The Changing Paradigm

by Dave on Jul 24, 2008 12:38 AM PDT Comment 42 comments

It's become apparent as people are discussing players like Luol Deng (and whoever else comes up) that we're still a little confused about the opportunities and costs surrounding contracts this year and next year. Specifically I've heard and read a lot of smart people say things like, "I don't know if we want to take on a max contract player next year..." as if that would hurt us contractually in some way. The general concern is understandable, but the timing is off by a year. People are failing to realize that the unique cap situation next summer changes everything we're used to thinking about when we consider taking on contracts.

There is a difference in contractual goals and procedures this year and next year. The two are exactly opposite, in fact.

THIS YEAR there is an opportunity cost to taking on contracts. That opportunity cost is not having cap room to play with next summer. For instance, if we trade Raef LaFrentz's expiring contract for a player making $13 million, that's $13 million more counting against our cap next summer...in essence eliminating most of the available space. Therefore any player we acquire this year would have to pass a litmus test: is he more valuable than anyone else we could sign or trade for next year using that cap space? Therefore taking on a max contract this year would indeed be something to discuss cap-wise.

(Side note: This is not precisely true of trading Martell Webster, Channing Frye, or Ike Diogu. We would potentially save cap space next summer by trading them for a player who makes the same amount next year. This is because of the cap space holds we've talked about so much. So don't worry about cap space ramifications if we trade these players.)

NEXT YEAR there is NO opportunity cost to taking on contracts, max or otherwise! There are two reasons:

1. We will be under the cap next year, but not for long. As our young core players require re-signing in the years to come that cap space will disappear.

2. The cap ramifications and restrictions are exactly the same whether you're $1 over the cap or $20 million over the cap.

In other words if we don't sign anyone next summer it's not like that money could be used on other players in years to come, as if signing them next summer was costing us later opportunities. Re-signing Roy, Alridge, Oden, and whoever else we wish will make that cap space disappear anyway. The Blazers have to use it or lose it.

Taking Deng as a theoretical example, even a max contract next year would not do a thing to make our cap situation worse in ensuing years. The Blazers are never going to be under the cap again once their Big Three cycle through. The only difference signing Deng would make would be Paul Allen spending 10-12 million more bucks a year. It wouldn't change our eventual cap situation a bit.

In three years the situation would be either:

We are capped out and can only use a mid-level exception and Deng is on our team.

Or...

We are capped out and can only use a mid-level exception and Deng is not on our team.

The only criteria that matters here is if you think Deng fits. If he does, it doesn't matter what you pay him. You're not making things better or worse as far as the eventual cap. If he doesn't, you have to find someone else who does. Then the same will be true of them, contract-wise.

In essence it's like we'll have a coupon next summer, good for acquiring one or more players through free agency or trade with no real cap ramifications no matter what we pay them. But that coupon is good for one season only. After that the opportunity goes away.

If we want that cap space next summer, meaning we don't find the exact player we want this season, the mantra right now is save, save, save. Preserve that space and don't take on any big contracts this year. But once the season turns the exact opposite will be true: spend, spend, spend. Whether the contracts you take on are big or small won't matter. You will not have another chance to do this again.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

0 recs | Comment 42 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Instant Gratification?

It seems to me that the current roster can do major damage if given a few years to gel with one another. Why is everyone so quick to jump on free-agents and trade bait? Let it ride for now until you know what the “new” guys can do (Oden, Bayless, Rudy, etc).

by cic on Jul 24, 2008 12:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This is not a fan creation

The Blazers have specifically, intentionally set up their contracts to present EXACTLY this opportunity to acquire players through free agents or trade next summer. Since they’re doing it, we talk about it.

—Dave

by Dave on Jul 24, 2008 1:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This analysis is predicated on one major assumption

Paul Allen is willing to pay large amounts of luxury tax.

Probably a good assumption, but it should be mentioned. Given that assumption, as usual Dave is spot on.

If Paul wants to limit the luxury tax he pays, then spending a lot on a free agent / trade acquisition in 2009 is probably not going to happen.

One other factor that will be considered, besides how well the potential acquisition fits—how much of an upgrade is he over the guys we have? Even if a player is a good fit, and is better than our current players, is he enough better to justify throwing millions of dollars at him, dollars that will be doubled by the luxury tax in a couple of years? That is a legitimate question to ask.

It isn’t as if we are short on talent and desperate to add new stars. A guy not only has to fit, he has to be enough of an upgrade to justify the cost and the disruption to team chemistry of bringing someone new in.

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

by jscot on Jul 24, 2008 1:03 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

+1

From a business perspective it just doesn’t seem worth it to sign a guy for 10 mil, which will really be a 20 mil investment due to the luxury tax, to only make a small upgrade.

Also, the team must consider how adding players will affect the chemistry of the guys already on the team. It’s kind of a misnomer to say that there is no opportunity cost whatsoever to adding a new guy next season. Every player added to the roster, especially one good enough to justify spending $10 million on, will want a certain amount of playing time and a certain number of touches. How will that affect the offense, and will it upset the guys already on the current roster? And what are the long term implications? For instance, does getting Deng next season eliminate playing time for Batum, and ultimately have the effect of driving him to free agency so that he can get playing time elsewhere? That may seem like a good tradeoff now, but 8 years down the road when Batum is a few years younger than Outlaw and Deng it might not seem like such a good deal anymore.

Also, consider the formula that many championship teams of the past have employed – a couple stars surrounded by role players. With Oden, LMA and Roy, and an extremely talented supporting cast consisting of a couple potential all-stars, the Blazers seem to have that formula locked in without adding another potential star. Further, because of the youth of this team all of the future draft picks can be spent on 19-year old projects who can then be brought over to replenish an aging roster. The situation right now seems to be perfect.

by erastus25 on Jul 24, 2008 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excactly

I think sometimes people tend to overstate Paul Allen’s willingness to spend, especially when it comes to luxury tax. It’s almost better to stand pat, unless you’re using that cap space on someone who is the perfect fit. Say you give Deng $15 mil a year, and say you have to go over the cap (as you would) to sign Roy, Aldridge and Oden. So basically Allen is paying, in real dollars, $30 mil/year for Deng, your fourth option. The man is rich, but $15 mil extra is a lot for anyone to spend, especially if it doesn’t end with a ring.

Buying draft picks is one thing, paying luxury tax for up to five years for a fourth wheel is another. Fiscal responsibility is as much a part of KP’s culture as character.

by Lance Uppercut on Jul 24, 2008 7:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jscot is spot on

This is the point many of us were trying to make about a possible trade to bring a player like Deng in. Going over the cap doesn’t matter, but going over the tax cap does. I am sure PA is willing to spend if he sees an championship in sight, however many teams have shown that you don’t need to over spend to win a championship. If Roy, LMA, and Oden develope as we all hope, than we only need role players to go along with them, and a player like Deng will never be just a role player.

Erastus25 is even more correct when he talked about value for the dollar. Why would PDX want to pay Deng $15+ million per year to do what Travis can do, but only a bit better for only $4 million per year? It just doesn’t make any sense. Now if we can pull a trade for T. Prince for Outlaw + fillers that would work, as he is making just over $8 million per and plays better defense with the same production on offense.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 24, 2008 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Woo-hoo!!!!

I got a +1 from THE ONE AND ONLY LANCE UPPERCUT!!!

Sorry for yelling. I can now die happy.

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 12:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for making this post....

No one likes to explain this over and over again. Hopefully the people that need this info, read it here, and remember it.

by as11osu on Jul 24, 2008 3:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Just say no to Dengs.

Man I love tongue tacos - Mortimer
Only thing better is Trout on a stick roasted over an open fire - annthefan
I have a pic like that of my dog - tominhawaii

by Outlaw is Rejector on Jul 24, 2008 4:16 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Did anyone else read "The Channing Paradigm"?

I was a little disappointed at first that so little in this post deals with him. My critical reading and reasoning skills fly out the window when the Blazers’ roster is concerned…

Coach, I promise I wasn't running hard ...

by Norsktroll on Jul 24, 2008 6:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

That helps

I’m one of the dummies regarding cap space. So preserving cap space has nothing to do with saving Paul Allens cash (in the future anyhow). It’s a short term opportunity before Paul begins writing really big checks or really, really big checks.

Good explanation. Thanks, Dave.

by lukeyhere on Jul 24, 2008 6:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes and no. PA is more than willing to go over the salary cap to pay our players. The question is, how much luxury tax is he willing to pay if any? I think PA would pay some tax money, but not until we are on the brink of winning it all, or at least fighting to get there each year. If we sign a $15+ million per year FA this summer, as soon as the following summer the team could be paying the Luxury tax, as ROY and LMA’s extentions would kick in, plus any new contracts for Martel, frye, Outlaw, etc…

Unless we use our cap space to trade for a player who has a contract like C. Billups, (his contract ends the summer after ROY and LMA’s extentions would kick in if we don’t pick up the last team option year.) bring in a high dollar player will put us over the luxury tax cap, and prolly not just a little bit over, but a lot.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 24, 2008 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

extending contracts

I wonder if one or more of next year’s RFA’s will be extended to reasonable contracts this summer. I guess I can’t imagine the team simply renouncing rights to Channing Frye next year, he simply will have value on an NBA roster. That’s 9.5M of cap hold if we don’t renounce. I suspect we could sign him for a three year contract not too different from Blake’s at about half that. Same thing for Martell. Yes, we take the 9-10M hit on cap space, but that’s less than half of what the cap hold would be if we don’t sign them and want to maintain the right to match offers. Diogu is the third, but unless he really astounds next year (and I doubt he’ll get the burn to do so), I suspect they won’t place a cap hold for his salary. Which doesn’t mean they won’t sign him afterwards, just that they’ll lose the right to match other offers if he signs.

by BrailleTaser on Jul 24, 2008 8:07 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

PA's Money

I guess I am always confused when people assume that an owner is hesitant to pay the luxury tax. On the surface nobody wants to take on additional expenses. However, its not expenses that PA should be concerned about, as a business owner he worries about profit. Certainly any tax penalty will make it more difficult to make a profit or to maximize the profit, but hopefully that tax penalty will turn into even greater revenue.

If KP signs a marquee player who takes our team from playoff contender to champion contender, there are more tickets to sell, more merchandise to sell, more public awareness = advertising dollars, and Portland becomes a destination for role players in the league who are willing to take a salary cut to win a championship. All of this seems to be good business.

The best analogy would be personal taxes. I would much rather make 200K more in salary even if it meant that I pay an additional 100K in taxes. I’m stilling taking home an additional 100K.

Maybe I have this all wrong, but as long as we are able to resign our core players, who cares if we are paying luxury tax as long as the expected revenue gains are greater than the additional expenses.

by ZooooomByU on Jul 24, 2008 8:24 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If ROY, LMA and ODEN develop like we all hope, we won’t need a Marquee player to sign with the Blazers, and most likely that player won’t want to sign with the team either as they will want thier own team to lead. (unless they are old and just want a shot at a title) The cap space is a nice back up plan if after this year, the Blazers feel they need more, but in my opinion they would rather see our big 3 step up this year and just need some good players to surround them.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 24, 2008 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly...

The Blazers already have 3 potential marquee players plus potential all-stars in Bayless, Outlaw and Rudy. I don’t see another marquee player coming here, taking a reduced role and being happy with it. As usmcr says, only a veteran would be willing to do that and this team does not need a veteran taking minutes/experience from the young core.

by erastus25 on Jul 24, 2008 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Martell is a potential All-Star

He has the body and if his work this summer on driving to the basket and in general ball handling pays off, we will see a break out year for him. This would have been his college senior year remember.

Stu Inman: a soft-spoken, witty and brilliant basketball guy -- who had so much to do with Portland's only championship. He believed that you won with not just great players, but with great people. (D Jaynes 2-2-07 Portland Tribune)

by OrygunRod on Jul 24, 2008 6:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But would you

take on an additional 100k in taxes without knowing for sure that you will be making 200k more in salary? It’s a risk.

by jamon51 on Jul 24, 2008 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think the with way the team is currently set up that there isn’t a need to add another big name. I was trying to point out that transactions shouldn’t be viewed from a purely expense nature.
Right now, there are very few players that I believe could enhance the team even more without a sacrifice to chemistry, leadership, or future leverage.

by ZooooomByU on Jul 24, 2008 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You also have to consider

the effect on your current players’ views of their own salary situation that bringing-in a high-salary free-agent may have. Using Deng as an example, if Allen were to pay him max or near-max money, then Allen has no choice but to sign Roy, Oden, and Aldridge to max contracts, too. No problem, if Allen truly doesn’t care how much he spends to make his players happy and bring multiple championships to Portland. He could even take the view that in spending big on his players, he’s making life tougher for other owners to stay below the luxury tax threshold, because their players will point to Portland’s players and demand equal compensation. It has the effect of making the Blazers a more desirable destination fro free agents, too.

I’ve read that players judge their status in the league by the size of their contract at least as much as playing time, starting, All-Star nods, etc. Each team has a pecking order. If a player like Deng, who has basically had one solid year - and that wasn’t last year - joins the team for big money, it sends a bad message to the other players, who are bound to resent that the third or fourth option on the starting five is being paid as if he were the first or second option. If the player they bring-in is someone like Tayshaun Prince, an established player being paid a reasonable salary, the other players feel that the pecking order is in good shape and no one feels the need to demand more money than they are worth. In that scenario, I could even see the Big Three taking less than max money to help PA avoid the luxury tax and set a good example for team harmony, especially given the kind of team players and good guys they are.

I like to think that KP and PA have had a conversation like this:

PA: If you can put together a championship roster, money is no object.

KP: I will put together a championship roster, but I’m going to do everything I can to make sure you don’t have to pay a luxury tax.

PA: That would be ideal. Back in 2000, I hated reading that I was buying a championship by spending money like a drunken sailor.

KP: The Blazers used to be the model for a well-run NBA franchise. My goal is to return it to that status. Not paying the luxury tax will underscore the point.

PA: Ommmmmmmm…..

Asked his specialty in the kitchen, Oden paused and said, "Hamburger Helper and tuna fish."

by MiledAnimal on Jul 24, 2008 11:23 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Adding a free agent with next years cap space

also gives us one more trading chip. One can acquire talent in one of three ways: draft, Signing free agents or via trade. Once we go over the cap by extending Roy, Aldridge and Oden, we can only add players using our exceptions (mid-level and veterans minimum) or via trade. By that point the talent we get in the draft will be of the high risk/high reward variety (in other woirds it will be either hit or miss). Granted, we do not necessarily need to sign a fourth marquee player, but bringing in a good player with a sound contract has other advantages and few risks. The main advantage is another good player to put on the floor, but it also gives us another player contract with which we can trade. If that player does not work out (or one of our other developing players does not live up to expectations) then we now have one more contract as an asset to make trades with other teams. As long as the Blazers do not overpay for a player (eg. Rashard Lewis) they will be better off. Good contracts are always in demand on the trade market. Yes there are risks, the greatest one being taking minutes from our young drafted talent.

by NWfan on Jul 24, 2008 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention

that the Blazers accumulated all of these assets and all of that potential cap space to do SOMETHING with them. There’s a reason this is happening when it is. Whether they get one “marquee” player or two mid-range players or whatever they do, it will end up in the same position vis a vis the luxury tax. Two six million dollar contracts or one twelve million dollar contract adds up to the same number and the same tax consequences. The only way to avoid that is to presume that the Blazers lined up all of these contracts and players for no reason whatsoever…it’s just an accident that they all expire or get options in the same year and a potential $20 million in cap space is just going to be let go.

Personally I think it’s logical to assume that the Blazers will be looking to consolidate talent, not add extra players. I mean, how many more guys can they fit on this roster? So it seems more likely to me that they’d move for one, big contract rather than several smaller ones.

Your point about trade value is excellent.

—Dave

by Dave on Jul 24, 2008 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A counterpoint

I think that having several smaller contracts is a good position to be in, with the caveat that it has to be young players with good upside. You can develop those players and determine who is going to be worth the big money down the road, and dump those who don’t work out—you didn’t tie up tons of money with them anyway. Basically, developing the big contracts from within, rather than always looking elsewhere.

It makes business sense to do this. Look at Martell Webster. He contributes, he has upside, and I’d rather have him, Outlaw, and Frye than a big contract player that we could get with a combination of those three. Then, down the road, one or two of them don’t work-no problem. But if the big contract guy doesn’t work-Allen Houston? Steve Francis? Raef LaFrentz? Jerome James? You have to be sure a guy is worth the money before you offer it to him.

by jamon51 on Jul 24, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ENOUGH UPSIDE!

The whole point of summer ‘09 and the cap space is to CASH IN. KP has set a date when he will explore all of the options for putting together a team that will contend in the SHORT TERM. If Travis/Martell/Sergio/aren’t producing by then, they will be traded/renounced/whatever so we can get solid, consistent players who will contribute to our developing championship core of ROA.
KP talks about accumulating liquid assets like draft picks and young players with the idea that he’ll be able to turn them into something. Think about what Boston did this year with KG/Allen—that’s the sort of thing KP will be able to pull next summer if things go according to plan.
Personally, I’m really excited for that time because finally we can be back to contending and not arguing about who has the most upside potential while our team is in the lottery. Movin’ on up!

by kickbrass on Jul 24, 2008 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ideally

you want a few upside players around as well. Those are your future key players.

That’s the reason for signing Batum. He’s not likely to be a key contributor on our 09-10 team, but we won’t dump him for that reason.

Starting 09-10, we want to be good enough to contend, but we also want to be developing young players to keep us contenders for a long, long time. The player this team will be built around for years to come is only 20 this year. We aren’t moving into “Win NOW!” phase. We’re moving into “Win FOREVER” phase. We could be contenders for 15 years or more.

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 1:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops

I see Dave said basically this just below, and you agreed. Sorry for the redundancy.

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 1:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It depends on what phase you're in

It’s always a good idea to have a variety of contracts for the sake of flexibility. You never want to be the Knicks with thirteen expensively untradeable guys on your roster. However as you transition from a building team into a contending team generally you switch out of the “many cheaper guys with potential” mode and into the “fewer, bankable guys who produce” mode. At some point that means paying more money to fewer people. You always want to have one or two young, cheap, “potential” guys in the hopper but the main focus is your top 3-6 players.

Your point about being sure of the guy before you offer him a big contract definitely holds, but if the Blazers DO like a guy I don’t think a big contract is going to make them blink a bit in the next stage of their development. Opening up the potential for this very thing is exactly why they set up the cap space to begin with.

—Dave

by Dave on Jul 24, 2008 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you always say it better

and with such an even keel

by kickbrass on Jul 24, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

Maybe the Blazers positioned themselves to have cap space in 09 to be able to add small piece if need, (an excellent role player, not a marquee player) and still be under the luxury tax cap enough to be able to offer mega deals to LMA, ROY, and GO if they develop like they hope. And if they don’t, and KP will know much more after this season, than he has this summer to add that player needed. Basically to me, this stinks of “Flexability” one of KP’s favorite words. Cap space next summer offers the Blazers the ability to make a ton of different moves, one of those moves is to stand pat for the most part if they get lucky and their current player develop into the players they need. That may be a perfect world, but it is still a very real possiblity.

by usmcr3049 on Jul 24, 2008 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KP has mentioned

on several occasions, I believe, that he would look for an excellent role player not the marquee player most here assume he wants.

by OrygunRod on Jul 24, 2008 6:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

they positioned themselves with cap space so that they could add a marquee player if needed, or only a role player if needed, or perhaps just to extend the guys we have if they show themselves to be the role players we need.

We can do whatever we need to do. If Martell has a breakout year and plays like a future all-star, we won’t be renouncing him or spending huge amounts for a small forward. If he and Travis both flop this year….

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 1:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cap Room

I guess now all we can really do is pray that Darius Miles ends up on an episode of Cops before he can play 10 games next season.

When in doubt, veer left....

by philly420pdxhilo on Jul 24, 2008 2:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks for writing this Dave

Even knowing Paul Allen has went deep into luxury tax land for not-that-great teams, fans seem worried that adding another potentially big contract before getting to Oden/Roy/LMA/Rudy/Bayless/Martell/Trout’s next deal somehow inhibits us in how much we can pay them, or some of our own fans think the rules for most small market teams apply to Portland.

Portland is the small market exception, because of Paul Allen.

This cap space was created to be USED, not just taken up by the players we already have. True, worst case scenario, we can’t find anyone good to use the cap space on via a trade or free agent signing, then we end up using it on the guys we already got.

Does anyone think Kevin Pritchard and Paul Allen will fail in that quest, though? Especially with teams always willing to shed a salary for a good player depending on where the team is at, and how we’ll be able to pay top dollar for a good young player and be an attractive destination for winning.

My point is, they’re going to try to use that cap space as much as they can, because we won’t have an opportunity like this for the next decade or more. The luxury tax is nearly unavoidable, as long as our young players are GOOD. If you can add a 4th great player to the core, then the luxury tax will be chump change and if you worry THAT MUCH about the tax (which I severely doubt Paul Allen does) then you make the savings elsewhere—provided it’s a special 4th player we’re talking about.

Paul Allen could afford, and the NBA allows, to pay every single 15 players on our roster the MAX if he really wanted to. Obviously it goes without saying he is not going to do that, and no one ever is. But, he can. And paying 3 players top dollar might be tough for owners who are NOT the richest owner in sports, but luckily Paul Allen is the richest owner in sports and this cap space plan underlines the fact that he can afford it. We KNOW Roy/LMA/Oden are gonna be expensive, and they still planned on getting this cap space to use.

Seems to me they’re gonna use it, our team will be expensive, and it won’t matter a bit.

Yeah, we don’t want dumb contracts for so-so players. That is obvious as well.

But if we got the right players, paying them what they deserve will never be a problem.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 24, 2008 4:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully Mr Allen

continues to spend his money for our benefit but we cannot assume that our rich owner will continue to lose money for us to have a shot at wild and crazy Blazermania. It is his money.

by OrygunRod on Jul 24, 2008 6:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He only needs to throw money around for a few more years

Or, be convinced to throw it around.

Once we use the cap space, it’s done and can’t be undone even if Paul Allen doesn’t wanna spend no more money for the first time in his life as a billionaire.

After that, re-signing Roy/LMA/Oden are no brainers, and we hope Trout/Martell/Bayless/Rudy are no brainers as well.

And once the cap space is used and the core retained we have our team for the next decade and are winning.

No backtracking, even if Paul Allen becomes a new person who hates basketball, for at least 6 years or so (probably more).

We win, huzzah!

I doubt we’ll ever turn a profit, but he isn’t the owner of the Blazers to make a profit.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 24, 2008 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dear Mortimer

I must take great issue with your comment here. Clearly, you have been infected by living in that horrible place to the south of Portland, and have uttered blasphemy.

Specifically, you said (I shudder to repeat it, but it is necessary), “If you can add a 4th great player to the core.”

I informed this site, long before Summer League, that the Big Three had become the Big Four when we got Bayless.

It might be the Big Five, with Rudy. I’m not even sure that one of our SFs won’t make it the Big Six. Now, as a guy who is pessimistic about the Blazers (we all know how pessimistic you are), I’ll forgive you if you talk about a 5th great player, rather than a 7th great player. But this “4th great player” stuff just has to stop.

I urge you to mend the error of your ways, lest great evil befall you. Wrong thinking about the Blazers can lead to many dangerous pitfalls. It is rumored that some erstwhile Blazer fans have even, through wrong thinking, turned into C#ltic fans. I don’t think any real Blazer fan could ever go all the way to the dark side, but you must be on guard—terrible things happen in this world of ours when people think wrongly about the Blazers.

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good lordy we got a lot of good players

(Disclaimer: yada yada yeah they’re unproven for the most part blibbity blabbity)

If there is one thing to keep one from ever liking the Lakers, it is living in LA. Anyone who uses moving to LA as an excuse to like the Lakers is a horrible person and probably denies the holocaust. It is ridiculous to even IMAGINE someone liking the Lakers, ESPECIALLY if they weren’t born here. They are awful fans.

Oden, Roy, LMA, Rudy, Bayless, Martell, Trout, plus a possible MAX PLAYER to add to that and the ability (and means) to re-sign them all.

It’s so unfair to everyone else. How can you beat that?

And what if Batum because the next Teyshaun Prince? Channing Frye improves more? Diogu finds the game he was drafted so high for? It’s like, half of them can completely bust out (which they won’t) and we’re still a championship contender in 2 years (errr, as long as the bust out doesn’t include Oden).

We’re so spoiled and I love it.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 25, 2008 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe because I occasionally obsess over everything KP says

but I thought all this was totally well known to the fanbase. KP has talked repeatedly about what a singularly unique opp it is to have this cap space window right before having to extend our major stars. He talks about how many different ways you can use an asset like huge cap space, whether it’s signing free agents, or facilitating a trade as a third party to make contracts work, or opening up possibility of unbalanced trades like the Camby to Clippers trade.

He’s going to use the cap space, all of it. It’s not a “whether”, it’s a “how”. Considering the obvious luxury tax implications, KP must be operating under a Paul Allen mandate to do everything possible to create the strongest team, up to and including tax, considering how definitely he has promised to use the cap space.

What I find amusing/baffling is the high percentage of fans here recommending that we squander this opportunity. If KP didn’t do anything at all with the cap space window of opportunity, it would be as much of a squandered opportunity as the Phoenix Suns missteps of selling off their draft picks. 15 to 20 million in cap space probably has around as much value as a high lottery pick, and fans here are recommending that we just don’t use it? That would be mismanagement and negligence on the order of Grizzlies or Hawks or Bobcats front offices.

by howlingfantods on Jul 24, 2008 11:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Word

This team has not been and will likely never be set up for ‘fiscal responsibility’. Paul Allen and KP didn’t assemble this group of talent just to not keep ‘em or pay them, or go through the pain of buying out Steve Francis to not use the cap space.

There is almost no chance that we don’t use the cap space one way or another, and there is almost no chance we don’t retain our good players, unless they don’t fit and/or want to be a top dogg somewhere else.

I don’t get why so many of us worry about the salary cap (after the cap space summer, I mean) and the luxury tax. We’re going to pay the luxury tax and it won’t matter one bit. The players will still get their cars detailed while at practice and Paul Allen will still have movie stars on his yacht. If the team is good, he’s just more willing to write blank checks for KP to play with. There is nothing that suggests in the franchise’s history of being owned by Allen that THIS will be the time he comes up cheap, once we’re actually going to have a chance to not just contend but WIN IT ALL.

We do not pay the tax as fans, there are no further penalties outside the financial hit PA’s pocketbook takes, and nothing will be shortchanged elsewhere in the franchise to make up for the tax. It will be seen as the cost of having a great team and will be unfair to the other teams—but oh well. Lots of things in sports are unfair. Having an ‘ittle wittle small market team be able to go toe to toe with the NYs and Chicagos and LAs moneywise won’t make me feel like we got an unfair advantage.

The front office and our owner are trying to make a championship team here, and won’t be counting pennies. The luxury tax is gonna be our future for the next billion years, might as well make it worth it.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 25, 2008 1:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What we can do with the cap space

Three way trade.

Team #1 gets David Lee and gives up their 2013 first round pick.

New York gives up their 2011 and 2013, David Lee, and Zach Randolph, and gets a 2nd round pick.

Portland gets Zach Randolph and 3 future 1st rounders for a 2nd round pick.

Zach gets bought out. We have no cap space. We can reload with talent in 2011 and 2013. We win championships with the guys we have. In 2011 and 2013, we win the lottery. Congress passes a law extending anti-trust legislation to ban KP from making any trades. The overwhelming evidence will be that for KP to make trades constitutes unfair trading practices.

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

by jscot on Jul 25, 2008 1:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It's like when a dude really good at kung fu

Like, really good, and he beats up a guy with his kung fu and no weapons, but the court decides it was assault with a deadly weapon—HIMSELF.

Congress will get it on the act, and determine KP’s brain and Golden Gut to be an unfair advantage, similar to steroids and under the table payoffs. Of course by then, the ‘damage’ will have already been done, and the Trail Blazers will be set for the next quarter century as the most dominant team in sports. Because everyone is a front runner, they become ‘America’s Team’ and become the embodiment of the American Ideal… hard working, rich, successful, and no chance of ever losing.

KP isn’t the 2nd coming of Jesus… Jesus was the 1st coming of KP.

So it is written, so it shall be.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 25, 2008 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs