Nah, because he said elsewhere that when Bazemore was traded it ended the discussions and he also implied that in what you posted.
Because at one point this year we had 2 open roster spots and no center and still weren't willing to add someone to the roster to compensate for that.
Did you just call me a fool
I think Ariza upgraded the team, but is it fair to say I think the sample size is still kind of small?
Didn't I say someone was lying too. That makes me not believing either one.
Ariza has been a good addition!
It's a top 55 protected, 2024 pick from ATL. FWIW.
We'll see if it "added" flexibility this summer. If they waive Ariza they have $1.8 million against the cap that they didn't before that trade so they would've lost a bit of flexibility. I don't get why you aren't understanding that Cleveland wasn't in the same position to save Portland money that Sacramento was though.
If Skal was traded because he wasn't healthy then fine but trading him and not using the roster spot literally doesn't change how many healthy players the Blazers have available.
That’s why they’re the Cleveland Cavaliers
Because you claim to be one of the experts in the forum and you know what goes on in the Blazers war room.
Would Skal’s cap hold of a little over 7 million going into free agency had any affect on our ability to do trades/use mid level and other exemptions this summer have been a factor in this?
We were prolly offering to take on Henson or Delly in addition, or some other salary filler combos.
Yes, but as mentioned not only would Cleveland be getting nothing for Love (which they weren't willing to do) but that would also make them a luxury tax team when they are one of the worst teams in the league and not getting any incentive to do so. It makes sense from Portland's perspective, unless they wanted to avoid the tax moving forward which getting Love would make very difficult to do.
This opinion is totally fine! I just don't like his health being touted as a main reason for trading him. They saved $2 million to not have Skal be a part of their future plans. That's a financial decision. If Skal was still on the team it wouldn't change any part of your post.
I was pretty neutral on Quick until I heard an interview with him a couple hours after the trade deadline. He couldn't even answer if the Blazers were still in the luxury tax or not after the Skal trade and said he doesn't know much about the cap or how that works.
That all is fine, and Quick usually doesn't float rumors out there.
But once again, Cleveland was not in a position to save the Blazers money like Sacramento was. It doesn't make sense that Portland would've been willing to add salary either given every decision they've made since the season started.
And you frequently post trade rumors that aren't even possible.
Don't overthink this man, it was an offhand comment made in a chat, rehashing something he prolly found out over a month ago.
See I don't get this line of thinking because to me that is just an excuse for mismanaging the cap. Skal had been fine this year, especially considering in my opinion he's more of a PF than a true C. He was often playing C with all guards around him (ironically until the game he got hurt). Not wanting to keep a young athletic big with that skill set who would likely be cheap to re-sign in the off season and still has some potential to pop brings around a whole new set of questions.
Nah man, it bugs me when people who get paid to do this stuff say things that don't make sense and everyone eats it up like it's 100% true.