The 2022 Trade Idea Thread, now with more urgency! (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
andalusian said:
Thanks for the info Jody. Glad to hear you are happy to go over the tax and pay repeater tax.
Click to expand...
His statement was accurate though. Whether or not the FO was going to be willing to re-sign Ant is completely different from whether or not we were able to.

But if the claim is that keeping Norm and his 16.8M contract would have prevented us from re-signing Ant, then that would need to be offset by Bledsoe's 3.9M, Winslow's 4.1M, and Johnson's 2.7M--a cumulative 10.7M. Are you really contending that just 6.1M in salary expense--when they're claiming massive cap space and flexibility is the strength of the upcoming offseason--is the difference between re-signing Simons and letting him walk?
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I don't get that; Porzingis was having a really great year. He sure killed us when we played them.
Click to expand...
I would have loved to have gotten him. I think he would have fit really well as a stretch four on this team.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
His statement was accurate though. Whether or not the FO was going to be willing to re-sign Ant is completely different from whether or not we were able to.

But if the claim is that keeping Norm and his 16.8M contract would have prevented us from re-signing Ant, then that would need to be offset by Bledsoe's 3.9M, Winslow's 4.1M, and Johnson's 2.7M--a cumulative 10.7M. Are you really contending that 6.1M in salary expense is the difference between re-signing Simons and letting him walk?
Click to expand...

Yes, I am saying that the reasonable conclusion was that they organization chose to balance the roster - and that means they are not going to be paying 4 guards big money, they would rather pay 2 and spread the money to other positions with bigger players, which basically they are doing. It will not happen immediatly, but they are not stuck with paying all this money for the duration of Norm's 5 year contract.

Bledsoe, if he remains on the roster next year, is $4m vs Norm's $15+m, Winslow is more of a forward or big guard and even if we keep Johnson in the small guard spot - you are looking at $7m next year and $3m the year after vs 15, 16, 17, 18m for Norm's contract.

Could they technically do it? Sure. Would they? Given what we are hearing - probably not with ownership's blessing.
 
andalusian said:
Yes, I am saying that the reasonable conclusion was that they organization chose to balance the roster - and that means they are not going to be paying 4 guards big money, they would rather pay 2 and spread the money to other positions with bigger players, which basically they are doing. It will not happen immediatly, but they are not stuck with paying all this money for the duration of Norm's 5 year contract.
Click to expand...
"4 guards" is a red herring--the CJ deal was independent. And I'm sorry, but 16.8M is not "big money" in this NBA.

But I concede--if you believe that Justise Winslow, Keon Johnson, and whatever the Blazers might be able to procure with an additional 6M in cap space will be more impactful/beneficial to the Blazers than Norm Powell, or would have greater trade value going into next season, then there's really nowhere further for this discussion to go.
 
andalusian said:
Yes, I am saying that the reasonable conclusion was that they organization chose to balance the roster - and that means they are not going to be paying 4 guards big money, they would rather pay 2 and spread the money to other positions with bigger players, which basically they are doing. It will not happen immediatly, but they are not stuck with paying all this money for the duration of Norm's 5 year contract.
Click to expand...

First of all they traded CJ so its 3 guards on contracts not 4.

Second of all I never said they had to keep Norm for 5 years. They could've traded him today, traded him in the summer, traded him at the start of next season, traded him at the next deadline, etc. None of those would have an implication of a $1 of luxury tax.

The team rushed this trade of Norm and Roco getting nothing in return. Its an indefensible trade, and all of the theories you have explained don't make good strategic sense to a team contending, nor a team rebuilding.
 
andalusian said:
Yes, I am saying that the reasonable conclusion was that they organization chose to balance the roster - and that means they are not going to be paying 4 guards big money, they would rather pay 2 and spread the money to other positions with bigger players, which basically they are doing. It will not happen immediatly, but they are not stuck with paying all this money for the duration of Norm's 5 year contract.

Bledsoe, if he remains on the roster next year, is $4m vs Norm's $15+m, Winslow is more of a forward or big guard and even if we keep Johnson in the small guard spot - you are looking at $7m next year and $3m the year after vs 15, 16, 17, 18m for Norm's contract.

Could they technically do it? Sure. Would they? Given what we are hearing - probably not with ownership's blessing.
Click to expand...
You really need to stop with this stuff man, you really don't know what you're talking about. If Bledsoe is on the roster next season he makes 19.3M, if we opt out of his contract therefore removing him from the roster then we have to pay him 3.9M and most of that will stay on our cap.

If you think the trades were great, good for you but I just don't think you understand why they were so bad. You think we can keep Bledsoe for 3M and think that there is some scenario where we can't keep a guy who is a RFA with bird rights. SMH
 
Cugel said:
Which of these A) Would sign with Portland and B) make it a deep playoff team?

https://www.spotrac.com/nba/free-agents/

I honestly don't know. Hoping for an answer. Ayton will stay a Sun I would guess, especially if they go to the finals again, or even win.

It's a bad FA class for Portland if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Thad Young, TJ Warren are the only guys I would consider above the MLE, and probably prefer only 1 year guaranteed. Roco is probably third if we hadn't burnt that bridge.

This cap space plan is shit.
 
blazerkor said:
You really need to stop with this stuff man, you really don't know what you're talking about. If Bledsoe is on the roster next season he makes 19.3M, if we opt out of his contract therefore removing him from the roster then we have to pay him 3.9M and most of that will stay on our cap.

If you think the trades were great, good for you but I just don't think you understand why they were so bad. You think we can keep Bledsoe for 3M and think that there is some scenario where we can't keep a guy who is a RFA with bird rights. SMH
Click to expand...

On the roster meant he was not traded and we pay the $4m since he would be waved - so only as far as the cap is concerned. The other option of course is that he is traded before that and brings some value - but I did want to look at the worst case scenario to make your argument for you, because, if he is traded before - there is still value that we will get from that trade.

If anyone should be Shaking his head - it is not you. I tried to show that even if this was a worst case scenario that argument was not correct.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
First of all they traded CJ so its 3 guards on contracts not 4.

Second of all I never said they had to keep Norm for 5 years. They could've traded him today, traded him in the summer, traded him at the start of next season, traded him at the next deadline, etc. None of those would have an implication of a $1 of luxury tax.

The team rushed this trade of Norm and Roco getting nothing in return. Its an indefensible trade, and all of the theories you have explained don't make good strategic sense to a team contending, nor a team rebuilding.
Click to expand...

So, you think they never had the intention to go down from 4 to 2 - and the CJ trade happened in a vacuum. Please. Any executive that does these kinds of moves without having a longer term plan is not worth anything. What we have seen so far is the start of the process of rebalancing the roster - and given the cap situation - this is not something that will be done with one trade - and you are not likely win all the battles - some wars are won despite some battles lost.

In addition, as I said earlier in this thread - we can still trade Bledsoe as well - so don't come at me with "what could happen" if we did not do that trade - but ignore the case of "what could happen" when we did it.

All I am saying is that the trade by itself is not great, but even at a worst case scenario - not as bad as some point - when you look at what the organization says they are trying to do. At worst, the managed to route some month from guards to flexibility to get bigger players on the roster - even if there are no more trades involving Bledsoe and / or KJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
andalusian said:
On the roster meant he was not traded and we pay the $4m since he would be waved - so only as far as the cap is concerned. The other option of course is that he is traded before that and brings some value - but I did want to look at the worst case scenario to make your argument for you, because, if he is traded before - there is still value that we will get from that trade.

If anyone should be Shaking his head - it is not you. I tried to show that even if this was a worst case scenario that argument was not correct.
Click to expand...
The value he can now bring back in a trade is either 3.9M or the team trading for him has to take him on at 19.3M. He lost all of his trade value an hour and a half ago.
 
What will happen:
Wait for the draft! That’s when the trades will happen!
We use both draft picks….
FA agency comes abd we sign mediocre players on decent deals and we will hear “wait for the deadline so we can flip these decent contracts for a big time player”
Nothing happens….

same shit over and over with this useless franchise
 
HomerLovesKoolAid said:
images

"Well that was a whole lotta nothin."
Click to expand...

You're mixing your cartoons.
 
andalusian said:
So, you think they never had the intention to go down from 4 to 2 - and the CJ trade happened in a vacuum. Please. Any executive that does these kinds of moves without having a longer term plan is not worth anything. What we have seen so far is the start of the process of rebalancing the roster - and given the cap situation - this is not something that will be done with one trade - and you are not likely win all the battles - some wars are won despite some battles lost.

In addition, as I said earlier in this thread - we can still trade Bledsoe as well - so don't come at me with "what could happen" if we did not do that trade - but ignore the case of "what could happen" when we did it.

All I am saying is that the trade by itself is not great, but even at a worst case scenario - not as bad as some point - when you look at what the organization says they are trying to do. At worst, the managed to route some month from guards to flexibility to get bigger players on the roster - even if there are no more trades involving Bledsoe and / or KJ.
Click to expand...

So before it was a trade that made sense to you, now it is a battle lost but a necessary loss? I don't see how a team in our stage of contention can afford to lose trades for some larger process. Just wait and do a trade later, we are not winning anything of significance now.

Next year we are paying 3 scrubs $11 million when Norm made $17. Also we will have a loss of a roster spot, and 4 million of that will be dead money that can't be traded. We are worse off today than if the trade never happened, either if we rebuild or if we try to contend.

Trading Bledsoe now is an extreme longshot since only a team with cap space (the Thunder) can acquire him unless his contract is guaranteed. Trading Norm in the offseason was and is not a longshot at all.

It's an indefensible trade, please go ahead and keep trying to defend it.
 
Fischer said we had legit interest in Grant, and Dame was pushing for it, especially after we got the NO pick. It's also something to keep in mind moving forward

Also said both our deals were "unanimously viewed around the league as below value trades, and the fact that Portland had multiple deals where they got the short end of the stick could set them back. "

"Objectively felt around the league that Portland lost."
 
illmatic99 said:
Fischer said we had legit interest in Grant, and Dame was pushing for it, especially after we got the NO pick. It's also something to keep in mind moving forward

Also said both our deals were "unanimously viewed around the league as below value trades, and that we had multiple deals where we got the short end of the stick could set Portland back. "

"Objectively felt around the league that Portland lost."
Click to expand...

Not sure if anyone saw this.

 
WesleyMatthews said:
So before it was a trade that made sense to you, now it is a battle lost but a necessary loss? I don't see how a team in our stage of contention can afford to lose trades for some larger process. Just wait and do a trade later, we are not winning anything of significance now.

Next year we are paying 3 scrubs $11 million when Norm made $17. Also we will have a loss of a roster spot, and 4 million of that will be dead money that can't be traded. We are worse off today than if the trade never happened, either if we rebuild or if we try to contend.

Trading Bledsoe now is an extreme longshot since only a team with cap space (the Thunder) can acquire him unless his contract is guaranteed. Trading Norm in the offseason was and is not a longshot at all.

It's an indefensible trade, please go ahead and keep trying to defend it.
Click to expand...

I am saying that the only way this team can be improved is by changing the roster and the only probably way to do that is to get cap space. If the plan succeeds or not we do not know - but we do know that it would not work if the roster did not change - after the last GM we had, I am happy that there is a plan for real change - I acknowledge that it might fail, but I know for a fact that not making changes was a certain failure - so I happy about that. I am not ready to judge a process in it's first steps.

If you want to judge every trade on it's own, be my guest. I have no internal knowledge - so the only way I am judging it is based on the mission statement issued (balancing the roster) - if there were better or worse trades - I do not know since I do not know how other teams value the players contracts that were traded. Maybe there were better trades out there, there probably were better trades out there but with a much smaller chance of happening - so my interpretation is that the team finally has a plan that is not the status quo - and they are willing to execute it - and for that, I am happy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
illmatic99 said:
Fischer said we had legit interest in Grant, and Dame was pushing for it, especially after we got the NO pick. It's also something to keep in mind moving forward

Also said both our deals were "unanimously viewed around the league as below value trades, and the fact that Portland had multiple deals where they got the short end of the stick could set them back. "

"Objectively felt around the league that Portland lost."
Click to expand...

A blind man could see that we took a bunch of L's.
 
there will probably be no cap-space. There was probably never was going to be cap-space

right now the inclusive Blazer cap for next season is somewhere around 145-146M. Projected salary cap is 121M. So, Portland renouncing the non-Bird rights to Elleby, McLemore, and Smith puts the Blazers around 140-141M. NOT having the Pels 1st round pick would drop the Blazers down to 136-137M. Renouncing both TPE's drops Portland to around 110M. Hooray!! they now have 10-11M in cap-space!! by sacrificing the more valuable TPE's

but wait....that doesn't account for Bledsoe's 3.9M guarantee so Portland only has 6-7M in space. But wait, part 2....Blazers only have 10 players so they are assessed 2 roster charges dropping their space to 4-5M

ok then. They can renounce Josh Hart and they have 13M more, minus the 1M for the added roster charge and Portland is at 16-17M in cap-space

So then, the way to get enough space to approach a max offer would be renouncing Nurkic's rights, and shedding his 18M cap-hold (but adding another roster charge). That would get them at 33-34M in space. But 29-30M if they have the good fortune to have the Pels 1st conveyed this draft

now, I'm scribbling this from memory and I may have the numbers wrong. But I've see the free agent class and unless the Blazers are making a run at Zach LaVine, most of those moves aren't worth it. And, it would likely require renouncing the rights to Simons
 
SlyPokerCat said:
Eubanks went to Oregon State and played high school basketball in Oregon. I'll be rooting for him on your team. He has shown some decent flashes like he could be a rotational guy.
Click to expand...
So much for that. He had a shorter tenure than NAW with you guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top