Your 2019-20 Blazers

[PtldPlatypus]

Wonder how much Randle will get.

WAY more than we'll be able to pay him, I'm quite sure. Yeah, it's possible that NO could S&T him to us, but what assets would we be offering that would be worthy of them taking on a bunch of dead weight salary?

I guess best case scenario, Moe/Zach combine for a little over $15M next year, which would be enough to facilitate a S&T for Randle at $82M/4y. Of course that would hard-cap us at the apron, and both he and the Pels would have to be amenable to such a deal, but laying out the numbers, it does seem feasible.

 

[James lamphear]

Here's my keepers for next year. I'd trade/let walk the rest of our roster, maybe keep Aminu/Harkless for backups(s).

C: Jusuf Nurkic, Enes Kanter
PF: Meyers Leonard, Zach Collins
SF: NEED A STARTER HERE
SG: CJ McCollum, Rodney Hood
PG: Damian Lillard*, Seth Curry

Leonard is not a PF he has to play center.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Would you guys trade ET, Harkless, and Leonard for Porter if we had to take back Felicio too? He still has two years and $15.7 million left on his deal. It adds salary two years from now but saves us $6 million this year. We could maybe swap our pick 25 for their 38 too to sweeten it a little more if needed.

I like Porter but I'm not sure if I'd do that.

Julius Randle has been mentioned here before and that’s pretty intriguing in a sign and trade scenario. His playmaking ability out of the four would be huge and his outside shot has improved. Pelicans are rebuilding too so they’d probably be open to taking on an expiring in return for assets instead of cap space. Wonder how much Randle will get.

Maybe do both? ET/Leonard to CHI, Harkless/Zach to NOP, Porter and S&T Randle to Portland? Lot of moving parts there, but if all parties were on board, that'd basically be a salary neutral deal for Portland, and leave us with a Dame/CJ/Porter/Randle/Nurk starting 5 (once healthy)--and admittedly almost no bench.

 

[Scalma]

WAY more than we'll be able to pay him, I'm quite sure. Yeah, it's possible that NO could S&T him to us, but what assets would we be offering that would be worthy of them taking on a bunch of dead weight salary?

I guess best case scenario, Moe/Zach combine for a little over $15M next year, which would be enough to facilitate a S&T for Randle at $82M/4y. Of course that would hard-cap us at the apron, and both he and the Pels would have to be amenable to such a deal, but laying out the numbers, it does seem feasible.

What’s the downside for a team like New Orleans taking on an expiring or two? They would not only get an asset from Portland (look at past S&T deals, they wouldn’t be getting someone of Zach’s caliber, more like our pick) but they could also theoretically flip those expirings again at the deadline for another one. If I was rebuilding I’d be all over it. Portland took on Varajao for a pick.

 

[James lamphear]

I almost certain that Collins not going anywhere and when was the last S&T in the NBA so that probably won't happen.

 

[Scalma]

Let’s say the Pelicans took on Meyers and Moe. They’re not only expiring, but they’re also still relatively young. They’d get their bird rights, and could keep them long term if they wanted to.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

What’s the downside for a team like New Orleans taking on an expiring or two? They would not only get an asset from Portland (look at past S&T deals, they wouldn’t be getting someone of Zach’s caliber, more like our pick) but they could also theoretically flip those expirings again at the deadline for another one. If I was rebuilding I’d be all over it. Portland took on Varajao for a pick.

Let’s say the Pelicans took on Meyers and Moe. They’re not only expiring, but they’re also still relatively young. They’d get their bird rights, and could keep them long term if they wanted to.

Just feels like a waste of cap space for them. Yeah, I guess it could make sense if they have no interest in being FA players this summer and just want to kick their space down the road for another year. Aside from that though, it seems like a late first is paltry compensation for $20M in players with little-to-no room for growth.

I mean, if they're going to pay that money, why not just overpay to keep Randle?

 

[Scalma]

Just feels like a waste of cap space for them. Yeah, I guess it could make sense if they have no interest in being FA players this summer and just want to kick their space down the road for another year. Aside from that though, it seems like a late first is paltry compensation for $20M in players with little-to-no room for growth.

I mean, if they're going to pay that money, why not just overpay to keep Randle?

Probably because he’s not a fit with Zion.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Probably because he’s not a fit with Zion.

Fair point.

Maybe they'd want ET as a savvy vet who can throw lobs to Zion? Cue the "ET and Jrue are best friends!" reprise...

 

[hoopsjock]

With Stotts signing an extension, Randle would be an awful fit on this team. Stotts would put him in the corner and expect him to launch 3's. Plus his defense is very average.

Fit combined with having to do a sign-and-trade and the consequences of doing so make Randle a hard pass from me.

 

[Scalma]

With Stotts signing an extension, Randle would be an awful fit on this team. Stotts would put him in the corner and expect him to launch 3's. Plus his defense is very average.

Fit combined with having to do a sign-and-trade and the consequences of doing so make Randle a hard pass from me.

Yeah because Stotts has never been able to integrate a (good) power forward into his system.

 

[B-Roy]

Maybe do both? ET/Leonard to CHI, Harkless/Zach to NOP, Porter and S&T Randle to Portland? Lot of moving parts there, but if all parties were on board, that'd basically be a salary neutral deal for Portland, and leave us with a Dame/CJ/Porter/Randle/Nurk starting 5 (once healthy)--and admittedly almost no bench.

So ask yourself why Chicago does this? They traded cap relief for Porter, now they're trading him for expirings? Even though Porter played really well with them?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

So ask yourself why Chicago does this? They traded cap relief for Porter, now they're trading him for expirings? Even though Porter played really well with them?

True, I kinda cut the Felicio portion of HJ's post out of my follow-up, which essentially removes Chicago's incentive.

Oh well--back to the drawing board...

 

[B-Roy]

True, I kinda cut the Felicio portion of HJ's post out of my follow-up, which essentially remove's Chicago's incentive.

Oh well--back to the drawing board...

We aren't getting Porter from Chicago. Chicago's FO is famous for being cheapskates, but they OKed the deal for Porter, and Porter ended up being better than they expected.

 

[illmatic99]

Yeah because Stotts has never been able to integrate a (good) power forward into his system.

He tried to turn Aldridge into Dirk. Then initially tried to do the same with Leonard. And Collins now.

There's not much creativity.

 

[Scalma]

We aren't getting Porter from Chicago. Chicago's FO is famous for being cheapskates, but they OKed the deal for Porter, and Porter ended up being better than they expected.

The thing about Porter is he has a player option after next season, essentially making him an expiring. Does he want to stay in Chicago? That’s almost a rhetorical.

 

[B-Roy]

The thing about Porter is he has a player option after next season, essentially making him an expiring. Does he want to stay in Chicago? That’s almost a rhetorical.

Why is that a rhetorical? Have you seen his contract? He would never turn down that type of money.

 

[Scalma]

He tried to turn Aldridge into Dirk. Then initially tried to do the same with Leonard. And Collins now.

There's not much creativity.

Aldridge was arguably the best power forward in the league under stotts, and if he wasn’t, he was definitely in the top tier. So even if that was his philosophy, and it was as basic as you claim, it worked.

There’s nothing about Leonard that says he belongs in the post, I don’t care how big he is. He gets boxed out by wings.

As for Collins, TBD, but he doesn’t look like a banger either, so I would love it if he turned into another Aldridge.

 

[Scalma]

Why is that a rhetorical? Have you seen his contract? He would never turn down that type of money.

I wasn’t even asking if he’s going to opt in, I was asking if he’s going to re-sign with Chicago. He’s not gonna opt in because he can get paid on the open market. A lot of teams will have money next summer. He might not get $28M per, but it’ll be close. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he got the max.

 

[B-Roy]

I wasn’t even asking if he’s going to opt in, I was asking if he’s going to re-sign with Chicago. He’s not gonna opt in because he can get paid on the open market. A lot of teams will have money next summer. He might not get $28M per, but it’ll be close. I wouldn’t even be surprised if he got the max.

I know what you were asking, and implying he doesn't want to stay in Chicago is a stupid assertion. No one is paying Otto Porter 28 million on the open market. If you extrapolated the best version of Otto Porter he still wouldn't be paid 28 million dollars. The only reason he got this stupid contract in the first place is because he was an RFA and the Nets were doing Nets things. Unless he suddenly turns into a super-star, he's not opting out of 28 million guaranteed.

If you're saying he's not gonna want to stay in Chicago well, that's a stretch. He played well there, they have a young core of pretty good players, and they're in the east. You have no idea if they will play well next season, or if winning even matters to him. He was willing to go to the Nets, and the Nets were a dumpster fire when he signed that contract.

If you're saying Chicago thinks he is going to opt out and leave them....that's also a stretch. They literally just traded for him, and he's got another year guaranteed. In this scenario flipping him for expirings makes no sense because if they believe he's gonna opt out then he's already an expiring himself.

 

[blue9]

Aldridge was arguably the best power forward in the league under stotts, and if he wasn’t, he was definitely in the top tier. So even if that was his philosophy, and it was as basic as you claim, it worked.

Well, he had the raw PPG that rivaled the best PFs in the league, but his FG% didn't match up. His FG% tracked over the course of his career is an inverse bell, with the trough aligning perfectly with his years under Terry.

 

[Scalma]

I know what you were asking, and implying he doesn't want to stay in Chicago is a stupid assertion. No one is paying Otto Porter 28 million on the open market. If you extrapolated the best version of Otto Porter he still wouldn't be paid 28 million dollars. The only reason he got this stupid contract in the first place is because he was an RFA and the Nets were doing Nets things. Unless he suddenly turns into a super-star, he's not opting out of 28 million guaranteed.

If you're saying he's not gonna want to stay in Chicago well, that's a stretch. He played well there, they have a young core of pretty good players, and they're in the east. You have no idea if they will play well next season, or if winning even matters to him. He was willing to go to the Nets, and the Nets were a dumpster fire when he signed that contract.

If you're saying Chicago thinks he is going to opt out and leave them....that's also a stretch. They literally just traded for him, and he's got another year guaranteed. In this scenario flipping him for expirings makes no sense because if they believe he's gonna opt out then he's already an expiring himself.

Bump this in a year when he opts out.

And why would he not opt out of $28M guaranteed when he can get $100M (or whatever long term figure) guaranteed? Talk about stupid assertion.

 

[B-Roy]

Bump this in a year when he opts out.

And why would he not opt out of $28M guaranteed when he can get $100M (or whatever long term figure) guaranteed? Talk about stupid assertion.

1. You don't know which teams will have cap-space next year. You won't know until the trade deadline next year.

2. Even if he does opt out, none of this incentivizes why Chicago would trade him NOW. And for expirings no less, which is what your assertion was in the first place.

 

[Scalma]

2. Even if he does opt out, none of this incentivizes why Chicago would trade him NOW. And for expirings no less, which is what your assertion was in the first place.

Where did I say any of those things? You’re putting words in my mouth. The only assertion I made was that he was going to opt out.

 

[B-Roy]

Where did I say any of those things? You’re putting words in my mouth. The only assertion I made was that he was going to opt out.

Read my post and the context it was in. It was about Chicago not willing to trade Porter for expirings which you responded with:

The thing about Porter is he has a player option after next season, essentially making him an expiring. Does he want to stay in Chicago? That’s almost a rhetorical.

Now ask yourself what you're implying with this comment? Why even bother responding if the only thing you wanted to say was that he's going to opt out?

 

[Scalma]

Read my post and the context it was in. It was about Chicago not willing to trade Porter for expirings which you responded with:



Now ask yourself what you're implying with this comment? Why even bother responding if the only thing you wanted to say was that he's going to opt out?

No actually, that’s not what I was responding to. I even quoted what I was responding to. Here, I’ll quote it again.

We aren't getting Porter from Chicago. Chicago's FO is famous for being cheapskates, but they OKed the deal for Porter, and Porter ended up being better than they expected.

So if Chicago knows Porter isn’t re-signing (whether it’s now or at the deadline, doesn’t matter) why would they not explore trading him? I know they’re dumb, but that’s silly.

 

[B-Roy]

No actually, that’s not what I was responding to. I even quoted what I was responding to. Here, I’ll quote it again.



So if Chicago knows Porter isn’t re-signing (whether it’s now or at the deadline, doesn’t matter) why would they not explore trading him? I know they’re dumb, but that’s silly.

My post was ABOUT why they wouldn't trade him for expirings. It was a direct response to this:

True, I kinda cut the Felicio portion of HJ's post out of my follow-up, which essentially remove's Chicago's incentive.

Oh well--back to the drawing board...

If you're going to interject in a conversation, at least read the context of that discussion. If you think Porter is going to opt out, and Chicago already knows that (which is a ridiculous assertion in itself this early into the off-season, you'd have to be a psychic) you don't need to reply to me to make that point.

 

[Scalma]

My post was ABOUT why they wouldn't trade him for expirings. It was a direct response to this:



If you're going to interject in a conversation, at least read the context of that discussion. If you think Porter is going to opt out, and Chicago already knows that (which is a ridiculous assertion in itself this early into the off-season, you'd have to be a psychic) you don't need to reply to me to make that point.

Interjecting a conversation is literally the whole point of this forum. I make a simple statement and you lose your shit. Not my problem.

 

[wizenheimer]

this place is great. I think 90% of the posters here, myself included, would argue with a possum; and if a possum wasn't around, they'd find a picture of a possum and argue with it

 

[PtldPlatypus]

this place is great. I think 90% of the posters here, myself included, would argue with a possum; and if a possum wasn't around, they'd find a picture of a possum and argue with it

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about; I've never argued with a marsupial, and I never will.