Lillard supermax would screw us

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Portland2014 said:
GTFO my thread then, you are not the depositary of the Blazers fan base.

You are not a better Blazers fan than me, you have not the autority to judge others.

I root for the Trail Blazers, i will root for ever for this franchise WITH OR WITHOUT LILLARD.

I'm afraid A LOT OF PEOPLE are Lillard groupies, not Trail Blazers fans.
Click to expand...

I judge at my discretion. And I revoke your fanhood.
 
Duckhook said:
Sam Walmart just rolled over in his grave...
Click to expand...

Walmart is one of the worst companies around. Just check their reviews of employee treatment and lack of customer service and quality.

Edit: Also, by and large they are not a producer of a product. They are a distributor. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
Well I don't think any players worth that much especially a game there supposed to love so much. I know there trying to make living but most these star players are already secured for the rest of there lifes with money just by endorsements only.
 
Orion Bailey said:
But in economics, that doesn't really work in the long run. It sounds good in theory, but its deceptive. "Lower the costs and sell more, you make more money".
Wrong.
Selling more product, means the manufacturing of more product, which means more labor costs and possible expansion costs. The lowering of the price often does not compensate for the added costs required to keep up with the higher demand. The quality of service and product almost always drop.

Most economics will tell you, its better to provide a higher level of quality at a premium price to select customers, than to spread yourself thin for more sales.
Click to expand...
So I think sometimes we (this is a general thing and includes me, but definitely not everyone) make the mistake of going on Basketball reference and judging a players worth. Or judging what a players worth based on what the team accomplished with them. When there's more to it. I think part of what makes some guys get contracts worth more than what it looks like they deserve (on the court), is because of theres a lot more to it. Their's fit, there's personality, there is marketability, we tend to think of a team as Win's and Losses, and that's all that is important, but for professional leagues/franchises, it's more than that and sometimes a lot more to it. Teams are in it to make money, and yes winning definitely helps, but there are 29 teams every year who don't win a championship and those teams still have to find ways to fill seats, to sell merch, to get people to turn on their TV, they have to get people in the locker room who are likable.

In Dame's situation he will likely have the best Blazer career, represent the franchise better than all the others in consideration, have had some playoff success even if no rings, and will keep people interested much more than trading him for assets and hope. There is a very good chance that paying 34-35-year-old Dame is a "negative contract" in terms of basketball considerations, but paying him has positives, shows other stars that hey if I go to Portland and I'm successful I will get paid.

I completely understand the hesitation of paying really anyone a super-max, it's a lot of money, and basketball-wise it can create struggles to fill out the roster, but there are ways to do it. Look at Houston, they "could" have multiple max guys, does that mean they win a championship? No. It does mean that people in Houston will be paying attention though.
 
Last edited:
Giving Dame the supermax is the correct move in a broken system.

The faulty CBA is screwing the Blazers, and the entire NBA, on many levels.

This is what happens when young superstars that can not balance a checkbook have too much power negotiating the $3+ billion CBA.
 
oldfisherman said:
Giving Dame the supermax is the correct move in a broken ststem.

The faulty CBA is screwing the Blazers, and the entire NBA, on many levels.

This is what happens when young superstars that can not balance a checkbook have too much power negotiating the $3+ billion CBA.
Click to expand...

The CBA is a 50/50 revenue split with the owners.

The NBA truly is a stars league.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
So I think sometimes we (this is a general thing and includes me, but definitely not everyone) make the mistake of going on Basketball reference and judging a players worth. Or judging what a players worth based on what the team accomplished with them. When there's more to it. I think part of what makes some guys get contracts worth more than what it looks like they deserve (on the court), is because of theres a lot more to it. Their's fit, there's personality, there is marketability, we tend to think of a team as Win's and Losses, and that's all that is important, but for professional leagues/franchises, it's more than that and sometimes a lot more to it. Teams are in it to make money, and yes winning definitely helps, but there are 29 teams every year who don't win a championship and those teams still have to find ways to fill seats, to sell merch, to get people to turn on their TV, they have to get people in the locker room who are likable.

In Dame's situation he will likely have the best Blazer career, represent the franchise better than all the others in consideration, have had some playoff success even if no rings, and will keep people interested much more than trading him for assets and hope. There is a very good chance that paying 34-35-year-old Dame is a "negative contract" in terms of basketball considerations, but paying him has positives, shows other stars that hey if I go to Portland and I'm successful I will get paid.

I completely understand the hesitation of paying really anyone a super-max, it's a lot of money, and basketball-wise it can create struggles to fill out the roster, but there are ways to do it. Look at Houston, they "could" have multiple max guys, does that mean they win a championship? No. It does mean that people in Houston will be paying attention though.
Click to expand...

oh, i get all that and I'm not saying the team shouldn't offer it.

Im saying Dame should return the offer with this...
“If i take less than max, what would you do with the money to help us win?”
 
Orion Bailey said:
But in economics, that doesn't really work in the long run. It sounds good in theory, but its deceptive. "Lower the costs and sell more, you make more money".
Wrong.
Selling more product, means the manufacturing of more product, which means more labor costs and possible expansion costs. The lowering of the price often does not compensate for the added costs required to keep up with the higher demand. The quality of service and product almost always drop.

Most economics will tell you, its better to provide a higher level of quality at a premium price to select customers, than to spread yourself thin for more sales.
Click to expand...
If you are in a niche market where you can demand a higher price, usually the cost is more too, sure.
But most markets in order to thrive and survive you can negotiate business based on a level of commitment. If you need to lower your margin a bit to compete for some decent volume it could make since.
If the Blazers want to be relevant and compete in their Country Club niche market, the NBA, they must invest, but a decent team on the table (doesnt have to be a championship team) with players and the organization marketing the brand, they can thrive & survive. Dame and the Organization have done well at this. And Nurkic, & CJ.
 
If you just look at the numbers of the salary they do indeed look bad. I believe it was @wizenheimer who posted in the last Dame Super Max thread that when you break it down by percentage of the salary cap it's really not that much more than the percentage he's making now.

For those opposed to giving Dame this contract, since the salary cap became a thing what opportunities have there been with cap space that not paying Dame would provide? The answer is there is literally no scenario in which this franchise would be better off with cap space instead of Dame. If we're gonna add more talent to Dame it will always be through the draft, trades, and value free agent signings. Those options will be there whether Dame makes $10 million or $100 million.

Besides, next summer the Blazers could have Dame locked up long term and cap space. So basically some of you are arguing that we should wait another 3 off seasons from now to add pieces? If we don't add the talent to win in the next two summers then why would anyone think we are missing out on an opportunity in 2021?

Draft
Trades
Value Free Agents
 
Orion Bailey said:
oh, i get all that and I'm not saying the team shouldn't offer it.

Im saying Dame should return the offer with this...
“If i take less than max, what would you do with the money to help us win?”
Click to expand...
I'm sorry @Orion Bailey but this just wreaks of not knowing how the cap works. If Dame takes 10 million less per year we don't necessarily get that money to spend on someone else.
 
Orion Bailey said:
But in economics, that doesn't really work in the long run. It sounds good in theory, but its deceptive. "Lower the costs and sell more, you make more money".
Wrong.
Selling more product, means the manufacturing of more product, which means more labor costs and possible expansion costs. The lowering of the price often does not compensate for the added costs required to keep up with the higher demand. The quality of service and product almost always drop.

Most economics will tell you, its better to provide a higher level of quality at a premium price to select customers, than to spread yourself thin for more sales.
Click to expand...
The cap in the NBA is nothing more than a govenor on an engine, to control a certain rpm/torque, in order to keep things safe for the operator. But you can by pass governor on an engine and get more revs and horsepower in most cases. You still have to be careful, but your going to kick ass on anyone racing you with a governed engine. It's happening now in the NBA with several teams willing to go way over the cap and even pay the penalty. They have ways to cover that cost or right it off. Call it, an elite level country club dues.
 
Portland2014 said:
Lillard's supermax salary at:
21-22: $41.3M
22-23: $44.6M
23-24: $47.9M
24-25: $51.2M
25-26: $54.5M

Total: $239.5M

He'll be 35 when that contract expires

I would hand this type of contract only to the likes of Curry, Antetokoumpo, LeBron, Kawhi and Durant,

and even for them it would be risky, it takes just one ACL to completely fuck 5 years of the franchise.

People will appeal to how good he is for the community and blablabla but giving him this contract would be a HUGE mistake, and i'll be here when people will realize it.
Click to expand...

what's being talked is an extension, and that would only be for 4 years. So then, using your numbers above (I don't know they are correct), it would be a 4-year/185M extension (it seems I saw somewhere it was somewhere over 190M)

what's funny about the panic about this is that I believe people are either losing their perspective, or they don't like Lillard

by perspective, I mean this: only a blithering idiot would argue that Dame doesn't deserve a max extension. The tripwire apparently is attaching 'super' in front of max. So then, say that the cap in 2021-22 is 121M. Seems reasonable given the current cap and projections. Dame on a max deal would be eligible for 30% of the cap giving him a 1st year salary of 36.3M with annual raises of 2.9M. That would be a 4-year/162.6M deal which is 40.65M/year

so then, going back to YOUR numbers, Dame's super-max is 46.25M/year while his standard max would be 40.65M. In other words, you're losing your shit about 5.6M/year when the full-MLE would be over 10M, the tax-MLE would be 6.4M and the tax line would be over 150M.

If that differential actually "screws" the Blazers as you're projecting, they will be because they are managed by morons

and as far as Dame accepting less that his max to help the team...he already did that with his last contract

I'm not worried at all about Dame making 46-49M a year on a supermax. I am worried about Olshey giving CJ 40M/year on a max deal
 
This is the first thread I read when I try and come out of retirement???

giphy.gif
 
I think he deserves every bit of that money and we can still draft and trade for guys that can make this team even better than we were this last season. Rumor is that we're working on an extension for CJ as well at much less money than Dame. We have expiring contracts that can be used to acquire a player that fits our team with a longer deal. We have five guys on rookie deals. The team is set up for success with Dame and his supermax as the cornerstone of that success.
 
Last edited:
No problem with this at all, now if CJ gets maxed I will tweak.
 
Also I don’t see anyway this screws us since when it kicks in our starting lineup will be.....

Dame
Simons
Little
Collins
Nurk

:)
 
Oh, no. So screwed we are.

Not.
 
Portland2014 said:
If Lillard really likes Portland and is REALLY commited to winning he should take less.

He already makes a shit tons of money from Adidas and others.

If he wants the full max he is just trolling us with all that loyalty things, he just loves Portland because it pays him more.
Click to expand...
Who is this?
WTF?
 
hoopsjock said:
I'm sorry @Orion Bailey but this just wreaks of not knowing how the cap works. If Dame takes 10 million less per year we don't necessarily get that money to spend on someone else.
Click to expand...

We dont necessarily? Or we dont?

If its possible to do so, the. I say you do just that. There is kanter aT 10 mill right there.
 
oldfisherman said:
Giving Dame the supermax is the correct move in a broken system.

The faulty CBA is screwing the Blazers, and the entire NBA, on many levels.

This is what happens when young superstars that can not balance a checkbook have too much power negotiating the $3+ billion CBA.
Click to expand...

It really is this in a nutshell. Cp3 helped make this reality so superstars could team up instead of compete against each other.
The negotiated rules have really put it to the smaller cities ability to acquire and keep stars.
 
Do you guys realize that in the summer of 2021 we could have had A TON of cap to SIGN A MAX CONTRACT AND THEN RE-SIGN LILLARD, CJ AND NURKIC?

But instead Lillard couldn't wait and signed his contract now.

DO YOU CALL THAT LOVE FOR PORTLAND? DO YOU CALL THAT WANTING TO WIN?

NO, IT'S JUST OPPORTUNISM.
 
Portland2014 said:
Do you guys realize that in the summer of 2021 we could have had A TON of cap to SIGN A MAX CONTRACT AND THEN RE-SIGN LILLARD, CJ AND NURKIC?

But instead Lillard couldn't wait and signed his contract now.

DO YOU CALL THAT LOVE FOR PORTLAND? DO YOU CALL THAT WANTING TO WIN?

NO, IT'S JUST OPPORTUNISM.
Click to expand...

We can still have max contract available in 2021. Don't we? Let's see what we do with it. Or then you ll say we needed 2 or 3 because only one doesn't work? Maybe 15 max slots are enough for you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
NBA free agency 2025: Who could be the league's first $82M player?
Replies
5
Views
382
tlongII
tlongII
PtldPlatypus
Zach Lowe's 30 Crazy Predictions (2 Blazer-related)
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
THE HCP
THE HCP
Portland2014
This one will hurt
Replies
28
Views
2K
wizenheimer
wizenheimer
OR-84
Blazers....What If? Draft Edition
3 4 5
Replies
147
Views
6K
OR-84
OR-84
¹²³
Merged: Bill Simmons: NBA trade value rankings [Blazers Players]
Replies
29
Views
2K
LittleAlex
L

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top