Should Olshey try to reach the salary floor?

[PtldPlatypus]

Thanks to Mook's thread about searching the reddit NBA forum for Blazers-related posts from other teams' fans, I came across this post about dodging the salary floor. Basically, the upshot of it is that if the Blazers were at the trade deadline to deal for and buy-out a player on an expiring contract who gets them up to the salary floor, since they'd only be paying said player for 27 games of their 82-game contract, the franchise would essentially save 2/3 of the value of that contract by not having to pay their other players the "below-the-floor-penalty". Of course, the downside of that is the players being annoyed that they're being denied the opportunity to get that extra dough, but is avoiding that downside worth $7M or so to the Blazers?

If you were Olshey--or more importantly, Paul Allen--what would you do?

 

[Eastoff]

Doing this trade just to avoid the floor is stupid. We should get something long term out of it.

 

[BBert]

I would not make any personnel move for monetary reasons only. Only reason to acquire any player is to improve the team in the future (now) or now (in the future).

 

[illmatic99]

To echo above sentiment, I'm all for it as long as we get picks in return. If not, #SPAM and build some equity with these players and agents.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Sorry--I assumed it went without saying that we wouldn't take back some team's useless expiring contract unless they were giving us something along with it, whether the draft rights to some eurostash, or a second-round pick, or something of that nature.

 

[Nikolokolus]

The penalty is 'Salary Floor [minus] Current Salaries, distributed equally among current players' So how exactly is it an unnecessary expenditure? It's six of one, half a dozen of another. If there's a deal out there worth making then go for it, but if not then it doesn't really change the team's bottom line.

 

[illmatic99]

The penalty is 'Salary Floor [minus] Current Salaries, distributed equally among current players' So how exactly is it an unnecessary expenditure? It's six of one, half a dozen of another. If there's a deal out there worth making then go for it, but if not then it doesn't really change the team's bottom line.

BEdge clarified this a bit: http://www.blazersedge.com/2016/1/14/10772416/portland-trail-blazers-trades-salary-cap

tl;dr Blazers do nothing, pay $13.5 million at the end of the season. Blazers pick up $15 million in expiring contracts at the trade deadline, pay $5 million instead.

In this example, the 8.5 mil difference comes from the fact that PA would only be responsible for paying that player a third of his actual contract value because we'd acquire him in the middle of February.

The whole incentive is that it saves PA a chunk of change. My rationale is that I don't care about saving him as much money as much as maximizing our value for assets. If we get some second rounders or future firsts to absorb contracts, go for it.

 

[RR7]

The penalty is 'Salary Floor [minus] Current Salaries, distributed equally among current players' So how exactly is it an unnecessary expenditure? It's six of one, half a dozen of another. If there's a deal out there worth making then go for it, but if not then it doesn't really change the team's bottom line.

We save money by making it to the floor, since player x's salary will be half paid by his previous team.

 

[illmatic99]

Sorry--I assumed it went without saying that we wouldn't take back some team's useless expiring contract unless they were giving us something along with it, whether the draft rights to some eurostash, or a second-round pick, or something of that nature.

Ya, save money while picking up an asset? Should be a no brainer, no?

Philly did this a few times recently with former Blazers (Crash and TRob) while picking up assets in return.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

The penalty is 'Salary Floor [minus] Current Salaries, distributed equally among current players' So how exactly is it an unnecessary expenditure? It's six of one, half a dozen of another. If there's a deal out there worth making then go for it, but if not then it doesn't really change the team's bottom line.

BEdge clarified this a bit: http://www.blazersedge.com/2016/1/14/10772416/portland-trail-blazers-trades-salary-cap

tl;dr Blazers do nothing, pay $13.5 million at the end of the season. Blazers pick up $15 million in expiring contracts at the trade deadline, pay $5 million instead.

In this example, the 8.5 mil difference comes from the fact that PA would only be responsible for paying that player a third of his actual contract value because we'd acquire him in the middle of February.

Exactly: the salary calculation is based on the team's cap figure, not actual disbursements. If 2/3 of (as an example) David Lee's salary has already been paid by the Celtics, we get credit for the full amount of his salary in our cap (and floor) calculation, even though we're only paying a small portion of it.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Exactly: the salary calculation is based on the team's cap figure, not actual disbursements. If 2/3 of (as an example) David Lee's salary has already been paid by the Celtics, we get credit for the full amount of his salary in our cap (and floor) calculation, even though we're only paying a small portion of it.

Gotcha, I (wrongly) figured it was based on expenditures. Whatever though. If Uncle Paul is paying so little in actual salaries, it's not like his operating expenses are anything to worry about. Also I wouldn't be shocked if there was some massive tax write-off he can take on paying this kind of penalty.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Adding players just to get bodies in to reach the salary floor is the embodiment of unnecessary expenditure.

 

[oldfisherman]

Stop trying to micro-manage Paul Allen’s coffee fund.

The goal is to improve the team, not buy PA another submarine.

 

[Orion Bailey]

Thanks to Mook's thread about searching the reddit NBA forum for Blazers-related posts from other teams' fans, I came across this post about dodging the salary floor. Basically, the upshot of it is that if the Blazers were at the trade deadline to deal for and buy-out a player on an expiring contract who gets them up to the salary floor, since they'd only be paying said player for 27 games of their 82-game contract, the franchise would essentially save 2/3 of the value of that contract by not having to pay their other players the "below-the-floor-penalty". Of course, the downside of that is the players being annoyed that they're being denied the opportunity to get that extra dough, but is avoiding that downside worth $7M or so to the Blazers?

If you were Olshey--or more importantly, Paul Allen--what would you do?

Great question and not much of a topic of discussion as of late, but is fairly important.

Doing this trade just to avoid the floor is stupid. We should get something long term out of it.

Im with you. I chose no, but with kind of an asterisk. I have no issues spending the money on an expiring if it is something to help build for the long term ( IE. player resigns with us and is a piece to the puzzle, ETC.)
If thats the case, then hell yes, go get that player that will help us.

 

[Blazers Roy]

Adding players is dumbest thing we can do right now, especially when we are so low on cheerleaders!
Hire more cheerleaders, Neil.

 

[RR7]

I think it's easy for us as fans to say you don't make a deal unless we get a good asset in return. But saving 7 million dollars or so for doing basically nothing I imagine is mighty enticing for any owner

 

[Orion Bailey]

I think it's easy for us as fans to say you don't make a deal unless we get a good asset in return. But saving 7 million dollars or so for doing basically nothing I imagine is mighty enticing for any owner

But he isnt really saving it is he? Either way its money gone from his pocket the way I understand it? Either pick up a contract, or divy it out to existing players. Money has to be spent either way.

 

[RR7]

But he isnt really saving it is he? Either way its money gone from his pocket the way I understand it? Either pick up a contract, or divy it out to existing players. Money has to be spent either way.

If we trade for Lee and his whatever, 13 million dollar salary at the deadline, we hit the floor, or close. But 2/3 of his salary has already been paid. So Paul basically saves however much of his salary had been paid by Boston.

 

[Orion Bailey]

If we trade for Lee and his whatever, 13 million dollar salary at the deadline, we hit the floor, or close. But 2/3 of his salary has already been paid. So Paul basically saves however much of his salary had been paid by Boston.

ahhh, okay, understood. That makes sense and if thats the case, I think you still only bring someone in if they fit the long term plan.

The biggest hurt this could cause is bringing someone in that now upsets the lineup/lockerroom and prevents someone else from continueing thier development.
For example. I would never want to bring in David Lee and put Vonleh back to the end of the bench because Lee gets his starting spot.

Do not sacrifice cohesion and development for saving $7 mill.

 

[42N8Bounce]

I don't think finances will be the key to driving a deal for the Blazers. I think it will be more about acquiring an asset such as a future pick. To get that asset though, we would have to give up a player on our roster. We currently have a full roster. Who would you be willing to cut or trade to open up the roster spot to take on the new player?
In order for me:
- Kaman
- Henderson
- Frazier
- Montero
- Connaughton
After that, it get's pretty tough. Would you give up Alexander to get some financial relief and perhaps a second rounder?

 

[RR7]

ahhh, okay, understood. That makes sense and if thats the case, I think you still only bring someone in if they fit the long term plan.

The biggest hurt this could cause is bringing someone in that now upsets the lineup/lockerroom and prevents someone else from continueing thier development.
For example. I would never want to bring in David Lee and put Vonleh back to the end of the bench because Lee gets his starting spot.

Do not sacrifice cohesion and development for saving $7 mill.

I'd think you just immediately buy out Lee. He doesn't even get on a plane to Portland

 

[oldfisherman]

The $7 million savings in the example in the OP would have been shared by our players, so they get screwed out of it.

To a young team with many of the players on rookie contracts, that extra money could be significant at this point in their careers.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I don't think finances will be the key to driving a deal for the Blazers. I think it will be more about acquiring an asset such as a future pick. To get that asset though, we would have to give up a player on our roster. We currently have a full roster. Who would you be willing to cut or trade to open up the roster spot to take on the new player?
In order for me:
- Kaman
- Henderson
- Frazier
- Montero
- Connaughton
After that, it get's pretty tough. Would you give up Alexander to get some financial relief and perhaps a second rounder?

Kaman and/or Frazier would be the sensible choice I suppose.

 

[Orion Bailey]

I'd think you just immediately buy out Lee. He doesn't even get on a plane to Portland

Ahhh, understood ( again). That makes sense. If the player never gets to Portland, than you do it. There is no down side.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Ahhh, understood ( again). That makes sense. If the player never gets to Portland, than you do it. There is no down side.

Except for pissing off the players already on the team who don't get that extra $13M distributed amongst them...

 

[RR7]

Except for pissing off the players already on the team who don't get that extra $13M distributed amongst them...

But somehow if we put a2nd rounder in it's ok? Most say no they need an asset. That eliminates that money from the players as well. Each player had their salary their entitled to. I doubt any are making investment plans with the other chunk of Paul's money

 

[Orion Bailey]

Except for pissing off the players already on the team who don't get that extra $13M distributed amongst them...

That would be the only downfall I suppose.

 

[Orion Bailey]

But somehow if we put a2nd rounder in it's ok? Most say no they need an asset. That eliminates that money from the players as well. Each player had their salary their entitled to. I doubt any are making investment plans with the other chunk of Paul's money

Great point. Contracts are contracts and the players are all professional enough to understand this I would hope.

 

[Trackjack]

You do it if you can build up assets for the future. But either way the money going leave Paul wallet.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No.

Players should be rewarding for playing well with extra money!