actual value of what he produces rather than a perceived notion of potential. The idea that he'll be paid far more than what he's worth doesn't jibe with reality.

Plumlee didn't have value to US at a higher number. You were talking about Plumlee having more value on a team built around Dame/CJ, and I was saying that he had more value because of his rookie contract, but that his value would quickly evaporate at a significantly higher number because he didn't fit in the long term plans of the team. I'm sure some team will value him at a higher number this summer. I think he would be fine on a team with a very good power forward. Our frontcourt is just so weak right now. We can't afford to have a shitty power forward AND a one-dimensional center.

 

[riverman]

Trading Plums was a no brainer...we needed a guy like Nurkic ...as much hustle as Plums had...he wasn't good at the end of games that often..he did improve...Plums to me is like losing Rolo....nice guy...has skills...is going to get paid big money soon. Also not that young.

 

[Blazinaway]

Okay, done with the trade deadline and the other stuff, we all have our opinions and have said them. Now we look forward to this afternoons game and hopefully another good showing by Nurk. Also it will be fun looking forward to a draft with 3 1st rdrs, time to spend some time reading up on these guys