Salary minimum

[3RA1N1AC]

At some point, someone will want to dump.

We will be there to eagerly receive that dump.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

At some point, someone will want to dump.

We will be there to eagerly receive that dump.

Eww.

 

[e_blazer]

At some point, someone will want to dump.

We will be there to eagerly receive that dump.

And there's the slogan for this year: "Portland Trail Blazers, Dirty diaper service to the NBA!"

 

[BlazerCaravan]

And there's the slogan for this year: "Portland Trail Blazers, Dirty diaper service to the NBA!"

Poopy Player Scooper Troopers.

 

[riverman]

And there's the slogan for this year: "Portland Trail Blazers, Dirty diaper service to the NBA!"

depends

 

[e_blazer]

depends

Too bad "Charmin" doesn't still play here. He could really clean up.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

12 guys, 1 cap

 

[Sedatedfork]

At some point, someone will want to dump.

We will be there to eagerly receive that dump.

Oliver Twist - style!

 

[andalusian]

I suggested they could take Joe Johnson's $24M expiring contract from the Nets. You get the cap space back in a year as if you signed nobody. And you get a SG/SF who can get his own shot and defend. You probably can get the Nets to cough up something else to sweeten the deal, since you're doing them a huge favor.

If the Blazers can get a pick for it, it might be worth it, otherwise, what is the point? It just makes the Blazer's own pick next year less valuable and takes time from CJ and the band.

 

[e_blazer]

Too bad "Charmin" doesn't still play here. He could really clean up.

I should add, that LMA was always best suited to be the Number 2 option.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

My question is, is there a date it needs to be at 90%? Is it before the season? Is it before the end of NEXT season?

It is before the end of the season. One of the reasons that PHI decided to claim TRob.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

I should add, that LMA was always best suited to be the Number 2 option.

Agreed, he's a solid #2.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yes and I doubt we will have this problem anyway. I believe Olshey intends on spending all the cap

On what? 22 mm is a ton for a couple role players

 

[magnifier661]

On what? 22 mm is a ton for a couple role players

Actually it's 29 mil

 

[Draco]

Hitting the minimum salary is irrelevant strategically. It provides no benefit to the team. It just removes the incentive of cheapskate owners to spend less than 90% of the cap.

The Blazers should focus on the most beneficial way to use cap space. Use it now, or use it at the deadline or use it at next years draft. But if we hit the minimum team salary or not there is no cost or benefit.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Hitting the minimum salary is irrelevant strategically. It provides no benefit to the team. It just removes the incentive of cheapskate owners to spend less than 90% of the cap.

The Blazers should focus on the most beneficial way to use cap space. Use it now, or use it at the deadline or use it at next years draft. But if we hit the minimum team salary or not there is no cost or benefit.

I read somewhere that if we don't hit the minimum then the money is split amongst the roster? IF so, then we absolutely have a benefit of spending the other 22mil. Why give it to existing players when we can get more players to mix and match with?

 

[stampedehero]

Rasta could fill this roster 10 times over with guys I've never heard of...sign Rasta as our Euro scout and we'll have a never ending supply of roster pieces

+> That is smart. He would find gems that could cover the scabs formed from the internal bleeding of a four starter exodus. In another prospective he would find substitutes for the failed players that we just signed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Hitting the minimum salary is irrelevant strategically. It provides no benefit to the team. It just removes the incentive of cheapskate owners to spend less than 90% of the cap.

The Blazers should focus on the most beneficial way to use cap space. Use it now, or use it at the deadline or use it at next years draft. But if we hit the minimum team salary or not there is no cost or benefit.

There is some benefit. Your $5M players should be better than your $1M players, assuming they're known veterans. In other words, there's opportunity cost in not spending the minimum - some more/better players on the roster get a chance to win jobs.

 

[Further]

There is some benefit. Your $5M players should be better than your $1M players, assuming they're known veterans. In other words, there's opportunity cost in not spending the minimum - some more/better players on the roster get a chance to win jobs.

That's if the team executives decide they want more wins. If their goal is a higher draft pick and more development time for their young players then there is also benefit in not spending the funds. The coach will always try and win. The players will always try and win (unless it's Felton). So if the goal is a low winning percentage and making sure young players are developed, than signing additional players gives the coaches more options to win and more people to take game time from those on the developmental track.




Edit: by the way, this is not my strategy but many around here want losses in hope of a brighter eventual future.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's if the team executives decide they want more wins. If their goal is a higher draft pick and more development time for their young players then there is also benefit in not spending the funds. The coach will always try and win. The players will always try and win (unless it's Felton). So if the goal is a low winning percentage and making sure young players are developed, than signing additional players gives the coaches more options to win and more people to take game time from those on the developmental track.




Edit: by the way, this is not my strategy but many around here want losses in hope of a brighter eventual future.

If it were up to me, I'd try to win. You ended up with the pick to get Lillard while trying to win. The Bulls got DRose while trying to win.

I don't think it's sportsmanship to not try.

 

[e_blazer]

If it were up to me, I'd try to win. You ended up with the pick to get Lillard while trying to win. The Bulls got DRose while trying to win.

I don't think it's sportsmanship to not try.

Agreed. With this roster, the Blazers won't have to try to lose. That will take care of itself.

 

[Further]

If it were up to me, I'd try to win. You ended up with the pick to get Lillard while trying to win. The Bulls got DRose while trying to win.

I don't think it's sportsmanship to not try.

I agree completely. I was pointing out a point of view that many hold, but not me.

 

[Draco]

I read somewhere that if we don't hit the minimum then the money is split amongst the roster? IF so, then we absolutely have a benefit of spending the other 22mil. Why give it to existing players when we can get more players to mix and match with?

I think we're arguing about different things. Your point is you can use cap space to acquire value to the team; yes I agree and the team should look at doing such. My point was in and of itself hitting the minimum team salary just to hit the minimum team salary provides no benefit.

There is some benefit. Your $5M players should be better than your $1M players, assuming they're known veterans. In other words, there's opportunity cost in not spending the minimum - some more/better players on the roster get a chance to win jobs.

Yeah I agree we should try to find the most beneficial use of the Blazers cap space. There are many ways it can provide value. I was just saying the minimum team salary stipulation is an irrelevant factor since there is no penalty or benefit to falling short.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I think we're arguing about different things. Your point is you can use cap space to acquire value to the team; yes I agree and the team should look at doing such. My point was in and of itself hitting the minimum team salary just to hit the minimum team salary provides no benefit.



Yeah I agree we should try to find the most beneficial use of the Blazers cap space. There are many ways it can provide value. I was just saying the minimum team salary stipulation is an irrelevant factor since there is no penalty or benefit to falling short.

Really? Seems to be the same to me unless I am missing something? Meeting the minimum team salary just to meet the minimum team salary would still have a benefit, because it would still be another player or two signed that would provide more depth in this assessment over the next year. Again. Why spread 22million over the current roster when you can spend it on a couple more potential players that fit our system on the surface and see if they carve a name for themselves? IF they dont work by trade deadline, they are gone. Easy enough. The money is spent one way or another anyhow right?

 

[Scalma]

Exactly. The more you swing the better the chances u get a hit.

 

[Draco]

Really? Seems to be the same to me unless I am missing something? Meeting the minimum team salary just to meet the minimum team salary would still have a benefit, because it would still be another player or two signed that would provide more depth in this assessment over the next year. Again. Why spread 22million over the current roster when you can spend it on a couple more potential players that fit our system on the surface and see if they carve a name for themselves? IF they dont work by trade deadline, they are gone. Easy enough. The money is spent one way or another anyhow right?

If we spend the money now we can't spend it during the season or at the trade deadline or at next years draft. So there is a downside to spending just to meet the minimum team salary now.

Sure if there's a player the team thinks will have value go ahead and pull the trigger. But free agent pickings are slim. If we don't spend any cap space now and keep the money available there is a chance of a future benefit.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If we spend the money now we can't spend it during the season or at the trade deadline or at next years draft. So there is a downside to spending just to meet the minimum team salary now.

Sure if there's a player the team thinks will have value go ahead and pull the trigger. But free agent pickings are slim. If we don't spend any cap space now and keep the money available there is a chance of a future benefit.

But isn't the team minimum like 12 mill less than the maximum cap space? I thought we have to spend 22mil but could spend almost 30 mil still? And when does this take effect, or a deadline for spending? I thought it had to be spent by opening day? Just a thought though, no references or anything. If you are right then I agree, but if we have to spend some but still have some left over, then spend it. Don't divvy up the money to other players already getting paid and signed.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

You don't have to hit the minimum until the last day of the basketball year (June 30th of 2016). You can of course hit is sooner though if you want.

And technically you don't have to hit it at all as long as you don't mind the small slap on the wrist.

 

[Draco]

You don't have to hit the minimum until the last day of the basketball year (June 30th of 2016). You can of course hit is sooner though if you want.

And technically you don't have to hit it at all as long as you don't mind the small slap on the wrist.

Yes exactly. There is no penalty for being below the minimum. They only removed the incentive.

 

[Orion Bailey]

okay. Understood. Thanks for the clarification then. I say hold onto the money unless a true steal comes along. Im on board.