Maybe we shouldn't trade Crabbe yet?

[Denny Crane]

Crabbe's PER is now 11.4 and he's shooting .444 from three point range. He's also scoring 11 PPG.

Here's something to consider. If you believe the guy is better than a 11.4 PER kind of player, which I do, he's got to have a lot of really good games to make up for the not so good ones he's already had.

For example, if a player we expect to shoot .500 goes 0-4, then 4-4 shooting, he's .500 in the end. If you freak out about the 0-4 (before the 2nd game), you are making a mistake.

It's still a long ways to go to finish the season. We need lots of wins, and those "4-4 shooting games" are going to be a big help.

 

[HailBlazers]

I have 0 doubt in my mind that he can put up 15-20 ppg on good efficiency if he gets enough touches and PT. It's good for other teams to realize this on his current hot streak.

If we can package some group of Crabbe/Noah/Meyers/Fes/all picks for Whiteside, you do that ASAP.

Why would Miami trade Whiteside? You don't trade a player like him period.

 

[illmatic99]

Why would Miami trade Whiteside? You don't trade a player like him period.

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/n...e-on-the-block-a-look-at-heat-big-mans-value/

 

[Minstrel]

Here's something to consider. If you believe the guy is better than a 11.4 PER kind of player, which I do, he's got to have a lot of really good games to make up for the not so good ones he's already had.

For example, if a player we expect to shoot .500 goes 0-4, then 4-4 shooting, he's .500 in the end. If you freak out about the 0-4 (before the 2nd game), you are making a mistake.

That's not how stats work, that if you expect a player to play at X level and then he underperforms, you should expect him to overperform to reach X in the end. If a player's "true talent level" is X, then X is what should be expected from him, whether or not he's underperformed to this point.

If you think a player is a .500 shooter and he shoots 0-4, the correct expectation for the next 4 shots is 2-2 and not 4-0.

I think Crabbe is roughly an 11-12 PER player, because that's what he's been his whole career. (including last year, his best). That's where he is now, which doesn't surprise me, since an 11-12 PER player dipping to 9-10 PER through random variation isn't particularly unusual. I'd expect such a player to have stretches of being absolutely terrible and some great games. Players aren't metronomes.

If a team is excited by what Crabbe has shown the past few games and wants to trade a positive asset for him, I'd do it and take on the "risk" that Crabbe has suddenly found himself and will be a star scorer for someone else going forward.

 

[Denny Crane]

He's clearly made up for his sub 10 PER start. His 3pt % has also steadily improved.

So the expectation is correct. 4-4 his next 4, not 2-2.

You are confusing odds with expectations.

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

Why would Miami trade Whiteside? You don't trade a player like him period.

Unless you think he doesn't really bring it every night.

 

[GDiama]

I guess it's difficult to play hard every night when you know your team's target is to tank.

 

[handiman]

Why is everyone so high on Whiteside in this thread? Sure, we need a defender and shot blocker, but wouldn't we rather target one who actually makes his team's defensive stats better?

 

[BonesJones]

Crabbe | Plumlee | 2017 POR pick | 2017 CLE pick

Like I said above, that could have a chance but if they trade Whiteside then they are rebuilding and likely wouldn't want to shell out the big bucks that it would take to resign Plums.

Then you could do

TOR Gets: Plumlee
MIA Gets: Poeltl, Crabbe, TOR 17 1st, LAC 17 1st (via TOR), 2017 CLE 1st, 2018 POR 1st
POR Gets: Whiteside

or you could do that trade and instead send Crabbe to Philadelphia and their send a pick or Noel to Miami.

We could also convince them to that trade even more by trading Ezeli for Tyler Johnson soon to balloon contract (as a Crabbe replacement)

 

[Natebishop3]

Wasn't there something about PA personally making sure we matched Crabbe's contract?

If this is the case, he's not going anywhere.

I think that has more to do with Paul not wanting to have another situation where a player left and we got nothing in return. Paul isn't in the habit of losing assets for nothing.

 

[TBpup]

Then you could do

TOR Gets: Plumlee
MIA Gets: Poeltl, Crabbe, TOR 17 1st, LAC 17 1st (via TOR), 2017 CLE 1st, 2018 POR 1st
POR Gets: Whiteside

or you could do that trade and instead send Crabbe to Philadelphia and their send a pick or Noel to Miami.

We could also convince them to that trade even more by trading Ezeli for Tyler Johnson soon to balloon contract (as a Crabbe replacement)

So Toronto gives up two 1st round Draft picks for Plumlee.....who may leave? Even though they are later picks, that seems like a lot on their side.

 

[TBpup]

I think that has more to do with Paul not wanting to have another situation where a player left and we got nothing in return. Paul isn't in the habit of losing assets for nothing.

....except for Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Lopez, Afflalo, Matthews.....and Luis Montero.

 

[BigGameDamian]

Tyson Chandler?

 

[Natebishop3]

....except for Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Lopez, Afflalo, Matthews.....and Luis Montero.

I would disagree with calling Oden an "asset" by the time he left

 

[Minstrel]

He's clearly made up for his sub 10 PER start. His 3pt % has also steadily improved.

It's standard variation. An 11 PER player will naturally vary slightly above and below that.

You are confusing odds with expectations.

Those are the same things, unless you generally expect things to go against the odds.

 

[Minstrel]

I think that has more to do with Paul not wanting to have another situation where a player left and we got nothing in return. Paul isn't in the habit of losing assets for nothing.

We should stop acting like it was rational to give Crabbe the moon because otherwise "we'd lose him for nothing" and "that space was use it or lose it anyway." Unless you think Paul Allen will run an infinite payroll and go way over the luxury tax (which seems clearly untrue, since Portland worked to remain just under it), all the "space" between the cap and the luxury tax is opportunity cost. Portland currently is likely to lose Plumlee "for nothing" because paying him market rate would push them way into the luxury tax. Maybe Allen would do that if Plumlee were Durant, but I doubt he's doing it for Plumlee. If Portland hadn't signed Crabbe, they'd have that space under the luxury tax to re-sign Plumlee even if they wouldn't have conventional cap space.

Plumlee, at least in my opinion, is a significantly better player than Crabbe even if he's no star. But, more to the point, Allen didn't "avoid losing a player for nothing" by matching on Crabbe. He simply chose, via opportunity cost, Crabbe over Plumlee. Unless they do some creative trading, Portland will be losing players for nothing next off-season.

 

[RR7]

We should stop acting like it was rational to give Crabbe the moon because otherwise "we'd lose him for nothing" and "that space was use it or lose it anyway." Unless you think Paul Allen will run an infinite payroll and go way over the luxury tax (which seems clearly untrue, since Portland worked to remain just under it), all the "space" between the cap and the luxury tax is opportunity cost. Portland currently is likely to lose Plumlee "for nothing" because paying him market rate would push them way into the luxury tax. Maybe Allen would do that if Plumlee were Durant, but I doubt he's doing it for Plumlee. If Portland hadn't signed Crabbe, they'd have that space under the luxury tax to re-sign Plumlee even if they wouldn't have conventional cap space.

Plumlee, at least in my opinion, is a significantly better player than Crabbe even if he's no star. But, more to the point, Allen didn't "avoid losing a player for nothing" by matching on Crabbe. He simply chose, via opportunity cost, Crabbe over Plumlee. Unless they do some creative trading, Portland will be losing players for nothing next off-season.

It could very well be that he fought to stay under this year knowing we'd be over next year, and not wanting to pay repeater.

 

[BonesJones]

So Toronto gives up two 1st round Draft picks for Plumlee.....who may leave? Even though they are later picks, that seems like a lot on their side.

Plumlees a RFA, so he wouldn't leave if they kept him. They need a backup C, and Plumlee would be a great get for that team.

 

[Natebishop3]

We should stop acting like it was rational to give Crabbe the moon because otherwise "we'd lose him for nothing" and "that space was use it or lose it anyway." Unless you think Paul Allen will run an infinite payroll and go way over the luxury tax (which seems clearly untrue, since Portland worked to remain just under it), all the "space" between the cap and the luxury tax is opportunity cost. Portland currently is likely to lose Plumlee "for nothing" because paying him market rate would push them way into the luxury tax. Maybe Allen would do that if Plumlee were Durant, but I doubt he's doing it for Plumlee. If Portland hadn't signed Crabbe, they'd have that space under the luxury tax to re-sign Plumlee even if they wouldn't have conventional cap space.

Plumlee, at least in my opinion, is a significantly better player than Crabbe even if he's no star. But, more to the point, Allen didn't "avoid losing a player for nothing" by matching on Crabbe. He simply chose, via opportunity cost, Crabbe over Plumlee. Unless they do some creative trading, Portland will be losing players for nothing next off-season.

I don't think you get to make that determination yet. There are still two scenarios where "giving him the moon" would work out just fine for us.

1) We trade him and get good value in return. In which case, giving him that contract was justified because we ended up getting compensation for him.

2) We keep Crabbe and trade CJ, thus moving Crabbe into the starting role. This is obviously subject to Crabbe playing up to his contract, but if he were to end up being a solid starter, his contact would not seem nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

It is way too early to make any determinations one way or the other.

 

[H.C.]

Sure, this could be an overreaction to the last 3 games or so (and he will never be 90% from the field at any point in a game again) but I think I would hold on to him until at least the off-season. We will extract more from the Nets than any other team imo. Only other team who I think could make it worth our while is Philly in my estimation (which I wouldn't be against depending on the deal - like Noel and at least an early 2nd rounder or Euro stash).

Now Plumlee is a guy I would deal at the deadline for two late 1st or mid-first and an early 2nd. Love the guy but we can't afford him this summer and need to cash in now. I guess the other option is someone like Nurkic but doubt DEN is targeting Mason.

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

It's not so much about affording it, it's that he's going to get overpaid and frankly I think a lot of people don't believe he's worth the pay increase.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

Because we need to improve that position. In signing him, we push ourselves over, thus giving us little room to make any other moves to improve the roster.
Trading him now in a package for a needle mover is more valuable than he is to this roster if we are gonna go over. So if we are gonna go over, then lets to it for something that improves the team nad not keeps us where we are at.
Its a not that we cant, I think its just foolish to do so. UNLESS he is willing to take much less as a backup C for Noel or Whiteside.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

Sure it is technically possible but not realistic. I would have no problem keeping and paying Plumlee provided we traded Crabbe for contracts that totaled 12 MIL less than he makes. That isn't going to happen though. The only team that could even do that (within cap rules) is PHI.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's standard variation. An 11 PER player will naturally vary slightly above and below that.



Those are the same things, unless you generally expect things to go against the odds.

They are not the same things.

Players have hot streaks and cold streaks. Over 82 games (or 162 in baseball), the player ends up at expected stats.

It's not the same things as flipping a coin 82 times, each flip a 50:50 chance. In basketball, some nights players actually do have 100% chance to make baskets (or 90%, etc.). Others they're so cold they go 5-25 or whatever.

 

[Natebishop3]

They are not the same things.

Players have hot streaks and cold streaks. Over 82 games (or 162 in baseball), the player ends up at expected stats.

It's not the same things as flipping a coin 82 times, each flip a 50:50 chance. In basketball, some nights players actually do have 100% chance to make baskets (or 90%, etc.). Others they're so cold they go 5-25 or whatever.

To add to this, the variables are different every night. This is why fantasy football is so popular. You can look at who a player is going against, weather conditions, injury reports, and a myriad of other things to determine who you want to start. The issues are the same with basketball. Some nights the defense will key on one player. Some nights they'll go against a particularly horrible defender. Some nights they will be fighting a nagging injury. If the conditions were 100% the same every night, it might be easier to attribute odds, but it's never 100% the same. Sometimes Stotts will adjust his offense because he believes one of his players will have more success against that team.

 

[oldfisherman]

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

For discussion only, let’s assume the Blazers are right at the LT and re-sign Plumlee to a $15 million per year extension, all of which is in the LT.

The tax on the first $5 million is $7.5 million
The tax on the second $5 million is $8.75 million
The tax on the last $5 million is $12.5 million.

Total LT would be $28.75 million & $15 million salary. Plumlee would cost the Blazers $43.75 million his first season on a new contract.

The second season and beyond, the repeater tax kicks in. Plumlee’s contract would cost an additional $15 million in repeater tax for a total of $58.75 million per season.

Lots of assumptions in this example, but hope this gives you an idea of what might happen, and why something has to happen to make re-signing Plumlee a good business decision.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

For discussion only, let’s assume the Blazers are right at the LT and re-sign Plumlee to a $15 million per year extension, all of which is in the LT.

The tax on the first $5 million is $7.5 million
The tax on the second $5 million is $8.75 million
The tax on the last $5 million is $12.5 million.

Total LT would be $28.75 million & $15 million salary. Plumlee would cost the Blazers $43.75 million his first season on a new contract.

The second season and beyond, the repeater tax kicks in. Plumlee’s contract would cost an additional $15 million in repeater tax for a total of $58.75 million per season.

Lots of assumptions in this example, but hope this gives you an idea of what might happen, and why something has to happen to make re-signing Plumlee a good business decision.

And to be even more precise, per Spotrac, as of this moment, the Blazers are just under $14M over the projected tax line for the 2017-2018 season, which puts them in the 2.5x tax bracket, or a total tax charge of $25.9M ($7.5 for the first $5M over, $8.75M for the next $5M, and $9.66 for the final $3.86M over the tax line).

If Plumlee is re-signed at that same $15M/year suggested above, then we're now looking at being about $29M over the tax line, putting them in the 4.25x tax bracket, resulting in a tax charge of over $80M ($7.5 for the first $5M over, $8.75M for the next 5, $12.5M for the next 5, $16.25M for the next 5, $18.75M for the next 5, and $16.4M for the last 3.86M over the tax line).

So without adding any other players, draft picks, etc, keeping Plumlee at market rate next year could easily cost 70 million dollars. For a single year. There is no universe in which he is worth that kind of expenditure.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't think you get to make that determination yet. There are still two scenarios where "giving him the moon" would work out just fine for us.

Yes, there are eventualities in which the contract is fine. I wasn't arguing that there was no way Crabbe could live up to the deal. I was arguing against, "Matching carried zero cost because that space was 'use it or lose it.' " It still carried an opportunity cost unless, as RR7 suggests, Allen is perfectly willing to go well over the tax line for Plumlee and others. If, in fact, Allen has an infinite payroll, then sure, matching doesn't really matter. I doubt he does, but we'll see.

 

[Minstrel]

They are not the same things.

Players have hot streaks and cold streaks.

Of course they do--that's statistical variance. That doesn't mean that if a player underperforms for half a season, you should then expect overperformance in the second half to "even things out." If Crabbe is, let's say, a "true talent" 20 PER player (I don't think he is, obviously, but for the sake of argument)--the fact that he played at a 10 PER level for the first ~50% of the season doesn't mean we should now expect him to play at close to a 30 PER level for the second half to get to 20 PER by the end of the season. We should expect him to play at a 20 PER level in the second half. The first half is lost and will just hurt his season numbers.

Personally, I think Crabbe is an 11-12 PER player and he played a bit below that level for most of this first half. That wouldn't be anything unusual--players always vary a bit from their average over time, both up and down.

It's always possible for an athlete to jump to a new level of performance. If he's simply gotten much better than his past career numbers suggest (and, at his age, it wouldn't be shocking), then he might have a stronger second half. Not to "even out" underperformance but because he got better.

 

[H.C.]

It's not so much about affording it, it's that he's going to get overpaid and frankly I think a lot of people don't believe he's worth the pay increase.

That's completely logical, to think he's not worth the pay increase. I'm not even a big fan of Plumlee, never have been.
But people are saying Portland can't afford it all over these boards... When they technically can.
NBA isn't the NFL where a cap means you're screwed. NBA has a soft & a hard cap. One can be exceeded, while the other can't be for any reason.

Because we need to improve that position. In signing him, we push ourselves over, thus giving us little room to make any other moves to improve the roster.
Trading him now in a package for a needle mover is more valuable than he is to this roster if we are gonna go over. So if we are gonna go over, then lets to it for something that improves the team nad not keeps us where we are at.
Its a not that we cant, I think its just foolish to do so. UNLESS he is willing to take much less as a backup C for Noel or Whiteside.

Without a new contract for Plumlee Portland is right at the soft cap or already over. Contracts will have to be close to matching regardless.
According to sporac there is a 26k difference before Portland hits the soft cap.(if I read that correctly)
I think it would be more foolish to let him walk for nothing.
Which until there are trade announced, the only thing that is 100% on the table is resign, or walk.
I'd trade Plumlee, but not due to his pending new contract. Due to the fact that I don't believe you can win a championship with him in the rotation.

For discussion only, let’s assume the Blazers are right at the LT and re-sign Plumlee to a $15 million per year extension, all of which is in the LT.
The tax on the first $5 million is $7.5 million
The tax on the second $5 million is $8.75 million
The tax on the last $5 million is $12.5 million.
Total LT would be $28.75 million & $15 million salary. Plumlee would cost the Blazers $43.75 million his first season on a new contract.
The second season and beyond, the repeater tax kicks in. Plumlee’s contract would cost an additional $15 million in repeater tax for a total of $58.75 million per season.
Lots of assumptions in this example, but hope this gives you an idea of what might happen, and why something has to happen to make re-signing Plumlee a good business decision.

Letting a productive player walk for nothing, or trading him for peanuts is a bad business decision.
However
It's not about good or bad business decisions.
It's about weather or not Portland has the $ to resign him if they want to.(which was my original question)

Due to the soft cap, and hard cap of the NBA. Portland is able to resign Plumlee if they want to. They have the available money to do so.
People are up in arms about the LT, however no one on this board knows if Allen is willing to pay it or isn't.
Portland has a history of not wanting players to leave for nothing, or so that's what has been reported.
I'd say that is more telling of what will happen if Plumlee isn't traded and Portland has the option of to let him walk, or max.