Why You Will See Blazers Traded This Year

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 2:36 AM PDT Comment 164 comments

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 Portland if they have any hopes of utilizing the salary cap flexibility they’ve worked to create. Next summer brings the perfect confluence: the Blazers have several contracts in flux and their young superstars are all still under rookie salary scale and don’t cost much. 2009-10 is the only time those two things will be true and thus the only time that window will be open.

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 Portland in the summer of 2009-10 is unprecedented in franchise history and will not come around again soon.

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 Portland’s cap space by rushing to resolve its contracts in limbo. It could easily take all summer to finalize a deal. We’d miss the prime of the free agent signing period for sure, plus whatever trade opportunities came up during that time. Our already-short window would be cut even shorter. Clearly it’s not in the Blazers’ best interests to let things get to this point.

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 Portland’s 2009 cap issues but it’s generally unsatisfactory. From the team’s point of view if the guy is a key piece you don’t want him becoming an unrestricted free agent after 2010 and risk losing him. From the player’s and agent’s point of view you want to have a longer-term contract for security. The exception to this would be if you thought you were going to have a breakout season, but realistically will any of these guys have the opportunity to do that in Portland? Perhaps one of the three would take this option, but all three? Doubt it. Besides--and don’t forget this--letting it get to the qualifying offer stage exposes the Blazers fully to the risk of them rejecting those offers, becoming Restricted Free Agents, and swamping our cap in the summer. If Portland isn’t sure the players are going to accept the qualifying offers it cannot make them…at least not with all three.

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 Portland’s uniform enough? Do we know enough about them and how they fit in our plans to make a long-term decision now? Granted none of these questions are as up-in-the-air as they appear from our outside point of view. Nevertheless they are still up in the air. In the end it also seems unlikely that the Blazers would sign all three to long-term contracts or that all three would accept.

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.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

10 recs | Comment 164 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

solid analysis

enough said

uwe blab

by midget on Jun 23, 2008 3:20 AM PDT reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

Who is

DJ?

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 23, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

Augustin

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 23, 2008 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

I wholeheartedly agree

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 23, 2008 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

Solid points.

"Beards--they grow on you"

by prezofdeath on Jun 24, 2008 8:43 PM PDT up reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

Word is born.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 23, 2008 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions 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 reply actions 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 reply actions 0 recs

The premium we can pay

is length of contract. We can use a moderate number that has a player option void after three years. The player is guaranteed the total contract and still has the option to opt-out after three years to sign a Bird-rights contract for whatever we can agree on or go elsewhere as an unrestricted free agent.

I would think you are right on the money that this is done before the Feb 09 trade deadline. Trading them now still makes little sense to me. Keeping them past the deadline makes little sense as well unless we have determined to renounce them and want those last 2 months (no reason I can think of).

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 12:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

good point

Who will be available for free agents? and will they fit into our blazer culture? Perhaps Martell and Frye are just the pieces we need and will be coming into their prime in a few years as this team is pushing the finals. Maybe it’s best to watch them into training camp and pre-season and see how Nate is able to use them in the rotation.
I would not be sad if we approached Martell now, early, while even he knows he’s unproven and offer him a contract similar to Travis’ that wouldn’t even set us back that much. Then you still have him as trade bait just like Travis.

It puts the lotion on the skin...or else it gets the hose!

by courtsideerrandboy on Jun 23, 2008 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The real problem

is that if we are missing a piece, we don’t know what it is.

Do we have a starting PG on the roster, and just need to find a backup? Or do we have a backup, and just need to find a starter? Or do we have a starting SF, and need a backup for him, or vice versa, or do we have all of the above, or none of the above?

What if Martell is our starting SF, he’s on the roster, he’s the solution, and we trade him away for a PG? We would all think that is at least a reasonable scenario, given that we have Travis and James. But suppose Travis regresses rather than improves, James has knee trouble, and our new PG gets injured for the first month and Jarrett comes in and plays like we all know he really can. All of a sudden, we’re overloaded at PG and thin at SF, and we stupidly traded away Martell to get a PG who can’t get playing time. And Martell is now scoring 20 ppg, shooting 50%, and 42% on 3s, for NJ or someone.

After reading this, you might think, “NO! Don’t trade Martell!” But of course, Travis could be better next year, James could be healthy all year and hit 50% of his 3s, and Jarrett and Sergio could be worse than they were this year.

It’s not just that we might not need to add “that one missing piece”. It is also that, if we do, we don’t yet actually know which piece it is we are missing, and which pieces we have. No one knows. That’s the real problem with having such an incredibly young team. You don’t yet know what you have. But if you don’t trade some of them, you might never know, because some of them won’t get enough minutes to show what you have.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

The players that have been difference makers in free agency are not many because the rules allow for more money with the old team. It is apparent that Rashard Lewis was given away because the OKC guys wanted to gut the team and start over with less salary and wanted the Seattle fans to give up easily. But Orlando did not go anywhere this year anyway.

In addition the core is already on hand so we are talking about adding free agents that are role players. Not max contract guys. Players coming to Portland are either wanting the ring (in which case they are not seeking the big bucks) or wanting to play as role players to our core. One or two players to add might be nice but with the annual mid-level exception available we can add players every year in that range. Do we have enough spotlight for more? Or have KP and staff concluded that they must have a “star” to be surrounded by our core? Only in that scenario does this make sense. KP has hinted that he is targeting one particular player so maybe that player is lining up the same as Portland.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It seems almost impossible

to tell whether or not we need one or two more pieces or if we have the team that will win championships already.

What I do like is the ability to sign that potential final piece that puts us over the top. The PTB will be one of the desination teams for players looking to be on a title contender right when we (hopefully) have the cap space to sign them to a deal.

We don’t know what sort of players we will need around the Big 3 until after they have time to play together. So, yes, give the current players some time in case they fit, but to not be planning for the opportunity that this future cap space provides is foolish. We may indeed have just the right 3 guys for this team already but it seems more likely that we don’t, you know, from a pure statistical standpoint. What are the chances we lucked into the perfect lineup?

Hope for the best, prepare for the not as good.

I’d like to think most fans like the idea of having the perfect combination of players for a title run on the team already, but it’s also smart to plan for this upcoming opportunity.

At-Large GM for the Mock Draft

by Magnum on Jun 23, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

God, you are good

this does not make it any easier for me to part with some of the fellas (see the Kahuna’s comment above), but is terribly useful. thanks for posting.

"its tough to play with one eye, unless you're a pirate." Delonte West

by Honka Playboy on Jun 23, 2008 7:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for filling in some holes.

I’ve felt during this offseason that the odd men out were Jack and Frye, but that was more from a basketball perspective than long term salary reasons.

And yet last season Webster was traded with Zach to NY until Penn figured out it’d be better to ship F. Jones and Dickau(??? – Al’s Hammer kicking in). Then the most prominent rumor this offseason has Webster going to Phoenix for Barbosa. It made me wonder why, other than KP did not draft Webster so Webster is not as much a KP legacy.

Dave’s analysis fills in a lot of holes in my understanding as to the dynamics going on. I’m one of those guys who’d like to see them stand pat and see how it goes but now I understand why it’s time to make some hard decisions based on incomplete data.

Webster may get traded and may blow up into an awsome player (or he may not) for another team and the Blazers STILL may be better off for it. Nonetheless, given my druthers if I had to choose I’d stick to losing Frye and Jack instead. And as timg56 points out they could decide to cement in with the current players though I think KP values flexibility more than he value having those 3 guys. In the end I trust KP.

As TIH wrote, I don’t have to like it but I can adjust my thinking thanks to Dave’s explanation of reality. Keep up the good work.

Free Joel Freeland! (with the purchase of 1 Wafer)

by LaughingJon on Jun 23, 2008 7:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Frye will explode as a player

and you can book that.

He’s aldridge-light… but Aldridge will be an all star in two more years and for a while. Frye will be just shy of that. Trading him would be a mistake. I think.

Thanks for reminding me about all the trade talks with Webster. I think that helps fit the concern I have that he doesn’t fit.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on Jun 23, 2008 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's fine with me if you're right.

I’ve nothing against Frye, I merely think he’s a little redundant (i.e. LMA-lite) but I wouldn’t mind being wrong on that. Most people seem to think keeping Outlaw, Webster and Frye isn’t in the cards and of those Outlaw and Webster’s skills seem less redundant. I’ve felt Jack is the only one I’d bet money on being dealt but Dave makes a compelling argument that at least one more will go.

In a perfect world all the young guys blossom into all-stars quality players while being happy with fewer minutes, less money and less recognition than their play deserves.

Free Joel Freeland! (with the purchase of 1 Wafer)

by LaughingJon on Jun 23, 2008 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Frye has the potential to be awesome...

But we said the same thing about Darius Miles. Now Channing and Darius don’t belong in the same sentence when it comes to character and work ethic, but we got to be careful to sing his praise too loudy, when he was decent for only a fraction of the season. ( like 1/4 of it at best, plus a great game against Denver during the streak.)

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Jun 23, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wasnt Darius

great 50 point game against Denver as well. eerie

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 23, 2008 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmmm...

Yeah, maybe some players play better when their suffering from oxygen deprivation.

Free Joel Freeland! (with the purchase of 1 Wafer)

by LaughingJon on Jun 23, 2008 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thought here

Frye can backup center, if Joel or Greg goes down for a while. A good reason to keep Channing around, unless we draft a 3rd center.

Outlaw can backup PF if LMA or Channing goes down. A good reason to keep Travis around.

Martell can backup SG if Roy goes down—but if Rudy is here and as good as people think, that is less important.

It’s nice to have guys who can step into another position for a few games in the case of injuries. That’s a factor that will be considered—and that factor would favor keeping Travis and Channing.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right so the player we get to replace Martell

in the summer of 2009 is an exceptional SF who can defend and score and play team ball. Only player I can think of with these attributes (besides Martell who has not yet peaked) is Ron Artest!

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 12:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I’m NOT advocating trading Martell. I’m just saying that if we are trading one of the three, as LaughingJon suggested may happen, the fact that Outlaw’s and Webster’s skills seem less redundant, to use his words, is not the only factor.

The biggest factor, if we are trading to target a particular player, is what the other team demands. The fact is, that while I don’t want to lose any of these three players, this team can survive and be very strong if we trade any one of them (Martell, Travis, Channing). So if we’re getting the right player back, KP is not bound by any of the three of them being untouchable. That means the other team may decide, within limits, which of the three they want—and what they are willing to pay for them, of course.

If losing one of the three leaves us a hole in our rotation for next year, we can draft someone in the second round to fill it, or use part of our MLE to get a role player, or whatever.

I’ll pass on Artest. Tayshaun Prince would be a nice acquisition. So would Battier. There’s a few others as well. I like Martell, but he’s hardly the best player for us at that position. He might be that soon, but he’s got a ways to go.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 3:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keeping Martell Webster a Blazer would be part of KP's Legacy...

I’ve read that comment many times on B-Edge… “KP did not draft Webster so Webster is not as much a KP legacy”. So, KP is not responsible for bringing in Martell’s talent. But, KP could be responsible for standing pat on Martell and giving him the proper development and chance to be very good player in this league. If KP lets Martell go too soon then becomes a great SF for another team and Portland’s SF answer isn’t as good as Martell’s game, it could seriously tarnish KP’s legacy.

Hopefully KP’s legacy will be Consistently Making the Best Decisions and all Outcomes of roster moves are in the Blazers Favor. How is that for high expectations KP. You think guys like Oden and Martell have high expectations, how about being perfect on all your personel decisions?

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 23, 2008 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure

that KP is that concerned with Legacy, or his guys. I think it’s more of a “does this player fit with KP’s plan?”

KP will make mistakes. He’s human. I believe he knows that and he’s willing to take risks. If you’re afraid, then you freeze, and then you make more mistakes by being afraid to make any.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on Jun 23, 2008 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 12:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sophmore year

as I remember his sophmore year was disappointing compared to the way he finished out his rookie year. Lots of pouting and self doubt, but he seemed to straighten things out after the 07’ draft so I would say you cannot directly compare the situation this summer to last as Martell has seemed to buy into the culture. Just my opinion and spotty memory though.

Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.

by jonestr on Jun 23, 2008 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been one

saying “let’s wait” and after reading this I realize that my “let’s wait” is mainly regarding trading for a point guard. It’s not so much a “don’t trade player x”, but a concern about trades that might make us a little better but then again might not.

Without taking time to understand all the details I’ve generally supported the player side of issues but it seems like from what you wrote that the team concept is the thing that takes the hit We have to make trades (or let people go) whether we want to or not (from a team – not business – perspective.)

We also might have to trade players who want to stay here. Maybe the players are more accepting of “it’s a business” than the fans are?

It would be interesting to know how many trades I hated were actually motivated by the business side rather than being not interested in keeping a player. My slide from active Blazer fandom began with the TP trade (actually it was losing Adelman & Petrie, but that was management) and it became total with the trade of Brian Grant. Terry was my favorite player and I wanted him here through his entire career – no excuses.

Part of the fan’s perspective comes from that overvaluing syndrome (and I’m going to be sick of hearing about that soon [insert grin here] ) which also includes upside/potential/call it what you want, but it means keeping someone because somewhere down the road they might be really really good.

I still don’t WANT to see certain trades, but at least I can look at them with a “it’s a business” understanding. I don’t have to like them though and I’m not going to change my signature yet!

If it keep on Tradin', the Team gonna break - BlueBooYay 6/21/08

by jorga on Jun 23, 2008 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Amen

Thanks for posting this on the “front page” all in one continguous piece. Some of us here have been trying to illustrate many of these same points over and over and over again in fanposts (diaries) as they come up, only to have to continue to post the same points the next week and the next week, and the next week…

Having them all in one master post, posted by the main man himself, will hopefully go a long way towards illustrating the true realities of the “2009 salary cap space” that everyone is so fond of talking about.

by douglast on Jun 23, 2008 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

for adding a business perspective to the talk of all our burgeoning talent. We’d love to see all these guys develop, but there are hurdles that need to be cleared if we are going to have the cap space to make the leap to the next level.

by TLF_Big_Papi on Jun 23, 2008 8:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well put together Dave!

This honestly makes me feel ok about trading Martell and Channing (i’m already cool with trading Jack)... This makes sense, as neither of those guys have proved they are worth 300% of their current salary in order to prevent us from getting a top notch free agent.

Could you please now write a blog about why it is IMPOSSIBLE that we get Deron Williams or Chris Paul due to their restricted free agent status so I don’t have to suffer through another posting about why the starting lineup of Paul, Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge, and Oden will win 15 championships in a row???

myspace.com/marktwainindians

by mark twain on Jun 23, 2008 8:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well if it's impossible

who exactly are we creating cap-space for? Who are the FAs that are so worth not taking a slight gamble on the guys we have? I’m not making a point here, I just can’t figure out who’s out there that’s so valuable FA-wise?

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jun 23, 2008 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not just FA's

although it is amusing imagining KP making a $26 million offer to someone’s restricted free agent that a team then has to match. (I know, I know, there’s a max salary scale, but still…) I would guess the Blazers value the cap room for trade purposes as much as anything. If somebody wants to get rid of their grumpy, overpaid star who’s keepin them in cap hell the Blazers could theoretically offer Sergio and two future first rounders and pick the guy up. You also don’t have to worry about BYC designations or any of those other annoying restrictions. In theory every player in the league who is available in trade is available to you. Pretty powerful stuff…especially if you can get a deal done.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

On top of that,

If we have the capspace in summer 2009, we can ride it until the trade deadline if need be, when teams get a lot more anxious to make moves. Not saying we should, but saying we could if the right deal isn’t there at the beginning of the summer.

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 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wholeheartedly 100% agree

For people like Webster, Outlaw, and Rodriquez, we should give them as much time as possible. Unless there is a deal out there that can knock our socks off and get them whiter, the better time to make a deal is at the trade deadline in February. We’ll be able to see who has improved, who has stayed the same, and who has declinced. We’ll be able to make a better informed decision, especially after seeing how the additions of Oden and Rudy change things. The exception is Jarrett Jack, because he is officially 1.5” away from hitting his ceiling.

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Jun 23, 2008 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Jarrett is going to grow another 1.5 inches? That could have an impact….

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Only he'd be silly enough

to live in a house, where the ceiling is 6’5”

Can I buy you a fish sandwich?

by silkybrown on Jun 24, 2008 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's why

I said “impact”.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's great, but.... I need names!

I tried figuring out some potential names by looking at salaries over at HoopsHype, and… it’s tough. You look at these rosters, and it seems like most of the long term high dollar contracts are for players who are/will be over the hill (KG) or are grossly overpaid (Dunleavy). I was thinking it would be fun, like… “If you could snag any player (with a high salary and/or may be slightly disgruntled) from any other team, who would you pick up?” And nothing pops up…. although I think the picture will become more clear as the deadline approaches.

MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)

by The Cactus Leaguer on Jun 23, 2008 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, I found a few possibilities...

I could see Charlotte wanting to dump Gerald Wallace, and his salary will be $9m in 2009-2010.

Luol Deng could be expendable, if he re-signed with the Bulls.

Kirk Hinrich ($9.5m in ‘09-10) will be expendable for sure.

Dirk will still be owed over $40m in the last two years of his contract and he’ll be hungry for a ring.

Carmelo ($15.7m in ‘09-’10) could definitely be had, if KP wanted him.

Chauncey ($12.1m in ‘09-’10) or Tayshaun ($10.3m) will probably be available since Detroit’s window of opportunity will be slammed shut by then.

If Golden State re-signs Monta and Baron, one of them (more likely Baron) could certainly be had for a price….

Battier ($6.8m in ‘09-’10) would fit, though his contract is not too onerous for Houston to want to dump him.

The Pacers could be looking to dump players, any players… small market, way over the cap, doesn’t look like they’ll be contending any time soon.

If the Clippers re-sign Brand and Maggette, I’m sure their penny-pinching owner will be looking to dump salaries around this time next year.

Michael Redd ($17m) or Mo Williams ($8.8m) will be ripe for plucking, if desired.

Relieving the Nets of Vinsanity ($16.3m) or RJ ($14.2) would help Jay-Z in his quest for Lebron.

Peja ($14.2m, $29m total) Stojakovic, anyone?

The Knicks. Take your pick.

Rashard Lewis has a nasty, nasty contract ($18.8m in ‘09-’10, $85m total through ‘13). Yikes. Just, yikes. And no state income taxes in the state of Florida to boot. Holy $#!^, what a stupid, stupid contract. Okay, forget about him.

Kevin Martin ($10.1m in ‘09-’10, $46m through ‘13) could be had. The Kings would never dump him now, but next year? Who knows.

AK47 ($16.4m in ‘09-10, $17.8m in ‘10-’11)

MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)

by The Cactus Leaguer on Jun 23, 2008 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You left off Ron Artest

unless he opts out this week will be UFA next summer. Now that’s scary.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be great

The more players on the market, the more it is a buyer’s market when we’re buying. We don’t want him, but someone else will be spending their money on him rather than on the guy we want.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 3:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Artest

I only listed players who are definitely under contract for 2009-10 and beyond. Including players like Artest would have made the list about 10 times as long. Right now Artest is not technically under contract beyond next year (unless he exercises his player option as you mentioned).

MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)

by The Cactus Leaguer on Jun 24, 2008 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's the trades and being a "trade facilitator" that's the most important.

The unrestricted free agents that year are, well, unimpressive. I’d rather re-sign our own guys in that case.

There are some attractive restricted free agents, but it seems unlikely that teams won’t match, especially for guys like Chris Paul and Deron Williams. Gambling on a restricted free agent doesn’t seem like a good plan. Therefore, the ability to make trades at will seems all the more important.

Blazermania - It's not just for die-hards anymore.

by Blazerholic on Jun 23, 2008 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Can't the Blazers exceed the salary cap?

They have gone over the salary cap before, and I know there were fines levied by the NBA. Have things changed? Is it more difficult or impossible to do that now? Or is it that PA has definitely decided he doesn’t want to do that again? If they were to go over the cap, would it just be for a period while, say, Martell’s contract was in limbo?

"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 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

Yes, you can go over the cap to sign your own guys, but NOT to sign free agents or take on more salary in trade than you send out. So, sure, we can go over the cap to resign these 3 guys, but until we sign them (which will be late in summer 2009 most likely), we are effectively capped out and have no room to make a big FA signing or take on a big contract in trade.

by douglast on Jun 23, 2008 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Doh! I used to know this. Thanks!

"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 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Must just be me, but....

Does it seem that the 3 players whose time appears possibly up in the air are the same 3 players that seem to not quite be the right fit for this team? OK, Martell would be the one the jury is still undecided on.

Is this just a coincidence. Did KP anticipate this last year. Or am I just reading too much into this situation.

I mean KP isn’t that smart, is he?

The Oden Era, Day 363

by Heymoe on Jun 23, 2008 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think he is

If you layout a timeline, a plan, a goal, then you know what the certainties are and you know what the question marks will be.

It’s not so much about smarts, but a lot about planning it right. I’d be willing to bet he as a 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, and 10 year plan and everything that is done is in alignment with those plans. Thus he’ll look genius, but it’s really him asking the right questions against the correct backdrop.

"We play for one thing and one thing only, and that's championships." - The Devil Spawned

by ratbastird on Jun 23, 2008 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I plead NEARLY guilty . . .

. . . to saying this:

"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."

Actually, training camp and the first half of the season are good enough for me. What I’ve REALLY been saying is:

"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 HALF-YEAR to figure out what we’ve got. Let these guys gel together and see what happens."

That is, I agree that there will be trades. But I don’t think now is the right time; during the season, close to the trading deadline, is more my kinda view. The annual contender/rebuilder shakeout will free up some players not available now.

I also think some serious extension efforts should be made toward MarWeb and Frye, and NBA rules dictate those efforts must come to fruition sometime before Hallowe’en. Also, how those two players respond to the contract negotiation process should be a factor in whether we’d trade them or not, should no extension be agreed upon this off-season. (And yes, I’d forecast that Frye would prove to be open to a reasonable deal, but Martell not so much. That’s just empty prediction, but that’s just what they seem made of right now.)

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 23, 2008 9:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Mid-season trades

disrupt chemistry.

I’m not saying it won’t, or shouldn’t, happen. But there are drawbacks.

And because they disrupt chemistry, there may be fewer potential trading partners, too.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Great post, Dave

We can more clearly appreciate the hiring of the cap-space guru last summer!

I have been one to hope the young players all develop and make a long-term place for themselves on the team. In my rainbow shades world the team will not need cap space or free agents or trades for crafty veterans because Jarrett and Sergio, Martell and Travis, Channing, McBob and #13 will become so good there won’t be any need for “final pieces.” And being the youngest team in the league and still winning 41 games this past season makes that hope seem not too irrational.

But assuming your premise – the need for cap space, please recall that just two years ago Joel Pryzbilla was a free agent with opportunities to go to better teams but he chose to return to the Blazers because he liked the direction the team was headed. Last year Steve Blake had similar opportunities and made a similar choice. Both recoginized that there are other rewards to be considered beyond the financial. Years ago, when the option was still available, Magic Johnson renegotiated his contract and gave up salary so the Lakers could sign some better players.

If the three discussed in this post want to remain part of the long-term plan, they will need to be accommodating as well. While we can’t assume they will be willing to sacrifice to stay, this team is proving itself to be exceptional on so many fronts the possibility is not so remote.

by bbfred on Jun 23, 2008 9:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Magic did that?

Man that’s just awesome. I like the guy before, but that is something that really makes me think highly of him. What a winner!!!! Could you see even MJ doing that? How about K*be?

I'm a really really ridiculously good looking orange mocha frappaccino drinking manhammer sandwich

by hobobob on Jun 23, 2008 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Magic did lot's of........

by tweener on Jun 23, 2008 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Magic was given a 25 year contract for $1M per year

that was apparently ripped up several times. In those days you could do that. Now it is forbidden.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the analysis

a bit long, and to be honest my attention span was gone about the last 5 paragraphs, so i only skimmed them. (i’ll return later when my brain waves have realigned). it was very thorough indeed.

I do have one question though: With Paul Allen showing in the past he doesn’t care about losing money if it means competing for a championship, what’s to say we can’t keep everyone we want and just pay the stupid luxury tax?

I’ve had my nose buried pretty deep in the school books as of late (which should explain my absence in case anyone missed me) and am really unsure of what has changed in the last year or so. I’m just basing this thought on what I’ve seen in the past and the league rules i’ve gotten used to.

written by the Blazer Thoughts artist formely known as "Scott R"

by saregister on Jun 23, 2008 9:45 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Read the answer posted when I asked the same question above

"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 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To summarize:

Luxury tax willingness has nothing to do with it. The Blazers can WANT to spend all the money in the world. Cap rules say they CAN’T if Martell, Channing, and Jarrett become restricted free agents and aren’t yet signed.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Paul has said he will pay the luxury tax

only to be in the final four of the conference. Don’t know if that is still his edict.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

When we win it all next year

without paying luxury tax at all, maybe he’ll refuse to ever pay it again….

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

The detail was great. Better reading than I typically get on most online NBA sites. I love to know everything I can about the NBA, and you touched all the bases on cap flexibility. Thanks again and keep it coming. You kept opinions to a minimum and just stated the facts on the workings of the NBA. Appreciate it and keep it coming.

by swede2287 on Jun 23, 2008 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Excellent analysis, Dave

Although the exact number of potential cap space won’t be known until later this summer after certain decisions have been made by the team (ie, what wil the Blazers do with #13, will Koponen and/or Freeland be brought over this year, etc.) your point about the organization needing to make decisions this summer about Webster, Frye and Jack is right on.

by Storyteller on Jun 23, 2008 10:12 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Short Edit

As I re-read the paragraph explaining why the Blazers can’t make a qualifying offer to these guys unless they know it will be accepted I should have also added the caveat that the Blazers COULD withdraw that offer and thereby release the player into unrestricted free agency. It’s a technicality because if you’re bothering to make the offer at all it means you want to retain your player, so releasing him makes no sense. But I supposed theoretically the Blazers could say to Channing, “Here’s your offer…” and then if Channing rejected it the team could say, “We’re not riding out the summer with that cap hold. Offer withdrawn.” It’s overwhelmingly likely that management would have talked to Frye and his agent and would have a decent idea whether he’d accept a one-year deal or not before the offer is made, though, so you’re never going to see this happen.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 10:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think this is really a key point. If we are at 30 million in actually salaries and 21 mil in cap holds (I am assuming Jack is gone this summer) we can just decline to make a qualifying offer to Martell and Channing with the idea of signing them as URFA. If the cap is around 60 million we could then make a max offer to someone at 13 million and still have 17 million available to offer Frye and Martell. The real risk with this is that you may lose them as free agents. However, they don’t have to make this decision right away. They can wait until they have agreed to terms with the FA then decide who they want to expose to the FA market. Say Calderon only accepts Toronto’s QO this summer then turns into Chris Paul next year we could offer him 13 million. This raises or actual cap number to 43 million + 21 for Frye and Martell to make us 4 million over the cap. Next the Blazers could release the rights to Martell and now have a cap number of 52.6 (30 + 13 + 9.6). We can then turn around and offer Martell 7.4 million and reach our cap limit while still retaining Frye as a RFA.

Brett Pill - Lord of the double.

by malarky on Jun 23, 2008 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's more than a technicality

They can make the qualifying offer, and if it isn’t accepted, they can still play the FA market. If they find the guy they want, and reach a deal that makes it worth renouncing our own RFA, they can renounce him then, removing the cap hold and freeing the space to sign the guy they want.

To clarify, suppose we extend Martell, trade Jarrett for a future draft pick, and extend an offer to Channing. This leaves us with, say, $5 million in cap space. Free agent X comes along, and he’s perfect for us, and will make us all not worry about losing Channing anymore. But Free Agent X wants (and is worth) $8 million. So we tell him, “Right, we’ll do that, we have to renounce Channing to do so, so hold on for 24 hours (or whatever) while we clear the paperwork.”

We renounce Channing (freeing up 9.6 million of cap hold), sign Free Agent X, and we still have $6.6 million of cap space. Channing is now an unrestricted free agent. We can still sign him to up to $6.6 million a year, if he wants and we still want him after signing X.

I think there is a deadline (I’m thinking mid/late July) for withdrawing a qualifying offer. Someone around here knows, because they explained it to me once. So you would have to work quickly in signing Free Agent X, because it has to be quick enough to withdraw your offer and eliminate the cap hold. But it does mean you can actually play the market a little bit before making final decisions on some of these things.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

I should have read Malarky’s post before responding to Dave’s. Sorry for some of the redundancy. I am an idiot. I salve my conscience by saying that I didn’t exactly cover the same ground. It’s always good to try to find a way to feel better about the stupid things you do.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rulers of the universe rarely admit to doing stupid things.

"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar

by annthefan on Jun 23, 2008 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

THAT

is what will make me better than the pretenders to the throne.

Actually, I’m not ambitious. I’ve mostly focused on ruling the world. If the rest of the universe wants to submit to my rule, I’ll go with the flow, but it isn’t something over which I feel driven.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

All those attributes and humbleness too. You are an inspiration and an example to BRoy and all the rest of us.

"Besides, AnntheFan will be here any minute to #25 you." T Darkstar

by annthefan on Jun 24, 2008 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I know

It’s a tough load to carry, but I bear it well.

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent post...

Just an absolutely excellent post. Another geat job Dave.

by ItsMrHarris2u on Jun 23, 2008 11:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Chad's Latest

The skinny: It seems unlikely the Blazers will actually keep this pick. They are loaded with young players and have a history of draft day activity on the trade market.

GM Kevin Pritchard is already burning up the phone lines. I think either he’ll package some of his young players with this pick and move up in the draft to get a solid prospect or he’ll trade the pick for a veteran. The Blazers have had talks with the Nets about Richard Jefferson, the Suns about Leandro Barbosa and the Grizzlies about a deal that would send the No. 13 pick and the expiring contract of Raef LaFrentz to Memphis for No. 5, Brian Cardinal and Jason Collins. (Cardinal has a terrible 2 year $13 million contract they want to unload). Ownership is pushing Management to reduce contracts.

In case they do keep the pick, the Blazers have been eyeing Joe Alexander and Russell Westbrook. The Blazers would like to move up to get one or both players, but so far they haven’t found the right deal. For the past several weeks we’ve had Brandon Rush in this spot. But the more I talk to the Blazers, the more I think they may go for a bigger splash. Ajinca is a long, athletic big man who is pretty skilled. He doesn’t fill a need for the Blazers, but Pritchard loves to gather assets.

by Eben Calder on Jun 23, 2008 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Raef and #13 for a bad contract and #5?

I say do it now. I think having the #5 pick is better than what we’ll get on the free agent market with cap space. Plus, Jason Collins can’t hurt for some fouls and rebounds when Oden and Pryzbilla are hurt or in foul trouble. We can hope that terrible contract would be worth something when it becomes BCEC but we’d probably just have to take that hit until it expires.

by amitp06 on Jun 23, 2008 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would we even stop there?

If we got #5 for Raef and #13, we might see KP try to trade up even higher. Is #5 + Jarrett + a high second rounder + $3 million of PA money worth #3?

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 23, 2008 3:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That cant be right?

Seriously? I would take that in heartbeat. Cardinal is a gritty player with a contract that expires the same time as Raefs.. and while Collins sucks something awful, we can always keep him on IR

by RememberRastaMonsta! on Jun 23, 2008 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cardinal's contact

I think has one more year on it. But I’d still do it.

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on Jun 23, 2008 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amazing post

Really helpful too, the idea of standing pat sounded fine to me logically even though I wasn’t in that camp. Hanging on to everyone for another year was a popular view on this site.. not so much any more. Could’ve saved some fanposts if this had come up at the beginning of the offseason.

As much as I like Jack, especially in comparison to many of you, I’m hoping that he’s the one to go. Martell and Frye both have too much potential to become the next Jermaine O’Neals and trading Jack would clear the spot for the guard we will probably be trading for. Jack could become a legitimate starter but I can deal with that. I suppose Frye would have to be the next one on the list since his skills are already on the team in the form of Aldridge, although I think he will play a little tougher and rebound a little more when he’s not playing out of position. Last person to trade of those three would be Martell, who is the youngest (would be his senior year in college?), has the most potential, and hopes to become the sharpshooter that the team needs to complement the trio.

Can’t wait until draft day because the chance of a significant trade happening is huge (for both the Blazers and around the league). In any case, I hope the trading happens in the offseason and our opening roster this season will have all our key players (minus the mystery free agent from cap space) for years to come so the chemistry and development can begin.

by amitp06 on Jun 23, 2008 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The perfect rundown

This clarifies a lot of details that we all needed to remember, and I know that I myself don’t always factor this stuff in, just hoping it works itself out somehow.

I know I’d wanna keep Martell more than the others, but perhaps from his point of view he might think he stands to make more after a breakout season or two. So, locking him up might be tough, but I know I’d be happy if he got an Outlaw-type deal.

Jack seems the most likely to go, and if Frye didn’t make it so well known how much he wants to stay in Portlnd, I’d expect him to be traded as well. He HAS to realize he’d always be a backup here, and says as much in interviews, and if he’s cool with that than so am I. I could see him signing a 2, 3 year deal to stay here, but for the betterment of his career and livelihood, he’s gotta go to another team.

When must we sign these fellows so their contracts don’t do the 300% salary cap hold? By Halloween, 2008? And if not by then, then we gotta deal with contract talk all season and then hope a deal is done QUICKLY before July 1st?

So if they aren’t signed by Hallows Eve, and contract talk doesn’t seem to be going well, then a trade of the un-signed 4th year players would be likely if we want to maintain the cap space, right?

ALSO: Steve Blake has a team option. Can we NOT pick up his option to get that 5 million extra in cap space, sign or trade for a player that fills up the cap space, and then re-sign him because we have his Bird rights? Or, then could we use the MLE on him if we don’t have his Bird rights?

The same question goes for Outlaw too, I guess.

Lots of interesting stuff to keep in mind, that goes beyond the basketball court but is not any less important.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 23, 2008 11:53 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

RE: Steve Blake

If the Blazers don’t pick up his team option for 2009, then he’s an unrestricted FA. The Blazers would own Early Bird rights on him. However, as an unrestricted FA, he would have a cap hold as well – in the amount of $5,967,000. The only way to remove this cap hold would be to renounce his rights – meaning the Blazers would no longer have Early Bird rights. The scenario you describe is the very type of move (designed to get around the cap) that the rules are in place to eliminate.

BTW, if the Blazers start July of 2009 under the cap or go under the cap at any time during the year, they lose their MLE for the entire 2009-10 season. So if the Blazers have cap space, no, they cannot use the MLE to sign Blake or anyone else.

by Storyteller on Jun 23, 2008 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As far as I can tell

the deadline for these players isn’t October 31st like it is for 3rd year guys. However the timing is confusing. Larry Coon’s excellent site here:

says that a qualifying offer must be submitted by June 30th. Surely that’s the June following their fourth year, not the third. LeBron, Carmelo, and Wade all negotiated extensions in the summer after their third year, which means they didn’t have a qualifying offer in place, right? That would appear to give the team all season to make the offer. However it also says the player must accept the offer by March 1st if he wants to take it as a one-year deal. There’s a time-warp problem there. Maybe Storyteller can help us out. Check the link and see what you make of it.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That link, by the way, is

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What the heck is going on with links???

I’ll just give you the text version.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOL...

So THAT’S how it works.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To try and illustrate the timeline

I’ll use fictional Player X. Some of these dates are random just to show a full timeline.

June 28, 2005 – Player X is taken with the 7th pick of the first round by Team Y

July 16, 2005 – Player X is signed to his rookie contract

August 1, 2006 – Team Y picks up the 3rd year option for Player X (which covers the 2007-08 season)

August 1, 2007 – Team Y picks up the 4th year option for Player X (which covers the 2008-09 season)

October 31, 2008 – The deadline for Player X to sign an extension with Team Y. This is the October 31st following his third year in the league. If an extension is signed by this date, none of the following dates come into play. If an extension is not signed, Player X will become a free agent on July 1, 2009 and the following dates are important.

June 30, 2009 – The deadline for Team Y to extend a qualifying offer to Player X. This is the June 30th following his 4th year in the league. If the qualifying offer is made, Player X will be a restricted free agent on July 1st, 2009. If the qualifying offer is not made, Player X will be an unrestricted free agent on July 1st, 2010.

March 1st, 2010 – The deadline for Player X to accept the qualifying offer from Team Y.

by Storyteller on Jun 23, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

beat me to it.

this is correct

by douglast on Jun 23, 2008 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So what happens

if a qualifying offer is made in June, but not accepted until the next March? Does the player play in the mean time? Does he get payed anything?

by pualo on Jun 23, 2008 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No to both questions

He does not play in the NBA and he does not receive an NBA salary.

BTW, I’ve never heard of a case in which the qualifying offer was out on the table this long.

by Storyteller on Jun 23, 2008 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good post; no panic

I agree we have lots of “tradable assets” and there will be trades before the year is out, but there is no need to be in panic mode to make a deal to end up with a player/draft pick that isn’t a substantial upgrade from what we already have.

Listen to the offers and be prepared for some trades to happen before the trading deadline, but I’m not convinced we (KP/Blazers) need to act rashly to move up a few spots in the draft.

We’ve got lots of time, but there will be trades made so don’t get too attached to the current roster.

by vcubed on Jun 23, 2008 12:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What Makes the Team Better is the Key

Good overview of the $$$ roadblock for next Summer. As with all fans, the grass is greener on your home turf colors the vision. If potential could win you games, then we should have a good season next year. I would rather go for what really wins games: talent and experience. Blazers are pretty shy in the Game Smarts department. Frye seems the most cerebral of the three in question, but still a young dude. The other two have a long road to make the game easy for them. Thus, too much effort to get the same results you could get with a “Savy” player. Plus with Rudy coming over, both Jack and Webster are likely to have less chances to improve to the next level. Adios Amigos.

by ralphzillo on Jun 23, 2008 12:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

incredible

watch someone turn this in as a business school term paper

"Honor Terry Porter." Email me with your TP stories and memories.

by Ben. on Jun 23, 2008 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Like many others, I found this very informative.

Thanks, Dave. I don’t have the desire to dig in to the CBA to find these sorts of things, so it’s real swell of you to make it BEdge common knowledge.

I am definitely interested to see what KP pulls off, and many people have made great arguments seemingly covering every angle.

My two cents: I think the most likely to be traded are Jack, Frye, and Outlaw.

We don't NEED the draft. -Mortimer 6/18

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jun 23, 2008 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great post Dave

I agree that Jones is probably gone this summer and Jack and Channing will be gone very soon. I think Webster is still the major wildcard.

by Stumptown Doug on Jun 23, 2008 12:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Webster

I think Webster will be traded only if it is to land the “Missing Piece”. Not that I’m sure there is a missing piece to be had.

Jack will be traded with cash and or our seconds to late a later first round pick.

I think Frye will be here for the forseable future.

portlandmenonsports.blogspot.com

by Derek @Portland Men on Sports on Jun 23, 2008 1:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Overlooked scenario?

Look around the NBA, or even just look at what happened to the Blazers this last season. What do you think the chances are of having all your starters and main rotation players healthy for the entire year? Right.

So, for those of you who say that Channing won’t ever be a starter on this team, or that there won’t be enough minutes to go around, or that this is the last year we’re likely to have a lottery pick, consider this scenario:

Around March of next year, Aldridge injures his knee pretty badly. He’s out for the season. Does that derail our playoff plans? No, because up steps Frye, and he plays like a maniac. Backup PF minutes go to Outlaw and McBob. McBob surprises everybody with some quality play down the stretch. Blazers go on to sweep everybody in the playoffs and win the championship.

The next year, Aldridge is back good as new, so do we relegate Frye to the bench again? Good question, but we have options! We can trade either Aldridge or Frye at this point for a reasonable return. Part of that deal might be a future lottery pick which KP, with his knack for spotting talent, uses to add the next future Blazer star.

And so on.

In other words, I think we sometimes take a limited view of what is possible in the future, as if the lineup will be static. Injuries, unfortunately, are a reality in the NBA, but they have one positive result: if you have talented players that need playing time to show what they’ve got, then they’ll eventually get their opportunity. This may end up bearing fruit for both players and the team.

"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 1:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

curses, curses!!!

you really shouldn’t speculate about such things… thinking them is bad enough, writing them is a whole nother level of jinx’dom.

Take it all back!

We don't NEED the draft. -Mortimer 6/18

by you'vegottomakeyourfreethrows on Jun 23, 2008 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Net jinx value = zero

I think I stayed out of trouble by hypothesizing about both injuries (bad!) and championships (good!) in the same post.

My argument was essentially in favor of keeping all the talent we can and letting future contingencies determine the ultimate shape of our team. But, I’m getting a little weary of continuing to push for an outcome that appears to be shared by so few people. If most Blazer fans don’t care whether we keep Martell, Travis, Joel, Channing, Sergio, or Jarrett … then I guess I should just get with the program. I feel like I should just hibernate until Friday, see where we’re at, and move on. (Sigh…)

"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 4:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Keeping role back ups

I’m with you ,I say we keep Blake, Webster,Frye.Outlaw and Przybilla they are all very good back ups and sign Koponen and thats five very good role players for the future.Five of the six should be good off the bench and you don’t have to play everybody every night. I don’t know about sergio and McRoberts

by billyjoejack on Jun 23, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

A year or two from now, the “missing piece” we need could even be a center or a shooting guard. You never know what will happen. We shouldn’t assume that our missing piece down the road will be any particular kind of player.

by pualo on Jun 23, 2008 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big men who can shoot and make free throws are worth keeping.

You don’t need an all star PG to win championships. You do need bigs and depth.

by raoulduke on Jun 23, 2008 2:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't capspace holds only last until a player is signed or renounced?

The $27 million problem will only be at the beginning of the summer. If we are looking to sign one of the free agents, then this matters greatly. If we are planning on using it to eliminate trade problems, signing or renouncing the players will free up the affected capspace.

Since none of the free agents are that attractive, or available, the capspace is most likely going to be used to equalize trades. Those trades can be made later in the summer, and even up to the 2009-2010 trading deadline, when teams start to get desperate for a trading partner. And with all that capspace, we are the perfect trading partner for the entire league.

Granted, that is taking a chance, in that the trade we want may never come around, but the worst that happens is that Portland saves money in luxury taxes, and misses an opportunity. But the window to use that opportunity is bigger than we realize. Unless I am missing something. Am I?

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 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Blah, blah, blah

Von Wafer for LaBron.

by Blazersaurus on Jun 23, 2008 4:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We would have to have Cleveland's 1st round pick as well!

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And cash

Other people don't have as much practice at being wrong as I do -- HT, timbo

by jscot on Jun 24, 2008 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rember when Phoenix pretty much gave away

Rudy and Jones to us, because we had a trade exception of a couple million that helped them cut salary? Think what we could do with 20 million instead of 2 million (rough numbers there).

by pualo on Jun 23, 2008 4:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Excellent

Not knowing much about the salary cap, I’ve been saying that this coming year’s trade deadline should be the Blazers’ deadline for evaluating these young players. This added information really confirms my thoughts, possibly adding a little more urgency to the situation. It seems there is pretty much consensus on who might move, even though most of us hate to see any of these guys go.

My big question is regarding who would be the most probable acquisition. Based on what we have, and assuming (hoping) JJ signs, I see the season opening with a 1-2 depth chart looking something like this:
PG: Blake, Fernandez
SG: Roy, Webster
SF: Outlaw, Jones
PF: Aldridge, Frye
C: Pryzbilla, Oden (should change sooner than later)

So much of the talk has been about adding a PG. I really think, at least locally, Blake doesn’t get due respect for the stability and game management he’s provided this team as it’s grown. When the focus is on PG, 2 main points come to my mind:
1. Despite a number of really good PGs currently in the league, CP and Nash are the only ones that are elite calibur and still in their pre-prime or prime. Sorry, I don’t think they’re in our future.
2. Is a great PG necessary, when a good one can do what is needed? In the last 10-15 years, how many times have the names Stockton, Nash, Payton, or Kidd been on championship rosters?

The biggest hole I see is a good, physical PF that can back up Aldridge. This guy doesn’t need to score, he just needs to help Joel dominate the boards and plug up the middle on defense.
Does anyone know any of these guys that might be available on the trading block this year?

by OCSteve on Jun 23, 2008 5:13 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Point guards for the last 15 years

1994: HOU Kenny Smith
1995: HOU Kenny Smith/Sam Cassell
1996: CHI Ron Harper/Steve Kerr
1997: CHI Ron Harper/Steve Kerr
1998: CHI Ron Harper/Steve Kerr
1999: SAS Avery Johnson
2000: LAL Derek Fisher/Ron Harper
2001: LAL Derek Fisher
2002: LAL Derek Fisher
2003: SAS Tony Parker
2004: DET Chauncey Billups
2005: SAS Tony Parker
2006: MIA Jason Williams/Gary Payton
2007: SAS Tony Parker
2008: BOS Rajon Rondo/Eddie House

Interesting…I bolded those who I consider elite point guards

by jamon51 on Jun 23, 2008 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yikes stripes

Avery Johnson was a journeyman PG at BEST. But, I totally agree with your point and I’ve tried to make it as well (though you did a better job by showing it).

Aside from Magic and then Isiah, the “best PG in the NBA” almost never win a title. Tony Parker is good, but I think Duncan makes him ‘elite’ because Parker’s faults aren’t very visible with Duncan there, and Billups win with Detroit was flukey as a electrified fluking machine on St. Fluke’s Day.

We need SOLIDNESS, and DEFENSE, at PG. Chris Paul would be awesome, but history shows it isn’t necessary (and if anything, since Paul is the ‘best PG’ now, history says he won’t ever win a title).

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 24, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Point guards

That’s why I worded it as a question…I’d never really looked at it. I think it’s a reach to even call the 3 you highlighted elite. Parker & Johnson have been sheltered by hands-down HOFers. Chauncey is the only one I might put in that class.

I think that boldens the point that the Blazers should be more concerned with getting a physical backup PF, than an elite PG, based on the rebounding & defensive woes of the last couple years.

by OCSteve on Jun 24, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Koponen makes 4 point guards

If Koponen makes the team of 15 , that makes 4 point guards. JJ would seem the one to have the most trade value as he is actually more of a combo guard. He has been great on the second unit going to the basket and carrying much of the scoring, besides Travis, on the second unit. If he is traded, that scoring hole has to be filled by someone.

If JJones is resigned and with Rudy joining, the Blazers have 14 on the roster. That counts Raef. (Say Dave can he be bought out during or before the season so Portland could add someone to take his place on the roster? If Portland would be without his salary next year and only added a rookie in his roster spot, it would not impact the 09-10 trade window.)) Without trades, only the #13 pick can be added without cutting someone. Is McRoberts better than anyone available at #33 and # 36? Knowing KP’s draft history, he may very well use those picks on overseas players who can play a few more years there and develop.

I believe in getting as many quality players as possible. Depth is important to promote competition for playing time and most importantly for replacements after the inevitable injuries which our big guys have a history of having. I wonder how necessary it is to get a top level point guard? Rondo is a second year average point guard and the Celtics with their big three trampled L.A.

If Koponen does make the roster, I agree with those who have suggested he spend most of the year in D League for experience and playing time. Dave, is there anyway the Blazers could sign him to only a D League contract without losing his NBA rights? I suppose the D League has severe contract dollar limits on such a deal.

Put me down as one opposed to trading our guys unless it is a knock out deal. I really like Martell and the Blazers would make a great mistake to trade him. When he learns to dribble the ball with confidence so he can drive easily to the basket, he will have a chance to be an All-Star.

by OrygunRod on Jun 23, 2008 6:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

d league

The players of tin the D league sign contracts with the NBA itself. Teams that send players to the d league of course have contracts with their own players that take up a roster spot of that team. Koponen was a first round draft pick so the terms if he signs with the Blazers are set and guaranteed.

In other words the D-league is not a farm system ala baseball. We’ve had “diaries” (when they were called that) calling for a more farm like system with the D-League. Many reasons to do it but the NBA has not yet followed the suggestions in our wonderfully articulated posts on the subject.

by mrwonderfulone on Jun 23, 2008 10:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

D League contracts

I did not phrase my hypothesis very well.

What I am asking is can a draft pick be signed only by a D League Team and the Blazers still have the exclusive right to later sign him when they think he’s ready for the Show? That is a blatant attempt to avoid the very rule you speak of.

by OrygunRod on Jun 24, 2008 1:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, unless

The Blazers give his rights up, and then Petteri can sign with a d-league team and not take up a roster spot.

Of course, then ANY Nba team can call Petteri up and own his rights then, and we lose him for nothing.

If Petteri is in the D-League, there is no smart way to avoid him taking up a roster spot and being paid 1st round money. It’s just how it is, nothing’s ever gonna change.

But don’t you believe it.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 24, 2008 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see Sergio traded

if we keep Koponen. One developmental PG at a time please.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent Post

It even made the front page of ESPN’s NBA section!
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index

(it’s listed under the rotating TrueHoop tab)

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Jun 23, 2008 9:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow! Major coolness.

Thanks for pointing that out. Made my day.

Though I did notice the caption said something about the Blazers making cap room to re-sign Brandon Roy. Gack! SO not an issue!

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 23, 2008 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did anyone note...

... Hollinger’s rating for Jarrett Jack?

His 14.20 is better than all but three perimeter players in this draft (Alexander. Augustin and Rose) and puts him just outside the top 10 PG’s since 2002.

As Hollinger admits, no system is perfect, but at least it should give some folks reason to pause, before tossing Jack aside for “the next sure thing” such as Westbrook, Gordon or Mayo.

by timg56 on Jun 24, 2008 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Best of Jack

Is to come.

However, it’s hard to imagine him NOT traded with Rudy coming and that Jack just MIGHT not be a PG… if he was though, look out!

This 300% salary cap hold doesn’t help matters for Jack either. He really gets far too much blame around here…

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jun 24, 2008 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

I am appreciating the hiring of Tom Penn a whole lot more.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Jun 23, 2008 11:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The issue that most of the league is dealing with is the luxury tax

Since we will likely have 3 max contract players they will eat about 70% of the luxury tax threshold. The cost for players becomes double beyond that so a player being paid $5M will cost us $10M and he better be worth most of it or the Vulcan bunch will be all over it again. It is the motivator behind teams sending away good players in trade and selling draft picks. Denver, for example is right now feeling the crunch and reportedly shopping nearly everyone there with big contracts to shorten the pain.

Very nice analysis Dave. You have shortened up my time line to determine which players to keep very well. The flexibility idea also allows KP to trade away fan favorites and blame the salary cap! Somehow I still don’t see him trading players just for the cap because he seems to have multiple layers in every move.

by lee3022 on Jun 24, 2008 1:32 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Someone needs to show this thread to Kenny and Katie

...especially Kenny, who just showed a complete misunderstanding of Portland’s situation on the radio. He kept saying, pretty much yelling it over and over, that it would be idiotic for the Blazers to trade up to #5 to get Westbrook. That’s not the point. If you can trade #13 along with any combination of expiring salaries (RL/JJ/Channing/Martell), you have to do it, it’s a win-win. Who cares if it’s for the #5 pick or the #8 pick, as long as it’s done in order to get the guy you want without blowing up the core.

MLB2PDX!!! (someday...)

by The Cactus Leaguer on Jun 24, 2008 8:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

tim56

I read Holligers analysis also. And you’re right. Of equal interest to me was how Brandon Rush graded well in front of Bayless, Gordon and Mayo. Indeed, his system put Rose, Augustin and Rush well in front of the rest in the guard class – and, it’s been a pretty good predictor over the years. And Rush has been talked about here, as an underappreciated riser in the draft due to the system he worked in at Kansas, where no one was the star, because they also had Chalmers, Randolph, etc. Ah well, we’ll see. I also agree with Cactus Leaguer. Most of these mocks, and people like Kenny know less than some people on this board. Of course salaries count. Consider what happens in a few years, after all, To keep Roy, Oden and Aldridge, we’ll probably end up paying out $30 million or so (hell, even Ben Gordon’s at $9 million). Then, we’ll have at least six to seven other core rotation players giving us 9-10. And they’ll pick up another $30 million or so (Blakes around $5 as I recall). Right there you have $60 million. So what’s really left for the 11-15? Will we really keep players like Jack or Jones on the payroll if they’re not a part of the core rotation. It’s nice in theory, but does it really work in fact?

by Eben Calder on Jun 24, 2008 1:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs