Why You Will See Blazers Traded This Year
As I’ve read the comments in various posts a recurring theme has come up, which can be summarized thusly: “We have some good, young, talented players with potential we’re not completely sure of yet. The team seems to be headed in the right direction though. Let’s take one more year to figure out what we’ve got. Let these guys gel together and see what happens.” It’s a good thought, and if you’re just thinking chemistry and potential it makes a ton of sense. Unfortunately a couple of NBA practicalities are going to make that approach nearly impossible to take. I touched on the reason why about midway through the Leandro Barbosa post below, but I want to give this subject its own post so it’s clear. The big bugaboo when it comes to keeping many of our young players is the salary cap. The summer of 2009 is going to be critical to If you don’t know why the window is so short, the answer is simple: Brandon Roy and Lamarcus Aldridge. 2009-10 will be their fourth year in the league. Normal procedure is for a fourth-year player to receive a qualifying offer, perhaps becoming a restricted free agent at the end of the season. (More about that in a minute.) This isn’t going to happen with players the caliber of Roy and Aldridge. The Blazers will want to lock them up early. The young stars’ agents will want the same. That means one or both getting huge, long contracts which obliterate the normal qualifying offer amount…along similar lines as Dwyane Wade and Carmelo Anthony last off-season. Those two contracts are going to chomp up the Blazers’ salary cap. As if that weren’t enough, Greg Oden will come due one year later. After that, provided things go well, you can pretty much kiss cap space goodbye for the next decade. The opportunity afforded For those who doubt the efficacy of cap space, remember that signing potential free agents is only one of its uses. It also opens up whole new universes on the trade front. With significant cap space you have the ability to trade away and take back players you never dreamed of when you were over the cap. You also become an attractive third trading partner for other teams that want to execute Base Year Compensation deals and need somewhere to send a player for free. It’s not unheard of for GM’s who are under the cap to get phone calls saying (literally), “Please take my player for nothing!” You don’t get All-Stars that way, of course, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility to get a solid veteran or James Jones-type player without giving up any assets but the salary slot. Either via trade or free agent signing, preserving cap flexibility next summer represents the best chance by far for the Blazers to add targeted, veteran pieces to complete their lineup if that is their desire. That’s the bottom line. How does that affect player movement this year? The key lies in understanding… two numbers, four contracts, and one salary cap rule. The two numbers are $30 million and $56 million. $30 million is a rough approximation, give or take a million or two, of the salaries the Blazers will be committed to next summer, provided they retain this year's #13 pick and don’t make any trades. That number represents the contracts of Greg Oden, Joel Przybilla, Lamarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw, Brandon Roy, Sergio Rodriguez, Rudy Fernandez, and the #13 pick. You can add a little bit for a 2009 draft pick or if you think Koponen will make the team, for instance, but basically that’s solid. $56 million is a conservative guess at the likely salary cap figure that year, again give or take a couple million. (We’re free to do that because, as you’re going to see in a minute, it’s not going to matter.) Obviously the $26 million difference between those two numbers appears to leave the Blazers in great shape. Just as obviously there are names missing from that list of contracts above. James Jones’ contract expires just before summer and for these purposes I’m assuming he won’t be re-signed. The remaining four contracts at issue are Steve Blake, Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Jarrett Jack. Steve Blake is different than the other three. His contract is worth $4.9 million in 2009-10 but it is a team option. The decision with him is pretty simple. If we want him back we pay him the money and it’s added to our cap, thus making $35 million committed. If not we release him and retain the cap space. The other three are not so simple. Martell, Channing, and Jarrett will have just completed their fourth year in the league. This brings up a situation which I described fully in last Friday’s post and I will summarize here. Basically four things can happen with them: 1. The Blazers can renounce those players, say goodbye to them at the end of the 2009 season, and take no cap hit at all. 2. The Blazers can sign them to a new contract if the two parties can come to terms. In that case their new salary counts against the cap. 3+4. The Blazers can make a qualifying offer for one more year of the player’s services. The player then has a choice: --They can accept the qualifying offer, play out the one extra season (2009-10), and then become an unrestricted free agent, able to go wherever they wish on the open market. --They can reject the qualifying offer and spend the summer of 2009 trying to negotiate the best deal they can around the league. The Blazers would have the right to match any offer they got and thus retain the player. The Blazers could also refuse to match the offer and let the player go. This is that Restricted Free Agency thing you hear so much about. An important thing to remember here is that unless they choose to renounce the player outright (Option 1 above) the Blazers cannot control which of these options comes to pass. They are the player’s choice. The Blazers cannot force a player to negotiate a new deal (Option 2). They cannot force a player to take a qualifying offer instead of spending the summer as a Restricted Free Agent (Options 3 + 4). The only choice directly in the team’s control is to cut or not cut. This is where that salary cap rule comes in. To preserve the sanctity of the cap the league doesn’t want teams to go out and sign a bunch of regular free agents and then come back and sign its own Restricted Free Agents to huge contracts, possibly exceeding the cap limit in the process. To prevent this they’ve instituted a rule. A team’s Restricted Free Agents place a hold on cap space equal to 300% of their past year’s salary. This is just like the hold that goes on your credit card at a hotel. It doesn’t have anything to do with what you will spend. It’s inflated to account for everything you might spend. As long as your Restricted Free Agent remains unsigned, cap space equal to 300% of his past year’s salary is tied up. You cannot spend it on free agents or use it in trade. This is where the rubber hits the road. If the Blazers let those three players get into next summer unsigned, if those players and their agents decide it’s in their best interests to become Restricted Free Agents (again a choice outside of Portland’s control), those players’ cap space footprint balloons. Here are the specific numbers: Martell Webster-- Current Salary $3.8 million Cap Space Hold $11.4 million Channing Frye-- Current Salary $3.2 million Cap Space Hold $9.6 million Jarrett Jack-- Current Salary $2.0 million Cap Space Hold $6.0 million Total Cap Space Hold = $27 million Best-Case Scenario Cap Space Available Summer 2009 = $26 million Even in the best-case scenario for cap flexibility--not re-signing James Jones and not exercising Steve Blake’s option year--the holds take up ALL of our cap space. Nothing is left. Of course this would only last until these players were signed by us or another team, then the excess hold would disappear. But teams are often reluctant to sign offer sheets for Restricted Free Agents for fear they will just be matched. That makes the process s…l…o…w. Also keep in mind that rival teams will not be eager to free up Keep in mind our original question: Why can’t we just take a year to evaluate, let these guys gel, and then see what we have? This pretty much answers it. For these three players, at least, the freedom to evaluate and guess about potential is passing quickly. We’re out of time. The Blazers are going to have to make some decisions about them very soon: cut, offer to re-sign, or trade? I am not privy to the team’s war councils, of course, but I’d say cutting any of these players is an unlikely option. All are assets, all have value, and you don’t want to abandon that without compensation. It’s also unlikely that all three players would accept one-year qualifying offers. This would certainly alleviate Whether any or all of the three will be offered--or would accept--new contracts before the qualifying offers become an issue depends on the Blazers’ evaluation of them and their evaluation of their prospects here. How much do you trust them? How much do they want to play here? How much money do they want? All three are in similar positions. They’re young. They have enough talent to know they have a possible career in this league but none of them has been consistent yet. Each one is playing behind people--either in the rotation or in terms of shots--that the team appears to bank on more. What will it take to get these guys to sign under those conditions? Will the Blazers be willing to pay enough? Will these guys want to wear Put this all together and you understand why you’re going to see one or more of these guys traded this year. One of them might get a new contract, but not all three. One of them might accept a one-year qualifying offer, but not all three. One of them may become a Restricted Free Agent, but not all three. And if you’re thinking, “Why not one of each?” it’s equally doubtful that the Blazers will look at all three and say, “These guys are so intrinsic to our plans and we trust their fidelity so much that we have to take the risk of retaining all of them by these various means.” There may not be anything negative about the players. Instead the Blazers may just see an opportunity to get some solid, experienced help and solid, bankable contracts rather than having to take the gamble of answering questions like the ones posed here. It’s certain that they’ll be valuing security over risk when it comes to protecting their cap situation next summer and that will chart the course as much as anything. Whenever a trade is mentioned people start worrying about the cap space ramifications, as if every contract we take on that doesn’t expire next summer costs us space. It’s actually the contrary. Using last week’s rumors as an example, trading Martell Webster and the #13 pick for a veteran who will make $5.3 million in 2008-09 would be a complete wash salary-wise. The two amounts are equal. But come the summer of 2009-10 that veteran we traded for would still be making around $5.3 million, maybe with a small raise, and that’s all the cap space he would take. An unsigned Martell and the #13 pick will take up $13 million until Martell puts his signature on a piece of paper. It would be far better for us during our most critical cap flexibility juncture to have a long-running contract the amount of Martell Webster’s than to have Martell’s short-term contract uncertainty hanging over our heads. Whether it’s in Thursday’s draft, during pre-season, or in the middle of the season itself you’re going to see some Blazers moved before the trading deadline next February. These will almost certainly include some of the young guys that people want to see more of like Martell, Channing, and Jarrett. The course isn’t decided by chemistry, loyalty, or potential alone. It’s also determined by the rules of the game you’re playing. In this case the rules pretty much dictate some of these players, or maybe all of them, will be moved. It’s still anybody’s guess which ones, where, and for whom.
10 recs |
164
comments
Comments
Thank you Dave for giving the people the facts....
I would love to see this article permanently placed next to the links on the right side of home page. It would be a good reference. It is getting exciting with the draft coming up, but I get the feeling, (especially after reading this post) that the trade deadline has the potential to offer up the most fireworks for this Blazer team and the years to come. Here’s to hoping that Raef LaFrentz’s contract doesn’t become what Nick Van Exel and Arvydas Sabonis’ contract were….opportunites that just slipped away.
Can I buy you a fish sandwich?
by silkybrown on Jun 23, 2008 3:04 AM PDT 0 recs
Agreed
I was just going to post something along those lines. We’ll be able to evaluate where players really stand and we’d be making moves at the deadline.
I’m still up in the air about what moves we’ll be making during the draft although I think I have a better feel now. Almost ready to make a prediction!
"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned
by ratbastird on
Jun 23, 2008 9:23 AM PDT
up
0 recs
fantastic stuff dave
Many thanks for providing “Trade Strategy 101.” It puts a number of outstanding questions to rest.
"I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany."
by dcblazer on Jun 23, 2008 4:06 AM PDT 0 recs
There is a lot of information in here I needed to hear.
As someone who has argued both for having capspace and not trading our guys, it shows that there has been a disconnect in my thinking. Still, I think it would be a good idea to wait until the trade deadline in order to see who works best with whom, and make the decisions at that time.
One of Two Official Blazer's Edge Poets Laureate for the 2008-2009 Season
Chaplain of the Jarrett Jack Fan Club
"Scholars have long known that fishing eventually turns men into philosophers. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to buy decent tackle on a philosopher's salary." - Patrick McManus
by T Darkstar on Jun 23, 2008 4:41 AM PDT 0 recs
As a fan of the Seattle SuperSonics, I ...
saw this scenario play out with Vladimir Radmanovic, Reggie Evans, and Ronald “Flip” Murray during the 2004-2005 season, the 2005 off-season, and the 2005-2006 season. Although cap sapce wasn’t an issue at that moment in time - since Ray Allen was re-signed to a huge contract extension that same off-season - the plan of waiting ‘til the very last mintue prior to making a decision almost always backfires in your face.
Indeed, now’s the time for Kevin Pritchard to decide Martell Webster, Channing Frye, and Jarrett Jack’s future.
by AK1984 on
Jun 23, 2008 5:53 AM PDT
up
0 recs
That's a good point
If not all of them, at least two of them.
"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned
by ratbastird on
Jun 23, 2008 9:24 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Dave
hahaha! If even one of our big three (or 4) is as dominent with there game as your basketball knowledge and insight….......
DYNASTY
"KP actually "pritch-slaps" a rival GM across the face when they suggest a trade involving GO, BROY or LMA" chrischa
"In KP we trust" everyone
by ptwnblzr on Jun 23, 2008 4:55 AM PDT 0 recs
Great stuff
I wrote a diary a while back, when they were still called that, on the likelihood of a trade, focusing on roster congestion, asset values, and the impact of the minutes crunch on tradeable value in future.
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/3/28/124520/591
I was so proud of it, and it really was a good analysis of the situation from a basketball perspective, I believe—and the comments were good, too. But it failed to address the other reason there was likely to be a trade, which is the salary cap/cap holds issue. This is excellent stuff.
Now, it may be that they really, really believe in all three of these guys, and if they do they will extend all of them this summer when they can do it cheaply. Jarrett just isn’t going to command a lot of money after last season. We could lock up all three of them for perhaps $14-15 million a year.
By renouncing Blake, we could still have around $10 million to work with, which could bring in a pretty good player. And we could then re-sign Blake for the MLE, possibly.
But I can’t see us extending all three of them this year. Martell and/or Channing, maybe. But not Jarrett. His game didn’t really progress this year. I’ll be very surprised if he gets an extension this summer. Which means he’s a candidate for a trade by the trading deadline, unless he breaks out at the start of the season (which is always possible).
The huge problem with trading any of these guys? They all have the potential to be really key pieces for us. But we don’t know which ones will become that. When we trade one away, we might be trading away the guy that would have put us over the top. We just can’t know for sure. But I agree that there is likely to be a trade, for basketball reasons as well as cap reasons.
By the way, my predictions in that diary are looking pretty good so far. Not wanting to gloat or anything, but I’m sort of compelled to do so by what Dave called my “o’erweeing ego”.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 5:25 AM PDT 0 recs
Except that the MLE is only for teams over the cap, and we're likely to be under.
Blazermania - It's not just for die-hards anymore.
by Blazerholic on
Jun 23, 2008 8:44 AM PDT
up
0 recs
maybe
he is saying that we sign a guy and get to the cap and then add Blake afterward? Just a guess though.
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on
Jun 23, 2008 1:32 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Precisely
It’s always easy to get back over the cap, by throwing money away, and then you can throw some more away on the MLE.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 23, 2008 2:16 PM PDT
up
0 recs
It doesn't work like that, though
Once a team is under the cap, they lose all their exceptions that they currently hold (MLE, BAE, any trade exceptions, disabled player exceptions) and none of those can be regained for the rest of the NBA year (until June 30th). If they go over the cap later in the year, they can ‘earn’ new trade exceptions or disabled player exceptions, but the MLE and BAE cannot be regained.
by Storyteller on
Jun 24, 2008 8:27 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks for the correction
somebody else pointed this out to me elsewhere, too.
When I rule the world, I’ll have lots of advisers like you to make sure I don’t get any facts wrong.
Right now, KP rules the world, and we all know who you are, so your role will be the same (adviser to world ruler).
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 24, 2008 10:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I wish.....
If I read your post correctly, you are attributing to me a position I do not have.
I’m a simple Blazer fan living in Las Vegas.
by Storyteller on
Jun 24, 2008 10:51 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Ha!
We know better.
Mortimer is KP. We’ve now found Tom Penn.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 24, 2008 2:07 PM PDT
up
0 recs
That's a little misleading, though
Storyteller, your info is always very good and most always dead on. In this case, though, while i’m not saying you’re entirely incorrect, i think what you’re saying could be easily misinterpreted. Teams never have their exceptions (except special expiring ones) taken away. The only reason a team would not be able to use its exceptions is if they are not needed or it has renounced them. Whether a team is under the cap or not is always based on what its cap is while adding the exceptions. If the exceptions put it over the cap, then the team is technically over the cap unless those exceptions are renounced. If it is still under the cap after adding the exceptions, then the exceptions become useless and therefore not issued. It’s not a penalty, though. The team simply doesn’t need them.
If a store has a policy of loaning up to 20 cents for patrons that are short by 20 cents or less, a person would not need to borrow that 20 cents if they thought they were short but then found a spare quarter. They aren’t penalized for having the money needed to make the purchase. It’s just that the 20 cent loan doesn’t apply to them because it is based solely on need. It’s the same for exceptions. They are always included in a team’s cap, unless renounced, but they also are useless without a basis for need. Thus they are not available for teams far enough under the cap to be unable to gain an advantage by using them. One could argue that a team could want to sign a free agent with what cap space it had available and then turn around and want to use the MLE on another player. However, that wouldn’t be giving a team that is over the cap an exception. That would just be giving a team that doesn’t need exceptions because it is under the cap a way to have its cake and eat it to. If that were allowed, there would be no reason not to just expand the salary cap by the amount of the exceptions.
I’m sure you know all of this, and i may have left out a few technicalities. However, i just thought i would try to clarify for someone that may have been a bit confused. I probably just did a good job of confusing them more.
by mrblazer on
Jun 24, 2008 3:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
So the 26mil
max that dave quoted a few days ago does not take into account MLE and vet exceptions?
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on
Jun 24, 2008 5:57 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Be Prudent: That is the message from KP about moving our young talent out of town...
Last week, in the Post “KP Chats with Chad Ford” I felt that Pritchard was shooting straight. Check out this link to my post where I listened to and transcribed an excerpt from the interview:
http://www.blazersedge.com/2008/6/17/553994/kp-chats-with-chad-ford-to#6861787
Excerpt:
Chard Ford: “You’ve got so many young players on your team, Kevin. As you look at your team, do you think you need to add another young guy or is it time to make a move on the Blazers to package some players and picks to add a veteran to this team?
Kevin Pritchard: “Well I think one thing has changed. Because Oden didn’t get to play last year. It really allowed some guys to grow, get better and take on some roles they might not have had. Now we think that (Oden) is going to be a big-time impact player. It may take him 40 games, it may take him a year. It may take him a while. Bigs tend to take some more time. We don’t want to put to much onus on him, at least early on.
The big thing for us is that, Even next year is an evaluation process for us. Because we do not know how these young guys are going to play together, and we really don’t know how these guys are going to play with a guy who, in our opinion, we think is going to be a dominant big man in Oden. So, One of my biggest fears is that we make an early move that we are not sure about. So anything we do, we have to feel very good that it is, not so much going to make an immediate impact, but a long term impact that is very positive. That is the big thing.
Regarding 13, I am okay adding youth to this team. I think we get caught up in saying that “that team is too young.” Well we have been the youngest team in the league for three years and we have shown progress. We went from 22 to 32 to 41 wins. And we still stayed young. I’m okay with that as long as they are part of what we call our culture… What we feel like is important to us. Hard working, put the team first, has talent, but puts everybody ahead of themselves for the good of the team. And because of that, I am not against adding youth to this team. That being said, you know that in this business you have to look at every option. And If I feel like we can get a good player for us at #13 that will make sense for us…”
As far as these guys go:
Jarrett Jack: Didn’t prove enough this past season and still has value NOW, so I think Jack will be moved in any trades we do.
Martell Webster: Showed tremendous improvement in his first year starting, giving us better numbers than under Ime Udoka and being just 21 years old. It is clear by the 20+ point breakout games Martell scattered across last season that his upside is still tremendous while his game is steadily improving with experience and age.
Channing Frye: I also heard Channing on the radio (interview last week on 95.5) talking about the offseason. Frye made it clear that he wants to be a Blazer and that he asked Nate what he would need to do in order to get more minutes. Nate told Frye that “we need 5 guys on the court who can score” and thus Frye has been working everyday on his outside shooting, deep and rangy outside shooting to be a mismatch player or a Robert Horry type forward. Exciting and well within Frye’s skillset.
To conclude: Jarrett Jack, to me, is the likliest Blazer to be moved this year. I think Jack is a good enough player and young enough to help KP achieve his desired outcome in the draft. I also think that Sergio Rodriguez wouldn’t be a bad throw in for a deal to get ‘Er done. But I think the likes of Webster, Frye and Outlaw NEED to stay Blazers.
by Portland Dynasty on
Jun 23, 2008 9:35 AM PDT
up
0 recs
I agree
about Jarret. If we make trades, he’ll be included. I love the heart of the guy but I don’t see him fitting.
I almost agree with Tom that it’d be easier if we could dislike these guys, but the only guy I dislike is McRoberts (no real reason, I just don’t like him).
I REALLY want to keep Frye because I think that guy will be a beast. He played out of position because of necessity and he sounds DRIVEN to be here for the long haul. Plus, as much as annie likes #25… hmmm… well… maybe not THAT much, I like Frye.
I maintain that Frye and Outlaw don’t fit though. Unless Webster has shown he wants out or doesn’t like his role, I see any moves including Outlaw too. I don’t mind tossing in a sergio and McRoberts.
Sergio would probably fit well in New York… which would get us DJ. I think that means finland would be going out then too.
Anyway, Webster and Jack trades would take care of webster if he had playing role issues, would take care of our trade issues, and lets me keep Frye. He could then play large SF and outlaw could still back up the SF position with JJ33 starting.
The problem with flexibility is that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT KP IS GOING TO DO!!! Too many ifs. Seriously, if we didn’t have so many options, I think a lot of us could predict what would happen.
The one answer I’d like to make my draft prediction “does webster like and accept his role on the blazers?”
That would seriously help the predictions.
"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned
by ratbastird on
Jun 23, 2008 9:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Who is
DJ?
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on
Jun 23, 2008 1:40 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Sorry
Augustin
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
by jonestr on
Jun 23, 2008 1:44 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Sergio
I’d worry about Segio in NY, I don’t think he could take the pressure by the media and fans. But skill wises he would be a great fit.
Joel Freeland=Stud
by hightide on
Jun 23, 2008 2:04 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Your question about Webster
is a really, really big one to me. I’ve quietly been a little concerned about that.
I don’t see Koponen going away, even if we get Augustin, if Sergio goes. If we get Augustin, he and Blake are our top 2 PGs this year and probably next. If Sergio is still here, he’s #3, with the possibility if he really takes steps forward of surpassing Blake sometime this year or next. If Sergio goes, look for PK to come over and log lots of time in Idaho, as they groom him to be our other PG, along with DJ. As he steps up his game, Blake’s role diminishes, and DJ plays more against the short, lightning quick PGs, while PK more against the taller ones. Of course, PK can post up the little guys, too.
If we end up in 3-4 years with PK and DJ as our main PGs, we can adjust matchups as needed to defend different types of PGs, or create matchup problems for the other team by which guy we decide to play.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 23, 2008 2:25 PM PDT
up
0 recs
McBob = Mark Madsen, at Pioneer Square.
Keep practicing those “moves”, Josh.
MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)
by The Cactus Leaguer on
Jun 23, 2008 8:55 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Sorry, You can not use the MLE to sign a renounced player.
But you can resign them if
1. Doing so does not put you over the cap.
2. You can use the minimum exception to sign them (I don’t think any of these players would accept that).
3. You can renounce your renouncement . Which is useful if you renounce then are not able to sign the free agent you are targeting so you want to sign the guy(s) you renounced.
In Larry Coons words:
What does renouncing a player mean?
As detailed in question number 30, free agents continue to be included in team salary. By renouncing a player, a team gives up its right until the following June 30 to use the Larry Bird, Early Bird, or Non-Bird exceptions (see question number 19) to re-sign that player. A renounced player no longer counts toward team salary, so teams use renouncement to gain additional cap room. After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but they must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception. The exception to this is in the case of an Early Bird free agent who is coming off the second season of his rookie scale contract. Such players, when renounced, are treated as Non-Bird free agents. After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement (see question number 76).
34. Can the renouncement be renounced? In other words, can a team un-renounce a player and then sign him using a Bird exception?
Only in one specific circumstance - when they renounce one or more of their players in order to create enough cap room to sign another team’s restricted free agent, but the restricted free agent’s original team matches the offer sheet and keeps him. If that happens, the team can rescind the renouncement. There are a couple exceptions to this - they can’t rescind a renouncement if doing so takes them from below the salary cap to above it; or if they are above the cap and rescinding the renouncement takes them farther above the cap than they were before the renouncement.
See question number 36 for more information on restricted free agency.
by mrwonderfulone on
Jun 23, 2008 10:05 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Interesting
Everyone now knows I’m not Tom Penn.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 24, 2008 12:05 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Awesome
Thanks Dave – this is why I read blogs. The passion of a fan, and the space to include a level of detail that lets us better understand the process. You would never see an article like this in the mainstream (and I hate using that word) press; it’s too much on one team for the mags (SI, ESPN) and too focused on details to bring in the mass market readers (ESPN.com), or casual fans (Oregonlive), and too honest to come from the team itself. Bravo Dave, and I agree that this post should find a season long home somewhere handy for us to reference.
by skyman375 on Jun 23, 2008 5:50 AM PDT 3 recs
words
“Traditional media” works well if you don’t want to use “mainstream.”
by pualo on
Jun 23, 2008 10:52 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Thanks
Very good analysis – and helpful. Like most, I didn’t fully appreciate this piece of the picture. We can better understand now why virtually everyone with their ear to the ground has reported that KP has put a lot of trade feelers out there. Most of us happen to believe that Jack and Webster are solid enough to be rotation players in the 6 – 10 spots, but we have yet to see either show that they have the tools to move permanently into the 1 – 5. Webster’s problem is that he must compete with Outlaw at SF given Aldridge/Frye at PF – (unless you move Frye) but Outlaw’s not a classic PF by any means, as his height, weight and body type make him more of a SF. Outlaw, in turn, is already on contract, so doesn’t figure into the cap space – which is one reason we may not be pushing him in a trade. The bottom line is that these decisions clearly have to be made this summer – not next. And that’s what some of us didn’t fully appreciate.
As an aside, draftexpress has an interesting article today on trade talk, and the Blazers figure prominently. Their take is that the Blazers have Westbrook and Alexander at the top of their draft board, but that we’d have to go to at least 8 to get Westbrook, whereas they’re not sure about Alexander. (The confusion these days makes one wonder if Westbrook will still be there at 8)
Whatever, it’s all just talk. The draft is extremely fluid right now, perhaps the most in years. KP said the other day that Monday is moving day. They’ll see the last of the tryouts on Tuesday, and take Tuesday and Wednesday to conference it out. However, beginning Monday/Tuesday he said there’ll be a “flood” of trade offers coming in.
by Eben Calder on Jun 23, 2008 6:00 AM PDT 0 recs
I'm not sure 'most of us' want Jack
in the 6-10 rotation. At least not the version we saw last year. I love the guy, but don’t like his game. Wish he could improve (which he very well might).
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on
Jun 23, 2008 10:00 AM PDT
up
0 recs
hay
thats TODAY!!
"KP actually "pritch-slaps" a rival GM across the face when they suggest a trade involving GO, BROY or LMA" chrischa
"In KP we trust" everyone
by ptwnblzr on Jun 23, 2008 6:45 AM PDT 0 recs
Nice work Dave
Good job.
The player I’m going to be sad to see leave most is Jarrett Jack. I really like him, he’s a great competitor and I think wherever he goes he will shine.
by Jason3123 on Jun 23, 2008 6:54 AM PDT 0 recs
Great stuff Dave
Some solid points made. My only concern is that other teams will share the same concern the Blazers have. Will that hurt Webster, Frye, and Jack’s trade value?
"Beards--they grow on you"
by prezofdeath on Jun 23, 2008 7:10 AM PDT 0 recs
No
Because most other teams aren’t trying to protect the flexibility of significant cap space next summer. If someone decides they want one of these guys, they’ll just trade for them and sign them to an extension this year. Or they decide they want to gamble on them because they won’t have any cap space next summer anyway, so they’ll just take them now. If the guy takes a step forward, they got him now when his trade cost was lower, and they can just match whatever he’s offered.
These factors are only a negative for you if A) you don’t want to extend them now and B) you want to protect cap flexibility next year. Many teams that would trade for them wouldn’t fit either of those descriptions.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 23, 2008 2:30 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
Just because Dave said it, doesn’t mean I have to like it. I hope they all get into drugs and do bad thing so it won’t feel so bad when they get traded away. I need a trade discussion vacation.
Come help me celebrate June 26th - Flush The Trades Away Day.
by tominhawaii on Jun 23, 2008 7:12 AM PDT 0 recs
I hear Hawaii's nice this time of year
lost of humidity to disguise those tears of anguish.
I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich
by hobobob on
Jun 23, 2008 10:10 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Actually it's getting pretty hot, it's gonna be 87 today and 88 tomorrow
I won’t cry for a traded Blazer. I just wish they would get it over with. I used to think trade speculation was fun. Now it reminds me of those 17 pregnant teen girls in Gloucester High School. I love a couple pregnant teens. Heck, who doesn’t love pregnant teens? If my wife would let me, I’d try to get lots of teens pregnant, but 17 pregnant teens at once is just too many pregnant teens. Even I don’t want to get 17 teens pregnant.
Come help me celebrate June 26th - Flush The Trades Away Day.
by tominhawaii on
Jun 23, 2008 10:17 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Gee
I’m glad your standards are as high as they are.
Can I buy you a fish sandwich?
by silkybrown on
Jun 23, 2008 1:10 PM PDT
up
0 recs
A good analysis...
... but with one possible flaw.
It appears based on the assumption that Portland needs to add “that one missing piece”. What if they don’t? What if the organization decides that the team is good as it is and the odds of adding a piece that is going to be significabntly better than Webster, Frye of Jack are not that great?
I’m not arguing here that Dave is wrong. I’d bet he probably isn’t. But I don’t think that seeing these guys get traded is a foregone conclusion.
by timg56 on Jun 23, 2008 7:19 AM PDT 0 recs
Right
Who are these free agents we could sign, and what makes everybody think they’re better than the guys we would otherwise have at that point?
"Shoot, I don't even have anything to put in my own sig"
These are the modest words of pualo, posted on June 20, 2008.
Yes, pualo, an extraordinarily discerning BEdger with a knack for subtle expression.
by CatMan2 on
Jun 23, 2008 8:47 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
Honestly, I don’t know that we need to add any pieces.
The finland kid, Rudy, and roy make up a pretty decent guard rotation.
I still believe in Webster and I think the only question is “can he accept his role?” If he can, we keep him, if not we move him.
Outlaw is the perfect bench player backing up SF and PF.
I love Frye and I REALLY want to keep him. We can’t do that if we keep outlaw. I hate to say it, but I think one of those guys will need to go. I prefer to keep Frye. I know annie will #25 me though.
Pryz is perfect for the back-up. Really, do we need that free agent? I know Pritchard likes options, so we’ll see.
I only see a trade for the point if Pritchard doesn’t feel we’ve got the pieces. Will DJ or Westbrook be worth the cost of acquiring to make a trade worth it? Of those two, i think we’d go for DJ, but I also think he’ll be gone at New York. Jack is the only odd man out, and so I think a deal/trade will include him if it happens and the purpose will be to move pieces of value for other things of value in the future.
"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned
by ratbastird on
Jun 23, 2008 9:36 AM PDT
up
0 recs
Why is everyone
so high on Finland kid? Has anyone seen him play against decent competition?
by begottenson on
Jun 23, 2008 1:53 PM PDT
up
0 recs
Why?
1. We believe in KP. He traded to be able to get him. There must have been a reason.
2. He played in one of these all-star games against some of the top prospects, and looked really good.
3. He’s very tall for a PG. You can’t teach it.
4. He’s won a championship.
5. He’s got good court sense. That’s hard to teach as well.
6. His initials are PK, the reverse of KP.
Most importantly:
7. We are fans. Fans are high on their team’s players. Thus, we would be high on him even if none of reasons 1-6 were there. We drink the koolaid. We believe. We are fans.
I can’t believe we have to explain this on a sports blog, of all things. Please return your fandom membership card until you have been reeducated to without question believe that all of the players on your team, and especially the ones who you’ve never seen play, are world beaters. And reeducated to argue the point vehemently against other people as blinded to reality as you are.
Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo
by jscot on
Jun 23, 2008 2:49 PM PDT
up
2 recs
#25 and #44
I love Channing.
"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar
by annthefan on
Jun 23, 2008 2:03 PM PDT
up
0 recs
We'll know fairly early
if Portland is thinking this way. The sign will be all three of those players get new deals well before next summer. Locking them into their salaries before June eliminates the whole “cap hold” thing and leaves us cap space.
However I do think there’s some question whether those three guys would all sign with us long-term. We’d might have to pay some sort of premium to keep them off the market and to keep them in their current places on the roster. The Blazers may be willing to do that though.
—Dave
by Dave on
Jun 23, 2008 10:37 AM PDT
up
0 recs
How about this as a scenario -
Pritchard begins preliminary discussions early into the season with the 3 players and their agents, gaging interest in remaining with the team. Both parties have some time to see how team does with Greg and Rudy and how much PT each is seeing. I think there is a decent chance that at least Frye and Jack would consider a 3-4 yr deal at money similar to what Travis and Blake got, with the 4th year possibly a player option. That gives them some added security, plus flexibility if their market value goes up. They are making decent money, with still enough career time left to sign that big contract, should they breakout and establish themselves as bonafide starters. Should the team get off to a good start, they made think that being a rotation player on a playoff caliber team at $4-5 mil/year is better than increased PT on a lousy team for $6-7 mil/year (assuming they can get that).
by timg56 on
Jun 23, 2008 3:24 PM PDT
up
0 recs


