WOJ: Dame wants the super max extension

[PtldPlatypus]

good to hear....that's not how old Dame is now so I don't get the comparison...I said both Duncan and he were older when they took paycuts and they were. I think Dirk, Tim and Dame are all 3 cut from the same cloth

Because Dame can't take a pay cut now, so obviously nobody's talking about him taking a pay cut now. The question is all about whether we pay him 50+M in the 25-26 and 26-27 seasons, when Dame is going to be 35 & 36, precisely in the same age range that Dirk and Duncan were when they took pay cuts to help their teams.

 

[blazerkor]

Dame staying is not a guaranty of a champion. But Rebuilding, sure as hell ain't a guaranty either. And who's to say if Sharpe does end up being all that, he doesn't say adios as soon as he achieves that level. I'm riding with Dame.

There is this precedent now in the league that basically every player that is "all that" spends the first 8 seasons of their career with the team that drafted them if it's in the first round, just because they make more money that way. So I don't think there's much of a chance at all that Sharpe blows up and then we somehow just lose him... that doesn't make any sense. I guess we might have to trade him for a declining superstar in his sixth year ala Ben Simmons if we treat him like shit and he's got fragile self confidence but that situation is the outlier. We will have Shaedon under contract for the next four seasons and complete control over his following contract. If he blows up we're going to reap the benefits.

 

[wizenheimer]

Duncan and Dirk both resigned for much less than the max to win.

c'mon man...

both Duncan & Dirk re-signed for "less than the max" when they were 36. Dame is 31

Because Dame can't take a pay cut now, so obviously nobody's talking about him taking a pay cut now. The question is all about whether we pay him 50+M in the 25-26 and 26-27 seasons, when Dame is going to be 35 & 36, precisely in the same age range that Dirk and Duncan were when they took pay cuts to help their teams.

so, an extension takes Dame till age 36. As you say, it was at age 36 that Duncan and Dirk Dirk took their pay cuts AFTER spending a decade on their time's versions of super-max deals. So then, at the same age as Duncan & Dirk, Dame will have the opportunity to take a pay-cut

 

[SlyPokerDog]

One of the greatest 75 players in NBA history.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

c'mon man...

both Duncan & Dirk re-signed for "less than the max" when they were 36. Dame is 31



so, an extension takes Dame till age 36. As you say, it was at age 36 that Duncan and Dirk Dirk took their pay cuts AFTER spending a decade on their time's versions of super-max deals. So then, at the same age as Duncan & Dirk, Dame will have the opportunity to take a pay-cut

32 in 2 weeks. 37 after the extension. The extension straddles the line.

It'll be up to Dame what his priority is going to be. But personally, I don't see a team built around a declining defensively-challenged 35/36-yo PG making 50M+/year being able to contend.

We shall see.

 

[Freshtown]

32 in 2 weeks. 37 after the extension. The extension straddles the line.

It'll be up to Dame what his priority is going to be. But personally, I don't see a team built around a declining defensively-challenged 35/36-yo PG making 50M+/year being able to contend.

We shall see.

Correct. But a lot of people here seem like they care more about rewarding Dame and legacy vs. contention.

 

[tykendo]

There is this precedent now in the league that basically every player that is "all that" spends the first 8 seasons of their career with the team that drafted them if it's in the first round, just because they make more money that way. So I don't think there's much of a chance at all that Sharpe blows up and then we somehow just lose him... that doesn't make any sense. I guess we might have to trade him for a declining superstar in his sixth year ala Ben Simmons if we treat him like shit and he's got fragile self confidence but that situation is the outlier. We will have Shaedon under contract for the next four seasons and complete control over his following contract. If he blows up we're going to reap the benefits.

 

[e_blazer]

Dirk was 36--just a year older than Dame will be after his current contract expires.

His current contract if he gets the two year extension. At 36 Dame will be one year younger than CP3 is now.

 

[tykendo]

You talk about control, sure. But if a player wants out, he can get out. And as we've seen, the return is never of the same value. In many cases it's draft comp. from top teams which end up being end of the 1st round .

 

[wizenheimer]

I'm wondering if those people who seem convinced that an extension for Dame would be franchise crippling have paid any attention to the discussions about the next round of media-right deals the NBA is already talking about?

I've seen projections that in 2025, the NBA salary cap could jump 35-50% from the previous season. If the 2024-25 cap is at 140M (quite possible), then in 2025 the cap could be somewhere in the 190-210M range. Coincidentally, that would be the first season of Dame's extension. Dame currently makes about 35% of the salary cap. If he signs a 100M extension, a 50M salary would be 26% of a 190M cap. 50M would not even be 35% of a 150M cap.

it's entirely possible that Dame's extension will take a smaller share of the cap than it currently does. Now, I know it's possible that his extension might have a mechanism for 'grabbing' a larger share of the pie if the cap goes way up, but the number that's being thrown around is 2-year/100M.
*******************************************************************************************



https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/09/1...ng-deal-could-lead-to-175-million-salary-cap/

*****************************************

" This leads us to the present, where the NBA is looking into signing a new broadcasting contract, taking effect in 2025. Only, this time the amount is projected to be substantially larger than what they fetched in 2014.


According to a report from Jabari Young of CNBC back in March, the NBA is looking at almost tripling the number of the current deal, aiming for over $75 billion that will compensate the league with $8.3 billion annually.

Needless to say, jumping $5.7 billion in TV-income annually will have a severe impact of the NBA's salary cap, which is calculated off the league’s Basketball-Related Income (BRI).

Working under the assumption that the players' union will once again prefer a major spike, a one-year increase of over $50 million isn't out of the realm of possibility.


According to a league source, projections indicate that a $171 million salary cap is possible, assuming no cap smoothing, by 2025."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/morten...ould-spend-big-on-extensions/?sh=3793e383e851

********************************************************************************

I think this season clearly proved one thing considering that with Dame struggling, by the trade deadline the rest of the roster could only generate a record that was 13 games below .500

meaning that the 35% of the cap going to Dame over the last couple of seasons wasn't the problem. It was the 63% of the cap going to CJ-Powell-RoCo-Nance/Jones

that last article was written almost a year ago before a 1 year jump pf the salary cap of nearly 10%. Even taking the lower projection of 175M for the 2025 cap, a 50M salary for Dame would be 29% of the cap rather than it's current 35%

 

[wizenheimer]

32 in 2 weeks. 37 after the extension. The extension straddles the line.

It'll be up to Dame what his priority is going to be. But personally, I don't see a team built around a declining defensively-challenged 35/36-yo PG making 50M+/year being able to contend.

We shall see.

let's see now. Dirk took his pay cut in 2014. That was 8 years ago...how many of those 8 years was Dallas a contender? Duncan took his pay-cut a decade ago; they won the next season, but they haven't been close to contention since

in other words, dumping a super-max deal isn't a path to contention.

I'll say again, you guys are focused on the wrong slice of the pie, and this last season proved it: paying Dame 35% of the salary cap is not what has been keeping Portland from contending; what's doing that is paying guys like CJ-Powell-Roco-Nurkic-Nance 70% of the cap

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'm wondering if those people who seem convinced that an extension for Dame would be franchise crippling have paid any attention to the discussions about the next round of media-right deals the NBA is already talking about?

I've seen projections that in 2025, the NBA salary cap could jump 35-50% from the previous season. If the 2024-25 cap is at 140M (quite possible), then in 2025 the cap could be somewhere in the 190-210M range. Coincidentally, that would be the first season of Dame's extension. Dame currently makes about 35% of the salary cap. If he signs a 100M extension, a 50M salary would be 26% of a 190M cap. 50M would not even be 35% of a 150M cap.

it's entirely possible that Dame's extension will take a smaller share of the cap than it currently does. Now, I know it's possible that his extension might have a mechanism for 'grabbing' a larger share of the pie if the cap goes way up, but the number that's being thrown around is 2-year/100M.
*******************************************************************************************

View attachment 48197

https://nba.nbcsports.com/2021/09/1...ng-deal-could-lead-to-175-million-salary-cap/

*****************************************

" This leads us to the present, where the NBA is looking into signing a new broadcasting contract, taking effect in 2025. Only, this time the amount is projected to be substantially larger than what they fetched in 2014.


According to a report from Jabari Young of CNBC back in March, the NBA is looking at almost tripling the number of the current deal, aiming for over $75 billion that will compensate the league with $8.3 billion annually.

Needless to say, jumping $5.7 billion in TV-income annually will have a severe impact of the NBA's salary cap, which is calculated off the league’s Basketball-Related Income (BRI).

Working under the assumption that the players' union will once again prefer a major spike, a one-year increase of over $50 million isn't out of the realm of possibility.


According to a league source, projections indicate that a $171 million salary cap is possible, assuming no cap smoothing, by 2025."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/morten...ould-spend-big-on-extensions/?sh=3793e383e851

********************************************************************************

I think this season clearly proved one thing considering that with Dame struggling, by the trade deadline the rest of the roster could only generate a record that was 13 games below .500

meaning that the 35% of the cap going to Dame over the last couple of seasons wasn't the problem. It was the 63% of the cap going to CJ-Powell-RoCo-Nance/Jones

that last article was written almost a year ago before a 1 year jump pf the salary cap of nearly 10%. Even taking the lower projection of 175M for the 2025 cap, a 50M salary for Dame would be 29% of the cap rather than it's current 35%

Insanity!

There should be a hard cap on the cap!

 

[blazerkor]

You talk about control, sure. But if a player wants out, he can get out. And as we've seen, the return is never of the same value. In many cases it's draft comp. from top teams which end up being end of the 1st round .

Have we seen any player get out by demanding a trade during his rookie contract? For that matter has any high level player on their second contract been successful with a trade demand besides the one outlier I just mentioned? I also happened to mention that his team had to treat him like shit right after he had a mental breakdown in the playoffs in front of tens of millions of people. So what are the other examples. Allstar Vets demand trades but like I said if the very improbable happened and he did demand a trade after blowing up, we would get a ton of value for him... so the idea that you floated of him just saying "adios" isn't a risk at all.

For the record, I'm also riding with Dame.

 

[John Law]

What a terrible decision, if true. Did Cronin really do all of those trades and shed all of that salary just so he could pay the extra to Lillard? The Blazers will never be a contender with Lillard eating that much of the cap, and he will never be tradeable after he signs that deal. It's too bad so many Portland fans love Lillard more than they love winning.

 

[wizenheimer]

What a terrible decision, if true. Did Cronin really do all of those trades and shed all of that salary just so he could pay the extra to Lillard? The Blazers will never be a contender with Lillard eating that much of the cap, and he will never be tradeable after he signs that deal. It's too bad so many Portland fans love Lillard more than they love winning.

how often did Portland win without Dame this season? hint: 14 times out of 57 tries. 14-43. In case you're wondering that would be averaging 20 wins a year. Such winning!

 

[Voodoo]

how often did Portland win without Dame this season? hint: 14 times out of 57 tries. 14-43. In case you're wondering that would be averaging 20 wins a year. Such winning!

Not that I am advocating for trading him, I am not, but I don’t think the objective would be to win next year IF we were to trade Lillard. Using this argument is not a fair one, because the argument your crafting is assuming that we’d have the same roster with Lillard injured as we otherwise would have with him traded. We wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t be wanting to win either in that scenario in this next year.

 

[blazerkor]

Not that I am advocating for trading him, I am not, but I don’t think the objective would be to win next year IF we were to trade Lillard. Using this argument is not a fair one, because the argument your crafting is assuming that we’d have the same roster with Lillard injured as we otherwise would have with him traded. We wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t be wanting to win either in that scenario in this next year.

In @wizenheimer 's defense he was responding to a statement that explicitly made winning and committing to Dame separately exclusive possibilities. You can commit to Dame and winning at the same time, in fact I think our best chance to win is with Dame, gambling on lesser known commodities while exciting is a far worse bet as far as odds go.

 

[wizenheimer]

Not that I am advocating for trading him, I am not, but I don’t think the objective would be to win next year IF we were to trade Lillard. Using this argument is not a fair one, because the argument your crafting is assuming that we’d have the same roster with Lillard injured as we otherwise would have with him traded. We wouldn’t, and we wouldn’t be wanting to win either in that scenario in this next year.

I disagree, at least in the context of all the discussions here

that being that people keep proposing Dame trades that would bring in players...players like Jalen Brown (very unlikely) or OG Anunoby (most likely) or many other players on that level. I think that's the kind of talent people advocate for bringing in, in no small part because they know the draft capital will most likely stink

so then, the arguments are NOT in favor of being a losing team next season. The advocacy is for trading a singular talent for multiple existing talents. The arguments that I've seen have not been for sucking next season and trying to maximize the team's own draft assets. That strategy would at least makes some sense to me

 

[Natebishop3]

how often did Portland win without Dame this season? hint: 14 times out of 57 tries. 14-43. In case you're wondering that would be averaging 20 wins a year. Such winning!

Okay okay okay.... I'm all for debating the merits of playing with or without Dame.... but come on man. We were tanking. We weren't even TRYING to win games. When we did win games, suddenly people would get shut down because of a mystery illness or injury. This is not a good measuring stick.

 

[SlyPokerCat]

I disagree, at least in the context of all the discussions here

that being that people keep proposing Dame trades that would bring in players...players like Jalen Brown (very unlikely) or OG Anunoby (most likely) or many other players on that level. I think that's the kind of talent people advocate for bringing in, in no small part because they know the draft capital will most likely stink

so then, the arguments are NOT in favor of being a losing team next season. The advocacy is for trading a singular talent for multiple existing talents. The arguments that I've seen have not been for sucking next season and trying to maximize the team's own draft assets. That strategy would at least makes some sense to me

Who wanted OG for Dame? That is stupidity at the highest level. There were a ton of us that didn't want OG for #7.

It would have to be Van Vleet and Scottie Barnes with Vleet going elsewhere.

 

[blazerkor]

Okay okay okay.... I'm all for debating the merits of playing with or without Dame.... but come on man. We were tanking. We weren't even TRYING to win games. When we did win games, suddenly people would get shut down because of a mystery illness or injury. This is not a good measuring stick.

Yeah it was an extreme response to an even more extreme statement. Wanting to win and wanting to keep Dame aren't in any way, shape or form mutually exclusive and that's the statement that @wizenheimer was replying to. I think it deserves that context. He might have been using a misleading stat but it was just supporting a pretty solid conclusion that Dame isn't detrimental to winning but is actually conducive to winning... it's the uncomplementary casts that Olshey has surrounded him with that have prevented Dame from being the best he could be, not the other way around.

 

[wizenheimer]

Okay okay okay.... I'm all for debating the merits of playing with or without Dame.... but come on man. We were tanking. We weren't even TRYING to win games. When we did win games, suddenly people would get shut down because of a mystery illness or injury. This is not a good measuring stick.

ok...so?

some poster actually said some other posters care more about Dame than they do about winning. I want to know how the fuck anybody would know that Portland could win more often over the next 2 or 3 seasons without Dame than with him

I know I come across as a Dame apologist but the doom-and-gloom crowd around here are making a hell of a lot more assumptions than those with a little bit of optimism

 

[Voodoo]

In @wizenheimer 's defense he was responding to a statement that explicitly made winning and committing to Dame separately exclusive possibilities. You can commit to Dame and winning at the same time, in fact I think our best chance to win is with Dame, gambling on lesser known commodities while exciting is a far worse bet as far as odds go.

Fair, and I am on team keep Dame for the record.

 

[Duckhook]

 

[Voodoo]

I disagree, at least in the context of all the discussions here

that being that people keep proposing Dame trades that would bring in players...players like Jalen Brown (very unlikely) or OG Anunoby (most likely) or many other players on that level. I think that's the kind of talent people advocate for bringing in, in no small part because they know the draft capital will most likely stink

so then, the arguments are NOT in favor of being a losing team next season. The advocacy is for trading a singular talent for multiple existing talents. The arguments that I've seen have not been for sucking next season and trying to maximize the team's own draft assets. That strategy would at least makes some sense to me

I agree with this sentiment, I think trading Dame, especially in this off season would be a mistake.

 

[wizenheimer]

Who wanted OG for Dame? That is stupidity at the highest level. There were a ton of us that didn't want OG for #7.

It would have to be Van Vleet and Scottie Barnes with Vleet going elsewhere.

IIRC it was more coming back than OG, but that more talent was at the same level as OG, or below. Like all of the realistic Dame trades it was trading a dollar for a couple of quarters (at most), a dime, and a nickel

 

[blazerkor]

@SlyPokerDog already likewhored himself out with this brilliant gif, for this subject.

 

[wizenheimer]

@SlyPokerDog already likewhored himself out with this brilliant gif, for this subject.

"likewhored himself"?

is that a verb?

 

[SlyPokerCat]

IIRC it was more coming back than OG, but that more talent was at the same level as OG, or below. Like all of the realistic Dame trades it was trading a dollar for a couple of quarters (at most), a dime, and a nickel

Nah, you gotta trade Dame for someone like Barnes. They may not even do something like that. You need the team desperate to launch themselves into contention. If I were the Blazers I wouldn't hang up immediately on people making offers. Good to know his value if it comes to that.

 

[John Law]

ok...so?

some poster actually said some other posters care more about Dame than they do about winning. I want to know how the fuck anybody would know that Portland could win more often over the next 2 or 3 seasons without Dame than with him

I know I come across as a Dame apologist but the doom-and-gloom crowd around here are making a hell of a lot more assumptions than those with a little bit of optimism

You don't really have to make assumptions when you have a decade of data to draw from. Paying Lillard a large percentage of the team's salary does not translate into playoff victory. Some people are sick of it, and some people just want to keep Lillard at any cost. If a critical mass of fans would see reality, management would have a lot more leverage every time Lillard asks for more more more or else he will take his ball and go somewhere else. It's a tired act.