So KP is planning on picking Blake and Outlaw back up.

[BrianFromWA]

It's Sessions or trade. My gut feeling is that a trade is the most likely way changes to the roster will happen.

Aside from thinking that Hedo should be in that sentence,

 

[Idog1976]

Boob owns you.

It sure does...

consider me pwned!

 

[RickyRubio]

It sure does...

consider me pwned!

Thank you, very much for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

[Idog1976]

If we go into the 09-10 season with virtually the exact same roster, I will be sorely disappointed in Kevin Pritchard.

You won't be alone in that feeling my friend. Outlaw needs to go he drives me freaking insane and any remaining good feelings I had were repeatedly stabbed in the eyes by his playoff "effort". My concern about Blake and Nate's relationship is best summed up by the following visual aid:

(hint Nate = Linus)

 

[THE HCP]

Great pick up. Solid players for very cheap.

 

[Tince]

"given how much they're scheduled to make"?

They're going to take up over half of the existing cap room. I personally don't care much, b/c I think we have enough assets to make moves we want to anyway--and Hedo is basically the only UFA I care a lot about. Sessions would be ok, but he's RFA, so there's risk there.

It might be helpful to look at it this way: think of Blake and Outlaw as 7.6M of players signed to offer sheets. We can either blow half our caproom matching contracts to mediocre players who'll be backups for us in the championship window, or have around 15M to be players for someone that will put us over the top.

Smokescreen, imo. And damage control ("we really love you guys, seriously") if the trades don't happen.

Paying 7 million for those two is a great deal, no matter how you slice it. By letting them go, you'd be losing a lot more than people think. Not to mention, there is value to having people on the roster that understand the system and have chemistry with the majority of our roster.

Even if we want to take a lopsided contract back to bring a better PG and SF, those are two chips you want to have. A team giving up one of those positions, is going to want at least a solid backup in return, along with the salary savings.

I don't think there is a team in the NBA that wouldn't take on those options.

 

[Ed O]

I don't think there is a team in the NBA that wouldn't take on those options.

The flip side of that is that we might have a better opportunity to use that money.

I'd rather have one star than those two guys and an MLE-level (or slightly higher than MLE player). If letting Blaker and/or Outlaw go to get that star (being able to offer him a max contract instead of $8m, or whatever) I'd do it.

As things stand now, though, they're good value and there's no reason to let them go.

Ed O.

 

[THE HCP]

If we let Blake go, our PG situation looks pretty weak.

 

[anonymous gambler]

I'm sorely disappointed that we are picking up both options- it's declaring surrender on the idea of picking up a 4th potential impact player. It sickens me to think that we let Raef expire without getting anything in exchange (yes, I would much rather have either Wallace or Butler than the potential of Batum). It further sickens me that we wouldn't take 14 million to sign that impact player this offseason- we would probably be the most appealing free agent destination.

 

[RR7]

I'm sorely disappointed that we are picking up both options- it's declaring surrender on the idea of picking up a 4th potential impact player. It sickens me to think that we let Raef expire without getting anything in exchange (yes, I would much rather have either Wallace or Butler than the potential of Batum). It further sickens me that we wouldn't take 14 million to sign that impact player this offseason- we would probably be the most appealing free agent destination.

So we risk going into next season with Bayless and an unhappy Sergio as our only PGs? Who is the key impact player you want to throw 14 million dollars at this year?

 

[Natebishop3]

So we risk going into next season with Bayless and an unhappy Sergio as our only PGs? Who is the key impact player you want to throw 14 million dollars at this year?

Kobe Bryant!

 

[Boob-No-More]

I'm sorely disappointed that we are picking up both options- it's declaring surrender on the idea of picking up a 4th potential impact player. It sickens me to think that we let Raef expire without getting anything in exchange (yes, I would much rather have either Wallace or Butler than the potential of Batum). It further sickens me that we wouldn't take 14 million to sign that impact player this offseason- we would probably be the most appealing free agent destination.

Exactly what free agent are we going to throw $14 million at? And if they are good enough to deserve it, they better be a UFA, or their current team will match our offer.

It's extremely rare for an "impact" player to change teams by signing outright as a free agent. There is almost always a sign and trade involved - otherwise the team losing the impact player gets absolutely nothing in return.

Even when the Magic offered Rashard Lewis an outrageous contract, they ended up getting him in a sign-and-trade with Seattle.

Having cheap, proven, expendable players under contract greatly increases the Blazers chances of obtaining an impact player through a sign-and-trade. Our two biggest needs are upgrades at starting PG and starting SF. Having cheap, proven surplus NBA talent at those two positions, increases the odds of filling those vacancies as we can give something of value back to the team that would be sending us a "impact" player in a sign and trade.

BNM

 

[BrianFromWA]

BNM, I hear you and mostly agree.

But NOH (for instance) is trying to get under the lux tax. They can't do that if someone trades them straight up (within the 125% rules, I mean). What they CAN do is take 8-14M off of their payroll in one swoop. There are more. Washington. Charlotte could get under the cap. Indiana. Milwaukee. Phoenix.

A lot of teams have incentive to use seldom-seen vehicles to give themselves some room under the LuxTax or Cap. Especially in "these tough economic times" and with the summer of LBJ coming up.

 

[RR7]

BNM, I hear you and mostly agree.

But NOH (for instance) is trying to get under the lux tax. They can't do that if someone trades them straight up (within the 125% rules, I mean). What they CAN do is take 8-14M off of their payroll in one swoop. There are more. Washington. Charlotte could get under the cap. Indiana. Milwaukee. Phoenix.

A lot of teams have incentive to use seldom-seen vehicles to give themselves some room under the LuxTax or Cap. Especially in "these tough economic times" and with the summer of LBJ coming up.

What star player putting us over the top are we going to get from NOH? Indiana? Milwaukee?

Also, there's no doubt that KP is shopping righ tnow. We don't have to do anything with Blake and Outlaw until June 30th. So if one of those teams said yeah, we'll give you Caron Butler for pure cap space, or Gerald Wallace, or Danny granger, etc., then you go ahead and you waive Outlaw and Blake. As is, a more likely situation is they shave roughly 8 million in pure cap space, and take on an additional 3 or so million from Blake or Outlaw's deal, which is still palatable for all of those clubs.

OR, if you find a situation like that, you look to shop. Memphis has liked Outlaw for a while. Outlaw for next year's second rounder. There, an additional 3.6 million in cap space. Find a SF you like, with Batum as our backup? Trade Webster to, say, Cleveland for Sasha Pavlovic. Then cut Sasha, which makes his salary go from the 4.3 of Webster's to the 1.5 of Sasha's guaranteed part, so another 2.8 in savings. That's an additional 6.4 in those two moves. Added to the 7 we already had. Trade Sergio to NY for TPE. Now I'm up to 14 million in cap space. And could still include Blake in a deal, who could be a cheap backup for whatever team we traded him to, an expiring contract, and we could pay 75% of his contract if need be by including 3 million dollars in the trade. Justoutright waiving two players before you know how anything is going to play outis an absolutely terrible idea.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That wasn't my point. I've been saying a draft day (or before June 30, technically) trade. I agree that just waiving them July 1 is a risky move. But so is keeping them past June 30th.

IMO, we get much more value for them when they can be traded for 14M worth of salary (then cut), than in July when even in an S&T the other team still has to pay their salaries. If they're cool with that, fine...7.6 for the two of them isn't a bad deal at all.

 

[RR7]

But if we cut them now, that doesn't do us any good on a draft day trade, because we don't have cap space on draft day. We will not have cap space until July 1st. So we are not taking on a 14 million dollar contract on draft day. Or an 8 million, or a 4 million.

 

[RR7]

Sorry, I slightly misread your statement. We can not take on additional salary with Blake and Outlaw before July 1st. We have no cap space. I agree trading them before then is probably optimal. because then the other team can cut them. And I am sure that is still a possibility. However, if nothing is found prior to the deadline, there's no way you waive them when as I just showed, it woudl be fairly simpe to get to roughly 14 million in space.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Look, here are the numbers:

125% of 8.25M (Blake's 4.25M -- 2007-08salary--+4M for travis) is 10.3125M. Plus the 100k diff is 10.4125M. We can get back that much for Blake and Outlaw before the 30th

OR

take back only 6.52M (125% of that +100k is 8.25M).

If you added the exception in (and I'm not positive I'm doing this right now)---

4.25M Blake + 4M Outlaw + 2.913M exception = 11.163M. That times 125% = 13.95375M plus the 100k = 14.05375M. The issue, though, is that of that 14M, there has to be a player under the 2.913M that the trade exception can be used for. It's my understanding that this doesn't count as "combining the TE with another player", since the league breaks up trades into the most beneficial for both teams...so basically it would be (Part 1) TO and SB for Player X (11.1M salary) and (Part Two) Exception for Player Y (2.9M or less salary)

Some ways this works: (assume we'll give cash, 2nd rounders, our #24, etc.)
Blake and Outlaw and exception for Jamison, Blatche and #5. Washington Cuts 17.3M from their July 1 payroll (less if they want to keep Blake -4M- or Outlaw -3.6M- or the 24 -933k-)

Blake and Outlaw and Sergio (and exception) for Maggette, Wright and #7. I hate this trade, but it's a possibility.

Blake and Outlaw and Przy (keeping the exception) for Darko, Marko, Conley and #2. This isn't a good one either, but it works. GIves MEM two players they've been wanting, they can cut Blake or not, and they get rid of two big contracts and reduce their PG logjam

Again, not saying we just dump Travis and Blake (we wouldn't before the 30th anyway, there's nothing we have to do...if we don't actually pick up the team option they disappear off the cap...it's not like we have to cut them or anything), but showing that there's potential for "lopsided" trades NOW that are more beneficial to other teams (and therefore more valuable) than making sure we have a backup PG and backup PF making 7.6M

 

[RR7]

Ok, so then maybe I am misunderstanding. I don't really see where anything that currently has happened is affected by what you are saying. The discussion i was referring to was in regards to outright waiving Blake and Outlaw before the deadline to maximize cap space. To give us 14 million. Trading for Jamison and Blatche with our TPE, Blake, and Outlaw is doable. And that would happen before July 1st. So none of this has to do with waiving those players. Same with the other two deals you mentioned. The issue seemed to lie with not being able to make similar deals AFTER July 1st.

 

[PapaG]

I am worried about resigning Outlaw. Not worried about Blake. I just think Outlaw is on the decline of his career. Unless we keep him in hopes that he can have a good first half of the season and trade him before the deadline if the right deal comes along.

Yep. Those 25 year-olds are WAAAYYY over the hill.

 

[Nikolokolus]

This isn't meant to make anyone feel stupid, but can we get this "picking up their options" thing straight please? There are no team options on Blake and Travis; they are both under contract, but the last year of their deal is un-guaranteed. I know it seems like a minor point, but it really does make a world of difference when it comes to trading either player between now and July 1st.

If KP sends them out in a trade the receiving team still has the option of letting them walk (important for teams more interested in the cap room they would free up) and typically if you have a player with a team option on them they can't be traded until that option is picked up after July 1st. Don't be shocked to see one or the other moved at draft day if KP gets a veteran wing and/or point guard in his sights (Kirk Hinrich seems to be the nom de jour).

 

[PapaG]

"given how much they're scheduled to make"?

They're going to take up over half of the existing cap room. I personally don't care much, b/c I think we have enough assets to make moves we want to anyway--and Hedo is basically the only UFA I care a lot about. Sessions would be ok, but he's RFA, so there's risk there.

It might be helpful to look at it this way: think of Blake and Outlaw as 7.6M of players signed to offer sheets. We can either blow half our caproom matching contracts to mediocre players who'll be backups for us in the championship window, or have around 15M to be players for someone that will put us over the top.

Smokescreen, imo. And damage control ("we really love you guys, seriously") if the trades don't happen.

Who are you going to sign for $15 million that will "put us over the top"? And why would you weaken the bench (or trade assets in Outlaw/Blake) prior to the draft?

Dumping them makes absolutely no sense.

 

[RoyToy]

I didn't read any of the thread but all I'll say is I don't have any problem keeping both players as long as they're used in the right role. They're both valuable players to have but they need to be used right.

Blake needs to be the backup PG or at least split half the minutes with Jerryd. I guess I could envision a scenario where Blake starts the game but Jerryd finishes it.

As far as Outlaw goes, he can't be relied upon to be the 3rd scorer on this team. He's one of the best options off the bench in the league but sometimes has to try and do too much because of a lack of other options. Get him in the right role(or get the right players around him) and he'll fit like a glove. And he is only $4M, which is a pretty good value.

I don't have any problems with the players themselves, just their roles. That can be fixed.

 

[Trader Ed]

Who are you going to sign for $15 million that will "put us over the top"? And why would you weaken the bench (or trade assets in Outlaw/Blake) prior to the draft?

Dumping them makes absolutely no sense.

I agree... but, they will more than likely not DUMP them at all

but their is an opportuinity to trade them and get back a player of need

ALSO remember Stacey Augmen.. we traded him, he was waived and he came back and resigned with us

That is possible with Blake and maybe even TO. We get a trade that helps us and we resign one of them... kind of a bonus!

 

[Trader Ed]

This isn't meant to make anyone feel stupid, but can we get this "picking up their options" thing straight please? There are no team options on Blake and Travis; they are both under contract, but the last year of their deal is un-guaranteed. I know it seems like a minor point, but it really does make a world of difference when it comes to trading either player between now and July 1st.

If KP sends them out in a trade the receiving team still has the option of letting them walk (important for teams more interested in the cap room they would free up) and typically if you have a player with a team option on them they can't be traded until that option is picked up after July 1st. Don't be shocked to see one or the other moved at draft day if KP gets a veteran wing and/or point guard in his sights (Kirk Hinrich seems to be the nom de jour).

I agree... their contracts are active and will be active and on the books after July 1 unless we terminate them before July 1 or trade them.

 

[anonymous gambler]

Exactly what free agent are we going to throw $14 million at? And if they are good enough to deserve it, they better be a UFA, or their current team will match our offer.

It's extremely rare for an "impact" player to change teams by signing outright as a free agent. There is almost always a sign and trade involved - otherwise the team losing the impact player gets absolutely nothing in return.

Even when the Magic offered Rashard Lewis an outrageous contract, they ended up getting him in a sign-and-trade with Seattle.

Having cheap, proven, expendable players under contract greatly increases the Blazers chances of obtaining an impact player through a sign-and-trade. Our two biggest needs are upgrades at starting PG and starting SF. Having cheap, proven surplus NBA talent at those two positions, increases the odds of filling those vacancies as we can give something of value back to the team that would be sending us a "impact" player in a sign and trade.

BNM

yeah, Kobe is potentially one of them. For less than the full 14 million- Shawn Marion, Ramon Sessions, Carlos Boozer, Lamar Odom, Ron Artest and Milsap.

I'd take anyone on this list over Outlaw and Blake- heck, we could probably get two on the list- Andre Miller/Ron Artest, for example.

We don't have cheap, proven talent at the 1 and 3- just cheap potential.

It ruins our offseason to keep both Outlaw and Blake.

 

[Sinobas]

Mediocrity is not worth more in bulk. We won't get an impact player for Blake and Outlaw unless it's a cap dumping move on the part of the other team. The argument that they are a "great value" for the price doesn't make sense, in light of the fact that cutting them could bring us a high impact player.

 

[Tince]

Mediocrity is not worth more in bulk. We won't get an impact player for Blake and Outlaw unless it's a cap dumping move on the part of the other team. The argument that they are a "great value" for the price doesn't make sense, in light of the fact that cutting them could bring us a high impact player.

Like who?

I would think adding them in a trade would be more value than the 3 million they're taking up in our cap space. Any team who trades away a $10 million PG will want at least a solid backup under a good contract in return (Blake). Any teams giving up a $10 million+ SF will probably want a young talented backup in return (Outlaw). Letting them go and having them sign with some random team, means we think there is a PG or SF out there that is worth major money, and I don't see that. Or, that a team will let a top notch player go for next to nothing in return. I can't imagine a team out there, if given the choice, that would rather get only cap space for this year when there is no top notch free agents vs Blake or Outlaws very affordable contract.

Letting Outlaw and Blake go for nothing would be foolish. We have such a good thing going, there is no reason to take a major risk like this.

 

[Tince]

yeah, Kobe is potentially one of them. For less than the full 14 million- Shawn Marion, Ramon Sessions, Carlos Boozer, Lamar Odom, Ron Artest and Milsap.

I'd take anyone on this list over Outlaw and Blake- heck, we could probably get two on the list- Andre Miller/Ron Artest, for example.

We don't have cheap, proven talent at the 1 and 3- just cheap potential.

It ruins our offseason to keep both Outlaw and Blake.

Who's minutes are you going to drastically cut if we bring in Odom, Milsap, or Boozer? Realistically, you'll have to trade at least one of: Oden, LMA, or Joel for it to make any sense to take on one of those three players.

You would let two major role players under a great contract walk, on the chance we could sign Shawn Marion? The guy who hasn't proven he can fit in outside of Phoenix, who's shot has left him, and who would take away a large chunk of minutes from Batum?

I still don't get what everyone sees in Sessions. I'll be shocked if the guy gets more than 6-7 million a year, and even that seems to be too much.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Mediocrity is not worth more in bulk. We won't get an impact player for Blake and Outlaw unless it's a cap dumping move on the part of the other team. The argument that they are a "great value" for the price doesn't make sense, in light of the fact that cutting them could bring us a high impact player.

As has been already pointed out, "high impact" players are more likely to change teams through a S&T, or a lopsided deal (where we use the extra $7 mil in cap space to give another team a chance to dump salary)

One more point to consider - the locker-room impact. Why is Hedo leaving Orlando? Because they grossly over-paid for Lewis. If we turn around and over-pay for Hedo, what will it cost us down the road?