TPEs (Traded Player Exceptions)

[andalusian]

Maybe but that doesn’t necessarily mean Olshey wanted to let Crabbe go. He traded up to draft him. He was probably just as invested. It’s not like Olshey deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to cap management.

I am willing to bet that PA is not stupid - and understands the cap issue the team has. If Neil is still around, that's probably because PA knows it is not his fault, or mostly not his fault.

 

[Propagandist]

How is my position "extreme"? Read what I wrote. I'm simply glad we aren't the ones grotesquely overpaying Crabbe and Batum?

Do you disagree? Do you wish we were paying Crabbe $18,500,00, $18,500,00 and Batum $24,000,000, $25,565,217, $27,130,434? Because, that was the tweeter's position, and that was what I responded to.

BNM

Yeah he has nothing to show for it but 49 wins last season. This is a non sequitur; getting rid of Crabbe and Batum and Barton (for practically nothing, or more accurately: at a cost), cannot be directly correlated to the 49 wins. That's sloppy in my opinion.

Also, talk about a strawman argument. Tim Brown is arguing these players were assets, and now we're talking about contracts? and PERs? Whatever.

Furthermore, Brown could've gone much much further in the tale of assets that've walked. For example: Bazz could've for sure garnered a second round pick.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I am willing to bet that PA is not stupid - and understands the cap issue the team has. If Neil is still around, that's probably because PA knows it is not his fault, or mostly not his fault.

Whether it's his fault directly or indirectly, it was the contracts Neil handed out in the Summer of 2016 that continue to bite him in the ass.

It seems like Paul has given Neil a Mulligan for the Summer of 2016. Neil seems to have learned from his mistakes. He hasn't handed out any ridiculous contracts since. The one big contract since the Summer of 2016 was to Nurk and that was a very team friendly deal relative to the to the impact Nurk has had on this team's defense.

I think the real reason both Neil and Terry are both still around is the team continues to outperform expectations. Every off season, the "experts" predict the Blazers are going to miss the playoffs. Last year the consensus was POR would finish dead last in the NW Division. They did the exact opposite, they won the deepest, most balanced division in the entire NBA. That had to be a pleasant surprise, even to the nattering nabobs.

I suspect the other reason Neil is still around is he drafts well, and since we have had zero success as a franchise (going way back before Neil Olshey) signing top name free agents, the only real chance this franchise has at improvement is through the draft.

Right, or wrong, it's Paul's decision, not ours.

BNM

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not trying to hate on you. And I fail to see what reality I'm ignoring. I simply showed that throughout the years, they just don't make many trades AT ALL. The very few that they have made were split between east and west. None really included a big star, but those trades in general are few and far between.
None of the links provided showed a direct quote from Pop, just assumptions, or sources say. Which is fine, but their history doesn't necessarily back up those sources, because there is no real history.

I meant hating on Blazer management, not me.

Using a lack of historical evidence to back up your point doesn't do a lot to support it. Pop has not made this a secret.

What possible motivation would these multiple reporters have to conspire to convince us that Greg Popovic doesn't want to send stars to rival teams?

Or is Neil Olshey behind this conspiracy as well?

I bet Paul Allen has a Manchurian Candidate style program specifically for programming reporters to defend his GM...

I just can't believe the lengths people are going to, just trying to justify their bitching. It's mind boggling to me.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Yeah he has nothing to show for it but 49 wins last season. This is a non sequitur; getting rid of Crabbe and Batum and Barton (for practically nothing, or more accurately: at a cost), cannot be directly correlated to the 49 wins. That's sloppy in my opinion.

Also, talk about a strawman argument. Tim Brown is arguing these players were assets, and now we're talking about contracts? and PERs? Whatever.

Furthermore, Brown could've gone much much further in the tale of assets that've walked. For example: Bazz could've for sure garnered a second round pick.

You don't see the irony in the tweeter's tweet that desperately trying to retain assets like Crabbe is EXACTLY what got us into the situation we're in? If we would have let Crabbe walk for nothing and not matched BRK's offer sheet, we would have been better off. Bitching about losing "assets" for nothing when the alternative is overpaying to to keep below average players seems counter productive.

And yes, how much a player is paid is part of their value as an asset. Crabbe on a cheap contract would be a very tradeable asset. Crabbe at $19,332,500, not so tradeable. We're just lucky BRN was dumb enough to still want him a year later.

Napier was a free agent. We couldn't trade him without resigning him first. And why would another team give us a draft pick when they could just sign him themselves?

BNM

 

[Propagandist]

I meant hating on Blazer management, not me.

Using a lack of historical evidence to back up your point doesn't do a lot to support it. Pop has not made this a secret.

What possible motivation would these multiple reporters have to conspire to convince us that Greg Popovic doesn't want to send stars to rival teams?

Or is Neil Olshey behind this conspiracy as well?

I bet Paul Allen has a Manchurian Candidate style program specifically for programming reporters to defend his GM...

I just can't believe the lengths people are going to, just trying to justify their bitching. It's mind boggling to me.

Dude, you're on a different wave length or something. I really think you're misreading @RR7. From what I can see, he's saying this: San Antonio doesn't make a ton of trades.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Don't let facts cloud you. Pop had an agenda.

Fact: Kawhi was traded to an Eastern Conference team.

Fact: Every western conference team that asked was told no.

Who's ignoring what?

 

[Phatguysrule]

Dude, you're on a different wave length or something. I really think you're misreading @RR7. From what I can see, he's saying this: San Antonio doesn't make a ton of trades.

If that's all he's saying I'm not sure why he's replying to me.

 

[Scalma]

Fact: Kawhi was traded to an Eastern Conference team.

Fact: Every western conference team that asked was told no.

Who's ignoring what?

 

[illmatic99]

Nice strawman. Every one of those players you mentioned can create for themselves (and most can also create for others, too). Crabbe can't. Harkless can't.

I was comparing apples to apples. You were comparing apples to diamonds. You're post is not only putting words in my mouth, it is 100% disingenuous.

BNM

Dude you literally said Harkless is a better shooter and noted only his percentage while ignoring that he makes less than half a three a game. Why not bring up Meyers Leonard's 43% while you're at it?

 

[Propagandist]

You don't see the irony in the tweeter's tweet that desperately trying to retain assets like Crabbe is EXACTLY what got us into the situation we're in? If we would have let Crabbe walk for nothing and not matched BRK's offer sheet, we would have been better off. Bitching about losing "assets" for nothing when the alternative is overpaying to to keep below average players seems counter productive.

And yes, how much a player is paid is part of their value as an asset. Crabbe on a cheap contract would be a very tradeable asset. Crabbe at $19,332,500, not so tradeable. We're just lucky BRN was dumb enough to still want him a year later.

Napier was a free agent. We couldn't trade him without resigning him first. And why would another team give us a draft pick when they could just sign him themselves?

BNM

Oy. It's funny you're always calling people disingenuous.

The framework is Brown's tweet. NOT all available arguments. But I'll give you that Crabbe wasn't a valuable trade asset. But also would argue that Batum, Barton, and the TPE (among others) were.

Teams want players at different times, sometimes not just to sign them: see Afflalo to Portland.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Olshey is an average GM at best. It is what it is

Best we've had in a long time though...

 

[Phatguysrule]

View attachment 21708

Exactly.

 

[illmatic99]

Exactly.

Smh I don't think you're getting that pic

 

[Phatguysrule]

Smh I don't think you're getting that pic

Oh I get it. The fact that he had to resort to it is what's funny.

 

[Scalma]

Oh I get it. The fact that he had to resort to it is what's funny.

Looks like you don’t get it.

 

[Reep]

Looks like you don’t get it.

Can you help out a brother who doesn't watch Office Space?

 

[Mediocre Man]

Best we've had in a long time though...

Really? I don't really think so, but I know it's split on Neil

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Whether it's his fault directly or indirectly, it was the contracts Neil handed out in the Summer of 2016 that continue to bite him in the ass.

It seems like Paul has given Neil a Mulligan for the Summer of 2016. Neil seems to have learned from his mistakes. He hasn't handed out any ridiculous contracts since. The one big contract since the Summer of 2016 was to Nurk and that was a very team friendly deal relative to the to the impact Nurk has had on this team's defense.

I think the real reason both Neil and Terry are both still around is the team continues to outperform expectations. Every off season, the "experts" predict the Blazers are going to miss the playoffs. Last year the consensus was POR would finish dead last in the NW Division. They did the exact opposite, they won the deepest, most balanced division in the entire NBA. That had to be a pleasant surprise, even to the nattering nabobs.

I suspect the other reason Neil is still around is he drafts well, and since we have had zero success as a franchise (going way back before Neil Olshey) signing top name free agents, the only real chance this franchise has at improvement is through the draft.

Right, or wrong, it's Paul's decision, not ours.

BNM

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point but I would question if the Blazers have met or exceeded the expectations that they’ve set for themselves. I believe last summer (could be wrong) Neil said he had them projected at 53 or 54 wins - They won 49.
Not to harp on the playoffs but I hope that performance wasn’t up to their expectations either.
It goes back to my problem with NO he seems to always over sale and under deliver.
Now in terms of the TPE am I shocked no one wanted to give us something useful for nothing? nope. The Blazers record has gone up every year the last 3(?) years too, so credit where credit is due he was the GM and put Dame on the roster and kept him there.

 

[tester551]

Until I hear from the horses mouth all the bad moves are Paul and all the good ones are Neil I have a hard time blaming anyone who’s job description isn’t general manager and president of basketball operations. Just personally, if you know an asset isn’t worth it, it’s your job as a gm to tell ownership that and fight for what you think is best. Not just allow stupid moves to happen on your watch. That’s called being bad at your job.

We all knew who crabbe and Meyers were before they got their ridiculous deals. This points to an inexcusable level of incompetence in the front office. Not to mention the batum trade (no real assets in return) Barton trade ( no real assets in return). Those are all on Neil whether he likes it or not.

That’s not to say I wish we had those players back but we could have done so much more with those assets. That’s more than hindsight.

Excellent post.

If the GM doesn't do everything in his power to convince the owner it's a bad move - they are complicit in the deal & have to take ownership of the results

 

[hoopsjock]

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with your overall point but I would question if the Blazers have met or exceeded the expectations that they’ve set for themselves. I believe last summer (could be wrong) Neil said he had them projected at 53 or 54 wins - They won 49.
Not to harp on the playoffs but I hope that performance wasn’t up to their expectations either.
It goes back to my problem with NO he seems to always over sale and under deliver.
Now in terms of the TPE am I shocked no one wanted to give us something useful for nothing? nope. The Blazers record has gone up every year the last 3(?) years too, so credit where credit is due he was the GM and put Dame on the roster and kept him there.

It was 2 years ago Olshey said the 54 win thing, not last year. What he said was that their lineup with Aminu at the 4 played at that level.

 

[tester551]

I am willing to bet that PA is not stupid - and understands the cap issue the team has. If Neil is still around, that's probably because PA knows it is not his fault, or mostly not his fault.

How's it not his fault?
Anyone with basic financial management background could see that the cap issues were going to be there soon as the ink dried on those contracts

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It was 2 years ago Olshey said the 54 win thing, not last year. What he said was that their lineup with Aminu at the 4 played at that level.

Thank you for the clarification I was googling it and couldn’t find it. I just remember hearing it.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Really? I don't really think so, but I know it's split on Neil

Really? Who do you think we've had that was better? I liked Pritchard mostly, but pretty much everybody else since Trader Bob has been pretty questionable. Unless I'm forgetting someone.

 

[Phatguysrule]

How's it not his fault?
Anyone with basic financial management background could see that the cap issues were going to be there soon as the ink dried on those contracts

Actually I think the CBA that was passed in December if 2016 got us into this problem. Most people knew the new TV deal would bring in a ton of money, and caps would rise accordingly. They expected it would raise at an even rate rather than following the earning peaks and valleys. Which is why nearly every team spent like mad in 2016.

But the players didn't want that, and decided to let the revenue peaks and valleys set the cap every year.

So as I understand it, the last couple of years it has risen more slowly than expected, but will increase significantly in the near future.

Can someone correct me if I am wrong? I Remember the prevailing theory at the time being that the cap would rise significantly the following year.

 

[Natebishop3]

I can't tell if Neil just sucks.... or if Paul is being cheap.

 

[Scalma]

Goodbye my lover.

 

[andalusian]

How's it not his fault?

Because the owner called the shot

 

[e_blazer]

I guess I really don’t get all of the angst by some of you over this. We spend endless amounts of board time bewailing bad contracts and wasted team cap resources, and then we get all torn up because we don’t take on another bad contract? This stopped being a viable option to get a good player after the draft. Or did you really think some team was going to part with a valuable player for nothing?