WOJ: Dame wants the super max extension

[SharpeScooterShooter]

the only possible difference is the one between the full-MLE and tax-MLE. That's it. And that probably wouldn't even be a factor either

Blazers just busted thru the tax-MLE to sign Payton and he sure isn't a trajectory-altering player.

you guys are arguing that having Dame on a super-max prevents Portland from adding players they could add if Dame took less. It seems to be an article of faith but it doesn't make sense, especially considering that free agency has never been an effective avenue for Portland adding talent

In Dame's first season of the extension, after subtracting his salary, they will have around 110M in room before hitting the salary cap; and around 145M before they hit the tax line; and well over 150M before they hit the apron. If the Blazers can't work with those margins they are massively incompetent.

Correct me if i am wrong please,
but my thought isn't about having more money in fa. Im saying more money locked up in other players so trade values match better. Keep that 20 mill aNd in a year, determine what other players we can get and then those players could potentially be more assets in trades to nail the guys we want?
I do know the variables are massive so nothin is for sure. But thats kinda my point.
Locking up the money provides zero flexibility to do anything at all if the opportunity arises.
I would prefer to have that flexibility.
Say we trade Nurk in two years and his salary was 5 mill more per. Gives us a higher salary to match or whatever.
lets say we need to resign grant because he is fitting in good and someone else can offer more because we dont have that extra spending flexibility? So he signs elsewhere?
If Dame wants to win, I do not see him getting any closer taking this money, but he gives himself a chance to get closer by allowing the team to shift the funds into other areas of improvement.


And lets be real about what he deserves. Vs what he has. He has money. Plenty. One of the richest dudes in the nba already.
is a little more really worth more than a chip?

priorities. Fame and stature? Or Championship ring?

(hint: the ring comes with the fame aNd so does endorsement money as well)

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'd like to explore that. Feel free to correct any bad assumption I make

first of all..."took less money"? Dame is turning 32. No other superstar took less money when they were still 32, but I guess Dame should set another precedent...?

and if he did, how much less money? From 60M to 40M is a ridiculous ask. He wouldn't do that and nobody else would either. So let's say he took 50M/year instead of 60M

now then, where is this flexibility you see?

it's a projected 167M salary cap in 2025-26. That's about a 35% increase from the current cap. Kind of a coincidence that Dame's max is 35% of the cap. Anyway, right now, the balance of salaries on the roster OTHER than Dame is around 107M. That include Simons and Sharpe, and if things go well for Portland, they will be getting contracts increasing over 35%. So, just for an example, let's say Portland's non-Dame payroll jumps a shade over 35% and those non-Dame salaries total in the 145-150M range

so then, a 167M salary cap ---> 200M luxury tax threshold ---> 207M apron

Dame ---> 60M + roster = 205-210M payroll
Dame ---> 50M + roster = 195-200M payroll

I'm not seeing the flexibility you are imagining, especially in terms of adding another star...who is damn well guaranteed to be expensive

when has a star gone from 40-60 mill? hard to say no one has taken less when this type of money has never been doled out in the past. Who knows in that scenario.
But michael jordan took less for years. Before and after 32.

Again, your focus is only in fa and not trade options, which im thinking more in lines of tradable salary. 20 more spent in salary on others means 20 more in tradable salary, does it not?
Of course this means roster changes but we all know we need more of that to get better anyhow.
I am not a cba or salary guy, so there could very well be rules negating my thoughts. If there are, let me know and i will take your word for it. Otherwise, i just see this as limiting future flexibility and I fail to see how it wouldn't matter.

 

[TBpup]

Has Lillard been given anything close to the same supporting cast?

Given? Who knows. He's had a lot more to work with from a quality of Draft standpoint than say Drexler who led a team of 2nd rounders and a trade for Buck Williams (high lottery pick) to 3 conference finals in a row and 2 Finals. Did Clyde make them better, or where Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, Cliff, etc the best group of 2nd rounders in the history of the NBA? I would submit it was some of both.

Dame, by contrast has had multiple Lottery picks added to him via the Draft or trades. But no matter who has been added, the team hasn't really improved. Chris Paul for example went to a perennially crappy OKC team and immediately took them to the #5 spot in the Playoffs....while we finished at #8. Paul left the team, and they have been dog doodoo ever since.

Olshey certainly has his hand in the responsibility quotient, but if Dame gets some of the credit for being the best Blazer ever, then some of the blame for a career 22-40 playoff record also seems fair.

 

[wizenheimer]

Correct me if i am wrong please,
but my thought isn't about having more money in fa. Im saying more money locked up in other players so trade values match better. Keep that 20 mill aNd in a year, determine what other players we can get and then those players could potentially be more assets in trades to nail the guys we want?

again with him taking 40M less. He's not going to do that and no player his age would. He's making 40M with a 112M cap; so he'd take 40M with a 167M cap?...c'mon, be reasonable. Dame isn't going to agree to that kind of give back when guys like Curry, Jokic, Beal are signing massive extensions. Beal will be 34 and making 57M the same year Dame at 36 is making 62M. Which player, right now, is worth more? I guarantee you that the season Dame is making over 60M there will be a bunch of other players making over 60M too

as for signing other players with the, maybe, 10M LESS, nothing is preventing that but ownership. That's not on Dame's extension. Besides that, having "more" money to pay other players didn't add trade chips when the 'more-money' was used to sign Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner and Meyers Leonard. The more-money theory didn't make CJ or Norm Powell or RoCo any more trade-valuable

the key isn't having an extra 10M or so to pay supporting players...the key is spending the money you have on supporting players worth the money. That has been the Blazer failure

 

[Phatguysrule]

Given? Who knows. He's had a lot more to work with from a quality of Draft standpoint than say Drexler who led a team of 2nd rounders and a trade for Buck Williams (high lottery pick) to 3 conference finals in a row and 2 Finals. Did Clyde make them better, or where Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, Cliff, etc the best group of 2nd rounders in the history of the NBA? I would submit it was some of both.

Dame, by contrast has had multiple Lottery picks added to him via the Draft or trades. But no matter who has been added, the team hasn't really improved. Chris Paul for example went to a perennially crappy OKC team and immediately took them to the #5 spot in the Playoffs....while we finished at #8. Paul left the team, and they have been dog doodoo ever since.

Olshey certainly has his hand in the responsibility quotient, but if Dame gets some of the credit for being the best Blazer ever, then some of the blame for a career 22-40 playoff record also seems fair.

Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, and Cliff were all All Stars. It doesn't matter where they were picked (aside from management doing an awesome job).

Drexler didn't make them All Stars.

If you give Dame 5 or 6 All Stars he would win some titles.

 

[Natebishop3]

Dame even said it in the press conference. This is money that can change the lives of generations of his family. He’s not walking away from that, no matter how much he wants to win.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, and Cliff were all All Stars. It doesn't matter where they were picked (aside from management doing an awesome job).

Drexler didn't make them All Stars.

If you give Dame 5 or 6 All Stars he would win some titles.

Jerome was never an allstar. Buck was an all star when he was 25 half a decade before he was traded to Portland.

Terry, Duck, and Cliff had one or two all star selections; but the league was weaker then. They were more at the CJ McCollum level of player.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Jerome was never an allstar. Buck was an all star when he was 25 half a decade before he was traded to Portland.

Terry, Duck, and Cliff had one or two all star selections; but the league was weaker then. They were more at the CJ McCollum level of player.

Give Dame 5 or 6 CJ caliber players with the size and athleticism of those guys and he'd have brought home some titles by now.

 

[wizenheimer]

Given? Who knows. He's had a lot more to work with from a quality of Draft standpoint than say Drexler who led a team of 2nd rounders and a trade for Buck Williams (high lottery pick) to 3 conference finals in a row and 2 Finals. Did Clyde make them better, or where Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, Cliff, etc the best group of 2nd rounders in the history of the NBA? I would submit it was some of both.

Dame, by contrast has had multiple Lottery picks added to him via the Draft or trades. But no matter who has been added, the team hasn't really improved. Chris Paul for example went to a perennially crappy OKC team and immediately took them to the #5 spot in the Playoffs....while we finished at #8. Paul left the team, and they have been dog doodoo ever since.

Olshey certainly has his hand in the responsibility quotient, but if Dame gets some of the credit for being the best Blazer ever, then some of the blame for a career 22-40 playoff record also seems fair.

wut?

yeah right....the difference between Klay/Draymond & CJ/Meyers is on Dame...lol.

also...how did you come up with Chris Paul turning around a "perennial crappy" OKC team? They had a 49-33 record the year before CP3 arrived; 44-28 with him. OKC had been in the playoffs in 9 of the 10 seasons before CP3, and the one season they didn't they had a 45-37 record.

as for Dame's part in the Blazer playoff record, it's pretty interesting that the one season he essentially missed, the Blazers had the 6th worst record in the league. Dame is the only reason why Portland was in the playoffs for 6 straight years after Olshey allowed the Dame/Aldridge team to fall apart

 

[wizenheimer]

Jerome was never an allstar. Buck was an all star when he was 25 half a decade before he was traded to Portland.

Terry, Duck, and Cliff had one or two all star selections; but the league was weaker then. They were more at the CJ McCollum level of player.

technically accurate but missing massive context. I'd argue that Porter, Buck, Kersey, and Robinson were all better than CJ in that they were actually 2 way players. They could play defense. Porter would have been twice the back court partner for Dame than CJ ever was

Buck wasn't an all-star in Portland but he was a 3-time member of the NBA all-defensive team while averaging 12 rebounds/game when Portland was contending.

also...no, the league was not weaker then

 

[new22]

again with him taking 40M less. He's not going to do that and no player his age would. He's making 40M with a 112M cap; so he'd take 40M with a 167M cap?...c'mon, be reasonable. Dame isn't going to agree to that kind of give back when guys like Curry, Jokic, Beal are signing massive extensions. Beal will be 34 and making 57M the same year Dame at 36 is making 62M. Which player, right now, is worth more? I guarantee you that the season Dame is making over 60M there will be a bunch of other players making over 60M too

as for signing other players with the, maybe, 10M LESS, nothing is preventing that but ownership. That's not on Dame's extension. Besides that, having "more" money to pay other players didn't add trade chips when the 'more-money' was used to sign Allen Crabbe and Evan Turner and Meyers Leonard. The more-money theory didn't make CJ or Norm Powell or RoCo any more trade-valuable

the key isn't having an extra 10M or so to pay supporting players...the key is spending the money you have on supporting players worth the money. That has been the Blazer failure

I think the problem most people have here is simple. People think this: We got 120mil to spend on a roster. If Dame take 60, we got 60 left for rest of the roster. If He take 40, we got 80 and it looks much better.
What you're saying is, having 60 and 80 does not make any difference. I've never paid attention to salary rules, but I would think that you can build better supporting team with 80 than with 60. Why it does not matter? Seriously, I don't get it.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

No, Estacada doesn’t count.

What about Vantucky?

 

[illmatic99]

I think the problem most people have here is simple. People think this: We got 120mil to spend on a roster. If Dame take 60, we got 60 left for rest of the roster. If He take 40, we got 80 and it looks much better.
What you're saying is, having 60 and 80 does not make any difference. I've never paid attention to salary rules, but I would think that you can build better supporting team with 80 than with 60. Why it does not matter? Seriously, I don't get it.

Dame's salary is ~35% of the cap. The cap in 25/26 when this extension kicks in is estimated to be ~171 million, not 120 mil. So after Dame's ~57 mil, you have close to 115 mil to spend on the rest of the roster.

 

[new22]

Dame's salary is ~35% of the cap. The cap in 25/26 when this extension kicks in is estimated to be ~171 million, not 120 mil. So after Dame's ~57 mil, you have close to 115 mil to spend on the rest of the roster.

Sorry, that's not, what I'm asking. So let me try again. If Blazers have 100%, how does it make no difference for support roster signings if they spend 35% or 25% on one Dame.
Simply put one guys says: "If Dame take less money, there is more money in the cup, so Blazers can "buy" better support cast." Why is it not true?

 

[illmatic99]

Simply put one guys says: "If Dame take less money, there is more money in the cup, so Blazers can "buy" better support cast." Why is it not true?

because there is no more "money in the cup." We will be over the cap even if Dame takes 25% of the cap because of contracts to Ant/Nurk/Grant/etc. The only way we can spend over the cap is with exceptions (MLE/ TPMLE/BAE) or if we have bird rights to these players. Access to these acquisition tools will hardly change if Dame's contract were different. So in essence, it doesn't truly impact our ability to add around him whether his contract were 40 mil/yr or 60 mil/yr. The only impact is towards Jody's pocketbook, and I don't give one damn about that.

 

[TBpup]

Terry, Buck, Duck, Jerome, and Cliff were all All Stars. It doesn't matter where they were picked (aside from management doing an awesome job).

Drexler didn't make them All Stars.

If you give Dame 5 or 6 All Stars he would win some titles.

Jerome was never an all-star, and Buck was way before he came to Portland, but wasn't again IIRC. But all-stars come when you have the best record in the NBA and are making Finals appearances. If this team had done that, players like CJ and maybe Nurk would have been all-stars as well. They haven't come close to that. With wins and playoff wins, come recognition. Clyde didn't wasn't given a whole bunch of all-stars and then they became good. They rose to much higher heights, and the all star selections came for the secondary players.

And if Dame needs "5 or 6 All Stars" and then he would win some titles, well, that speaks for itself.

 

[new22]

because there is no more "money in the cup." We will be over the cap even if Dame takes 25% of the cap because of contracts to Ant/Nurk/Grant/etc. The only way we can spend over the cap is with exceptions (MLE/ TPMLE/BAE) or if we have bird rights to these players. Access to these acquisition tools will hardly change if Dame's contract were different. So in essence, it doesn't truly impact our ability to add around him whether his contract were 40 mil/yr or 60 mil/yr. The only impact is towards Jody's pocketbook, and I don't give one damn about that.

So, there is no money left now. Would there be any money left if players had smaller contracts? Really, I am stupid here.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Jerome was never an all-star, and Buck was way before he came to Portland, but wasn't again IIRC. But all-stars come when you have the best record in the NBA and are making Finals appearances. If this team had done that, players like CJ and maybe Nurk would have been all-stars as well. They haven't come close to that. With wins and playoff wins, come recognition. Clyde didn't wasn't given a whole bunch of all-stars and then they became good. They rose to much higher heights, and the all star selections came for the secondary players.

And if Dame needs "5 or 6 All Stars" and then he would win some titles, well, that speaks for itself.

Nobody said Dame needs 5 all stars. And Jerome was the best Blazer to never make an All Star team.

Again, if Dame had those guys we'd have titles.

 

[illmatic99]

So, there is no money left now. Would there be any money left if players had smaller contracts? Really, I am stupid here.

Effectively... no. Unless you're OK dumping Ant/Nurk/Grant for nothing, no.

 

[AngryFan]

Effectively... no. Unless you're OK dumping Ant/Nurk/Grant for nothing, no.

Which is why we should be rebuilding and not staying the course. Our players are paid too much for what is expected to be a borderline playoff team.

 

[illmatic99]

Which is why we should be rebuilding and not staying the course.

Didn't we just do that?

 

[AngryFan]

Didn't we just do that?

No

 

[illmatic99]

No

Coulda fooled me:

Dame
CJ
Powell
Roco
Nurk

to

Dame
Ant
Hart
Grant
Nurk

 

[new22]

Effectively... no. Unless you're OK dumping Ant/Nurk/Grant for nothing, no.

Last question then. IF Dame took 25, not 40, and Ant took 10, not 20, and Nurk took half too - would Blazers have money to add another good player?

 

[illmatic99]

Last question then. IF Dame took 25, not 40, and Ant took 10, not 20, and Nurk took half too - would Blazers have money add another good player?

Sure, but that's unrealistic to expect all your highest paid players to take that big of a discount.

 

[AngryFan]

Coulda fooled me:

Dame
CJ
Powell
Roco
Nurk

to

Dame
Ant
Hart
Grant
Nurk

That is a retool not a rebuild.

 

[new22]

Sure, but that's unrealistic to expect all your highest paid players to take that big of a discount.

Ok, so it is unrealistic to expect players to take paycuts to have more chance to win the championship. IF they took paycuts, they could win, but they don't want it more than money. I don't blame them, that is the right choice in my opinion. Case closed here.

 

[TBpup]

Nobody Saud Dame needs 5 all stars. And Jerome was the best Blazer to never make an All Star team.

Again, if Dame had those guys we'd have titles.

"If you give Dame 5 or 6 All Stars he would win some titles." True, you're not exactly saying he needs 5 all-stars, but you did offer it up that if he had "5 or 6 all stars, he would win some titles." That is right out of your post. And I didn't say he needed them. I posed a question.

Feel free to read what was actually written.

 

[illmatic99]

Ok, so it is unrealistic to expect players to take paycuts to have more chance to win the championship. IF they took paycuts, they could win, but they don't want it more than money. I don't blame them, that is the right choice in my opinion. Case closed here.

You just suggested our 3 of our 4 highest paid players take close to a 50% discount and are closing the case on this hypothetical scenario.

I thought you were genuinely interested in understanding why the initial topic of Dame taking 40 instead of 60 is meaningless. Guess not.

Feel like I just wasted my time. Shoulda ignored your questions.

 

[new22]

Sorry to hear that. I just don't see the logic here, that's all.