WOJ: Dame wants the super max extension

[wizenheimer]

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

there is a difference between fantasy leagues and real leagues. You're suggesting that players should take massive pay-cuts if they want to win. That's fantasy. The Warriors just won the championship with 3 players who were all playing for the max salaries they could sign for at the time they signed. They played against the Celtics who were paying max deals to their two top players

teams are not going to win anything by trying to cheapscrew their best players. That's not where contenders save money. It used to be that contenders saved money on the supporting cast. But these days, even the top end of supporting casts are being paid heavily

 

[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?

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.

... 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.

Feel free to read what was actually written.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

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?

Just imagine if they all would take the veteran minimum, we could have Durant, Ayton, John Collins, and OG Anunoby. Heck we could probably also bring back CJ and Norm as pure backups on the bench.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

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

Okay I get your point about the salary a couple years from now. However, as far as trade able contracts, I would counter that was different management and Gm handing that money out.
I am not sure the past should dictate the future in this instance.

Do you think we overpaid for Ant?

 

[HoopsFanAZ]

Would I rather have Lillard playing next year with this extension or without one? With it.
There are no questions lingering. Lillard is healthy, again. He’s a guy with a chip on his shoulder, and I’d rather he direct that outside the organization than inside.

This version of the team is beginning to take shape. I see the holes that exist … at least IMHO.

Is there anyone on this board who would want last year’s line-up back and everyone’s healthy? As compared to this one that hasn’t played a game together? I wouldn’t. (And I liked RoCo, Nance, and Powell … and recognize CJ’s strengths.)

Dame got paid. It affects nothing of significance — negatively, that is — given that Nurkic and Simons got paid and had to — a few million here or there isn’t the issue for them. If they want to pay (reasonably) Grant and Little and Hart after this year, they’ll be able to. There just wasn’t going to be cap room after this year. And they didn’t overpay Turner and match Crabbe, again.

 

[new22]

Just imagine if they all would take the veteran minimum, we could have Durant, Ayton, John Collins, and OG Anunoby. Heck we could probably also bring back CJ and Norm as pure backups on the bench.

They would probably win it all and the story would be inspiration for hundreds of years. Can't imagine how would they stay alive on vet min. Bread and water. Nightmare

 

[wizenheimer]

Okay I get your point about the salary a couple years from now. However, as far as trade able contracts, I would counter that was different management and Gm handing that money out.
I am not sure the past should dictate the future in this instance.

Do you think we overpaid for Ant?

yes...I think Portland overpaid for Ant, Nurk, and Payton. I was hoping that Ant+Nurk would come in around 35M/year combined. I'm convinced no other team was going to come close to offering what either got. But the difference between what I think their market actually was and what they got is only about 5-6% of the cap, so it's not some giant gap...cap gap envy

Payton is not so much an overpay in salary but the impact of being hard capped

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

yes...I think Portland overpaid for Ant, Nurk, and Payton. I was hoping that Ant+Nurk would come in around 35M/year combined. I'm convinced no other team was going to come close to offering what either got. But the difference between what I think their market actually was and what they got is only about 5-6% of the cap, so it's not some giant gap...cap gap envy

Payton is not so much an overpay in salary but the impact of being hard capped

Gotcha. What i am unclear on is if the cap is going up, then wouldn't the same salary value implications apply to Ant and Nurk? Meaning overpaid now but not looking so bad when the cap goes up?
I would think they would be easier to trade, being younger, than Dame?

( not saying i want to trade dame, fyi)

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Gotcha. What i am unclear on is if the cap is going up, then wouldn't the same salary value implications apply to Ant and Nurk? Meaning overpaid now but not looking so bad when the cap goes up?
I would think they would be easier to trade, being younger, than Dame?

( not saying i want to trade dame, fyi)

True, but Dame's extension has no impact on roster building opportunities for this season, whereas Ant/Nurk/GP2's signings all do.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

True, but Dame's extension has no impact on roster building opportunities for this season, whereas Ant/Nurk/GP2's signings all do.

I understand this year is pretty locked. Im saying the extension will make it harder to avoid that same lock over the next couple of years now. But im no cap expert and will defer to you guys…
BUT, if this rises like the kraken in a couple years, ill have to search for the best “I told you so” meme. Lol

 

[wizenheimer]

Gotcha. What i am unclear on is if the cap is going up, then wouldn't the same salary value implications apply to Ant and Nurk? Meaning overpaid now but not looking so bad when the cap goes up?
I would think they would be easier to trade, being younger, than Dame?

( not saying i want to trade dame, fyi)

may be the case

I'm talking about what I believe the market was this summer. I took a bit of a deep dive looking at the teams that actually had 20M+ in cap-space and what their rosters were. There were only 3-4 teams that had that kind of space (maybe less), and those teams had guards, many either better or younger with more years left of rookie deals. Ant was a 27 game wonder in his 4th season. It was a massive stretch of paranoia to think he was going to be a 25M/year target of some team. Same was pretty much true of Nurkic

but again, this wasn't an EvanTurner/AllenCrabbe WTF overpay. It was a few million a year and just like the imagined discount Dame could give the Blazers, it wasn't going to make much of a difference

 

[hoopsjock]

For this particular season, even if Ant/Nurk all took half of their deals, the Blazers still would've had the exact same "money" in free agency, the Full-MLE, as the best offer they could give a free agent. Dame's extension has no bearing on this or the next two off seasons.

But I challenge those pushing back against this to answer this one question: Who would you have wanted them to sign if they did get say $20 million in cap space that would've made them win a championship?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

For this particular season, even if Ant/Nurk all took half of their deals, the Blazers still would've had the exact same "money" in free agency, the Full-MLE, as the best offer they could give a free agent. Dame's extension has no bearing on this or the next two off seasons.

But I challenge those pushing back against this to answer this one question: Who would you have wanted them to sign if they did get say $20 million in cap space that would've made them win a championship?

Who's talking about free agency, or a single move that would win them a championship? IMO, the benefit to signing Nurk/Ant to cheaper deals would be more room under the hard cap for potential trades that might be available around the deadline.

Obviously Dame's extension has no impact on that either.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

For this particular season, even if Ant/Nurk all took half of their deals, the Blazers still would've had the exact same "money" in free agency, the Full-MLE, as the best offer they could give a free agent. Dame's extension has no bearing on this or the next two off seasons.

But I challenge those pushing back against this to answer this one question: Who would you have wanted them to sign if they did get say $20 million in cap space that would've made them win a championship?

This is impossible to say because we don't know who will be available in a year or two that we could sign or trade for, no?
Sign is more predictable but not 100%? Due to possible buyouts or releases?

 

[hoopsjock]

Who's talking about free agency, or a single move that would win them a championship? IMO, the benefit to signing Nurk/Ant to cheaper deals would be more room under the hard cap for potential trades that might be available around the deadline.

Obviously Dame's extension has no impact on that either.

This is impossible to say because we don't know who will be available in a year or two that we could sign or trade for, no?
Sign is more predictable but not 100%? Due to possible buyouts or releases?

This is my point. Harden took a specific paycut (Philly will make it up to him next summer) so that the 76ers could sign Tucker, who they would've had trouble getting otherwise.

People would be asking Ant/Nurk to take half their worth to MAYBE sign someone next year or the year after. Asking them to take less to be able to sign a particular player this year would maybe be justifiable. Asking players to take less in future years so that mayyyyyyybe they are able to get someone else would be comical.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

This is my point. Harden took a specific paycut (Philly will make it up to him next summer) so that the 76ers could sign Tucker, who they would've had trouble getting otherwise.

People would be asking Ant/Nurk to take half their worth to MAYBE sign someone next year or the year after. Asking them to take less to be able to sign a particular player this year would maybe be justifiable. Asking players to take less in future years so that mayyyyyyybe they are able to get someone else would be comical.

Outside a few ridiculous people who should be ignored, people didn't want Ant/Nurk to sign for less than they were worth. They just didn't want them signed for more than they were worth. Nurk likely had a very limited market due to injury history and the changing NBA landscape. Ant was RFA. Neither was likely to get an offer from another team approaching what they received from us.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

This is my point. Harden took a specific paycut (Philly will make it up to him next summer) so that the 76ers could sign Tucker, who they would've had trouble getting otherwise.

People would be asking Ant/Nurk to take half their worth to MAYBE sign someone next year or the year after. Asking them to take less to be able to sign a particular player this year would maybe be justifiable. Asking players to take less in future years so that mayyyyyyybe they are able to get someone else would be comical.

I am fine with both the Nurk and Ant signing. Im more concerned about Dames extension.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Would I rather have Lillard playing next year with this extension or without one? With it.
There are no questions lingering. Lillard is healthy, again. He’s a guy with a chip on his shoulder, and I’d rather he direct that outside the organization than inside.

This version of the team is beginning to take shape. I see the holes that exist … at least IMHO.

Is there anyone on this board who would want last year’s line-up back and everyone’s healthy? As compared to this one that hasn’t played a game together? I wouldn’t. (And I liked RoCo, Nance, and Powell … and recognize CJ’s strengths.)

Dame got paid. It affects nothing of significance — negatively, that is — given that Nurkic and Simons got paid and had to — a few million here or there isn’t the issue for them. If they want to pay (reasonably) Grant and Little and Hart after this year, they’ll be able to. There just wasn’t going to be cap room after this year. And they didn’t overpay Turner and match Crabbe, again.

I'd certainly take last years lineup and everyone healthy over what the Blazers have now. But I get how many fans here love their team in July, pretty common of all NBA teams this time of the year. Lets see what people think in December.

Swapping those players would be effectively trading Roco, Nance, Powell and CJ for only Hart and Grant. That first group is much better than the second.

Too bad the thought of the Blazers being a top5 NBA spending team are apparently long over. That always seemed to be a possibility of happening again with Paul Allen owning the team. Hell a few years they were far and away the most expensive payroll in the league around 2000 back when the team last had a contender.

Purely from an asset accumulation perspective, which the Blazers need to focus on since they aren't contenders; the team could flip that first group of players with Simons, Nurk, etc for a lot more talent than what we can build with now. So even if you didn't like those 4 players, I'd think you have to feel as though we lost talent.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I'd certainly take last years lineup and everyone healthy over what the Blazers have now. But I get how many fans here love their team in July, pretty common of all NBA teams this time of the year. Lets see what people think in December.

Swapping those players would be effectively trading Roco, Nance, Powell and CJ for only Hart and Grant. That first group is much better than the second.

Too bad the thought of the Blazers being a top5 NBA spending team are apparently long over. That always seemed to be a possibility of happening again with Paul Allen owning the team. Hell a few years they were far and away the most expensive payroll in the league around 2000 back when the team last had a contender.

Purely from an asset accumulation perspective, which the Blazers need to focus on since they aren't contenders; the team could flip that first group of players with Simons, Nurk, etc for a lot more talent than what we can build with now. So even if you didn't like those 4 players, I'd think you have to feel as though we lost talent.

Keon Johnson?

 

[hoopsjock]

Outside a few ridiculous people who should be ignored, people didn't want Ant/Nurk to sign for less than they were worth. They just didn't want them signed for more than they were worth. Nurk likely had a very limited market due to injury history and the changing NBA landscape. Ant was RFA. Neither was likely to get an offer from another team approaching what they received from us.

Nurk had a limited market because not many teams that needed a center had more than the MLE to offer him. I agree it was a little more than he was probably worth, but Klutch is dang good at negotiations. They also likely gave him a bit of a bonus for agreeing to sit out last year in a contract year, knowing how that would look for a player like him with those injury concerns you mentioned. $17 million AAV for a quality starting center isn't a huge deal, IMO. I totally get why people didn't like it though.

Ant is a different story though. Even if we ignore that he was also willing to sit out in a contract year bonus, if you don't get him locked up immediately you risk another team giving him a bigger offer that they would've been forced to match. So it's a game with good RFA's to find a sweet spot between slightly overpaying and not having to risk them potentially signing a bigger offer sheet. They didn't want to risk Ant finding a bigger offer and they don't believe $25 million will look like an overpay. Would a few million less have been worth making Ant question whether they really believe in him? Not sure of the answer to that, but I think they think he's a star in the making and want him to know how wanted he is. That's also fine with me, especially since I believe that too.

Grant is gonna sign an extension in 6 months too. It will also be an overpay, but part of the deal when you get a player that actually wants to come here.

All this to say, paying these guys less to overpay the next Evan Turner or Chandler Parsons isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of whether or not Dame wins a title. They need to hit home runs with draft picks and other trades. Maybe get lucky with a Jabari Walker becoming a competent role player with the 2nd to last pick. Basically, all of the things they could do whether they have the highest or lowest payroll in the league. When they had cap space, they got an extra 1st round pick. They used that pick on Caleb Swanigan (RIP). Gotta execute those types of things better.

 

[hoopsjock]

I am fine with both the Nurk and Ant signing. Im more concerned about Dames extension.

Why?

 

[illmatic99]

Ant is a different story though. Even if we ignore that he was also willing to sit out in a contract year bonus, if you don't get him locked up immediately you risk another team giving him a bigger offer that they would've been forced to match. So it's a game with good RFA's to find a sweet spot between slightly overpaying and not having to risk them potentially signing a bigger offer sheet. They didn't want to risk Ant finding a bigger offer and they don't believe $25 million will look like an overpay. Would a few million less have been worth making Ant question whether they really believe in him? Not sure of the answer to that, but I think they think he's a star in the making and want him to know how wanted he is. That's also fine with me, especially since I believe that too.

My bigger fear was Ant finding an offer that gave him a PO in year 3. I want full control for 4 years.

 

[hoopsjock]

My bigger fear was Ant finding an offer that gave him a PO in year 3. I want full control for 4 years.

Exactly, or a big trade kicker or something. The Gary Trent JR contract would've been devastating.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'd certainly take last years lineup and everyone healthy over what the Blazers have now. But I get how many fans here love their team in July, pretty common of all NBA teams this time of the year. Lets see what people think in December.

Swapping those players would be effectively trading Roco, Nance, Powell and CJ for only Hart and Grant. That first group is much better than the second.

Too bad the thought of the Blazers being a top5 NBA spending team are apparently long over. That always seemed to be a possibility of happening again with Paul Allen owning the team. Hell a few years they were far and away the most expensive payroll in the league around 2000 back when the team last had a contender.

Purely from an asset accumulation perspective, which the Blazers need to focus on since they aren't contenders; the team could flip that first group of players with Simons, Nurk, etc for a lot more talent than what we can build with now. So even if you didn't like those 4 players, I'd think you have to feel as though we lost talent.

I know you hate Winslow, but he's part of that too. Also, those deals made the GP2 signing possible (wouldn't have been able to sign "hard-cap" if CJ and Norm's contracts are still on the books). And RoCo was walking regardless, so we wouldn't have had him this year in any case.

So to be entirely accurate, from an "asset accumulation perspective", the comparison is CJ/Norm/Nance/TPMLE vs GP2/Hart/Grant/Winslow/Keon/Louzada.

 

[hoopsjock]

I know you hate Winslow, but he's part of that too. Also, those deals made the GP2 signing possible (wouldn't have been able to sign "hard-cap" if CJ and Norm's contracts are still on the books). And RoCo was walking regardless, so we wouldn't have had him this year in any case.

So to be entirely accurate, from an "asset accumulation perspective", the comparison is CJ/Norm/Nance/TPMLE vs GP2/Hart/Grant/Winslow/Keon/Louzada.

Grant wanting to come here luckily salvaged it.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Why?

Because of their age, upside potential and cap increase that you guys have noted.

 

[wizenheimer]

I know you hate Winslow, but he's part of that too. Also, those deals made the GP2 signing possible (wouldn't have been able to sign "hard-cap" if CJ and Norm's contracts are still on the books). And RoCo was walking regardless, so we wouldn't have had him this year in any case.

So to be entirely accurate, from an "asset accumulation perspective", the comparison is CJ/Norm/Nance/TPMLE vs GP2/Hart/Grant/Winslow/Keon/Louzada.

I know it doesn't seem good now, but you also have to add #7 --> Sharpe

 

[hoopsjock]

I know it doesn't seem good now, but you also have to add #7 --> Sharpe

Sharpe is not a part of any trade equation.

 

[wizenheimer]

Sharpe is not a part of any trade equation.

well, he is certainly on the current asset list....you know, the "asset accumulation" post I responded to....Is he untouchable already?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

well, he is certainly on the current asset list....you know, the "asset accumulation" post I responded to....Is he untouchable already?

Since the context of the post was the results of the Clippers and Hornets deals, I wouldn't put Sharpe in there. We were going to have a 1st-round pick regardless of if those trades were made or not (please don't try to claim we might have accidentally backed into the playoffs). True we might not have dropped to 7, but we'd have picked somewhere 12 or higher. Thus, I'm not really considering Sharpe as part of the results of those trades.