Trail of Tears

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
hoopsjock said:
Leading up to the trade deadline I knew they weren't going to trade Whiteside. Yes, I'm mad at that decision, but all of my posts since have been about other things, not keeping Whiteside. I've even said multiple times that keeping Whiteside was fine IF they were willing to give this team a legit shot this year.

So my problem isn't that they didn't trade Whiteside. It's that they kept him without accomplishing any other goal. If trading Skal opened up the roster spot that led to the team getting better then great! But they aren't even going to explore that. If they got out of the luxury tax then great! But they weren't even close. If they were trying to give this team the best "possible chance to compete" this year (again Olshey's words) the team is no better than they were on the deadline and they aren't willing to add a piece that could possibly change that. If they wanted to compete this year but also improve future assets or get the best lineup for next year they didn't accomplish that either.
Click to expand...

Problem is without Hood and Collins 100 there's no way we'd have a legit shot this year.
 
HailBlazers said:
Problem is without Hood and Collins 100 there's no way we'd have a legit shot this year.
Click to expand...
Well there's still a chance Collins will be back and yes not having Hood hurts but last year we didn't have Nurk and were able to replace a good portion of his production with a buyout candidate. Something the team won't consider doing this year.
 
hoopsjock said:
Common sense has to make sense. They did nothing to change the summer of 2020 at the deadline. In fact the Ariza trade takes away $1.8 million or makes them have no cap space.
Click to expand...

We will still have the full mle and the 7.1mil TPE to fill out the roster.

As far as tradable contracts
Ariza (if we pick up his option)
Whiteside (if he is re-signed in the region of around 12 mil)
Hood (if he picks up his option)
Nurkic
Collins
Little
Simons
Trent

Honest question, I am curious if we did your Batum trade how that would have helped more in the off season than retaining Whiteside at a reasonable contract? If the Batum deal was going to go down, I don't see swapping picks as an option but more likely a lottery protected first round pick at best and Charlotte might insist on pushing a low cost contract on us as well so they are taking on even less salary (but either way it wouldn't really change anything). Now we have no center yet until Nurkic gets back and what player would you pick up from the bought out players that will improve us over where we are at right now?
 
hoopsjock said:
I understand all that, but how does reducing the tax payment this year make it all about moves "in the summer of 2020"
Click to expand...

Because we're going attempt to resign Whiteside. And any money saved is important to a team with such a high payroll that doesn't have the results to back it up.
 
HailBlazers said:
Because we're going attempt to resign Whiteside. And any money saved is important to a team with such a high payroll that doesn't have the results to back it up.
Click to expand...
We could re-sign Whiteside no matter what we did a the deadline. And as I've pointed out multiple times adding a player that helps this team make the playoffs would bring in more money than trading Skal and them not making the playoffs.
 
hoopsjock said:
We could re-sign Whiteside no matter what we did a the deadline. And as I've pointed out multiple times adding a player that helps this team make the playoffs would bring in more money than trading Skal and them not making the playoffs.
Click to expand...

As a business owner I thought you'd understand how saving money in one place helps relieves the pain (however minor) of having to spend it elsewhere. Furthermore it's debatable there's much help out there for the Blazers. Anyone on the buyout market that's good wants to go to a contender.
 
hoopsjock said:
We could re-sign Whiteside no matter what we did a the deadline. And as I've pointed out multiple times adding a player that helps this team make the playoffs would bring in more money than trading Skal and them not making the playoffs.
Click to expand...
Between the Ariza deal and the Skal deal how much did they did help the current year tax hit? (asking cause I dont know.)

Ive had a ton going on and havent been paying attention to all the #’s but it seems like both moves were mostly done for $$$. Though Ariza it turns out can still play.
 
Last edited:
HailBlazers said:
As a business owner I thought you'd understand how saving money in one place helps relieves the pain (however minor) of having to spend it elsewhere. Furthermore it's debatable there's much help out there for the Blazers. Anyone on the buyout market that's good wants to go to a contender.
Click to expand...
1) Sports aren't anything like a normal business, you know that.

2) You can't say whether or not a player on the buyout market would help or not because they aren't even pursuing that route. Imagine having your stance last year and not signing Kanter.

3) Making the playoffs generates more revenue than saved in the Skal trade.

4) Saving only $2 million this year more than likely hurts this summer more than it helps. If they would've gotten out of the tax they'd get paid money instead of paying out money. Then not triggering the repeater tax after next season would give them more leeway not to worry about the tax.

5) If the owner chooses $2 million in savings over winning then that is certainly her right but that doesn't mean she saved it to spend $2 million more this summer. If she's that cheap it's not going to change in 4 months.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Between the Ariza deal and the Skal deal how much did they did help the current year tax hit? (asking cause I dont know.

Ive had a ton going on and havent been paying attention to all the #’s but it seems like both moves were mostly done for $$$. Though Ariza it turns out can still play.
Click to expand...
I have to look it up again but I want to say it was around $9.3 million saved in the Ariza trade.
 
hoopsjock said:
I have to look it up again but I want to say it was around $9.3 million saved in the Ariza trade.
Click to expand...
My post above isnt to make an excuse, but I dont know maybe she said you need to reduce the payroll by 10m, and so she see’s it as a success? I dont know.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
My post above isnt to make an excuse, but I dont know maybe she said you need to reduce the payroll by 10m, and so she see’s it as a success? I dont know.
Click to expand...

That's just it, we don't know where and what the mandate was as it could have been Jody Allen that decided she didn't want to pay tax money on a player that may not play again this year. What was done this year is based on where the team is at this year and I don;t see it being an issue going forward as long as the team can be competitive and be solidly in the playoffs. It could be hoopsjock is blaming Olshey for carrying out orders from above.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
My post above isnt to make an excuse, but I dont know maybe she said you need to reduce the payroll by 10m, and so she see’s it as a success? I dont know.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's certainly possible but then for me that makes both trades this past summer questionable as to taking on more money for their expiring contracts and brings it back to the original point of this thread that the failures of 2016 led them to this point.

I just don't get why Jody would demand saving a certain amount but not getting out completely. Even if that was the order given to Olshey to just save part of the money, the difference between $9.3 million and $11.5 million doesn't seem like a huge enough difference to warrant not putting the best possible roster on the floor.

Kanter made under $500,000 last year. Add a $1 million in tax and even after the Skal trade they'd still have cut $10 million off their savings.

So saving $11.5 million versus $10 million is more important than giving Dame help? To me that speaks to a larger problem moving forward.

And this isn't me trying to say things I don't know, these are actual information and numbers.
 
hoopsjock said:
Yeah, it's certainly possible but then for me that makes both trades this past summer questionable as to taking on more money for their expiring contracts and brings it back to the original point of this thread that the failures of 2016 led them to this point.

I just don't get why Jody would demand saving a certain amount but not getting out completely. Even if that was the order given to Olshey to just save part of the money, the difference between $9.3 million and $11.5 million doesn't seem like a huge enough difference to warrant not putting the best possible roster on the floor.

Kanter made under $500,000 last year. Add a $1 million in tax and even after the Skal trade they'd still have cut $10 million off their savings.

So saving $11.5 million versus $10 million is more important than giving Dame help? To me that speaks to a larger problem moving forward.

And this isn't me trying to say things I don't know, these are actual information and numbers.
Click to expand...

Buyout Kanter equivalent is not out there this year. If you think they're not going to get Dame the most help possible the next two seasons than I don't know what to tell you.
 
HailBlazers said:
Buyout Kanter equivalent is not out there this year. If you think they're not going to get Dame the most help possible the next two seasons than I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...
Buyout Kanter hadn't even been bought out yet at this point last year. I didn't know you were from the future.
 
hoopsjock said:
Sly I'm sorry but this is just a ridiculous post by you and you obviously didn't understand my point. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NOT DOING WHAT I WANTED. Do I have to put that in the biggest font possible for people to read it?

Yes, in my opinion they should've traded Whiteside. Please show me one post where I've been mad that "MY CHOICE" wasn't the path followed? In fact I've gone OUT OF MY WAY to show that is NOT what I'm mad about.

It's a fact that this team doesn't want to field the best possible team from this point forward. Olshey said there was ZERO chance they pick up a buyout candidate. Say whatever you want about how much of a factor a buyout candidate would or wouldn't be but if they had the same approach last year we wouldn't have had Kanter. So the fact they would choose $2 million in savings, which does nothing to get out of the tax, over the possibility of picking up a player that could help them make the playoffs or get them more playoff games (MEANING MORE REVENUE THAN THE $2 MILLION) is proof that they don't want to get better.

I'm mad because no matter what direction this franchise is headed we are not doing what it takes to win with Dame. Or if we're not going to do that then get out of the tax completely! At least then there would be an actual reason why they can't add another player to the roster. Keep Whiteside! It's fine! Just don't keep him and then not try to make a run this year.

It doesn't make sense!
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration. It appears that most people either did not view the clip of Olshey or did not really listen.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I understand your frustration. It appears that most people either did not view the clip of Olshey or did not really listen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was mad already but when he started contradicting himself that clinched it for me.
 
hoopsjock said:
Yeah, I was mad already but when he started contradicting himself that clinched it for me.
Click to expand...


GUEST_32ef962a-bf35-4cdb-865e-406f5012666e
 
I really doubt if Jody was gonna cheap out on the team she'd be attending so many games.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
I understand your frustration. It appears that most people either did not view the clip of Olshey or did not really listen.
Click to expand...
Also think that some have misunderstood a lot of it.

I can understand being upset about the organization trying to play both sides of the fence though.
 
Here is the interview. The one glaring inconsistency is Olshey saying they wanted as many healthy bodies as available so he let Skal go. But he didn't replace him. The rest seems to be on Jody as he says specifically she didn't want to give up assets or players to try to improve this team and stop future growth. It's funny because this doesn't seem like all the interview??? I seem to remember him saying something about not moving skal just to enter the buyout market? maybe there is another?
https://www.nba.com/blazers/video/2020/02/06/neil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top