Capspace Revisited

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 9:29 PM PST Comment 39 comments

Figured it's about to come up a bunch, so I would do a pre-emptive strike. As always, thanks to our pal Storyteller for the numbers.

2009 Cap Space:

*Lowest we can get: 42.7 million (roughly 17.3 million under the cap)

Variables (will raise our total and lower the space):
Keep Blake for 2009-10: 4 million
Keep Outlaw for 2009-10: 3.6 millon
We keep our 2009 pick: ~ 1.25 millon
Keep Freeland Rights: 824,200
Keep Koponen Rights: 824,200
Frye's Cap Hold: 9.5 millon
Ike's Cap Hold: 8.75 million

2010 Cap Space:
Too many variables overall, so let's start with some basic assumptions:
Extend Roy in summer 2009 at a 2010-11 salary of 15 million
Extend LMA in summer 2009 at a 2010-11 salary of 12 million
We pickup team options fo 10-11 on Oden, Rudy, Batum, and Bayless
No contracts other than listed below are added that run past 09-10

Lowest we can get: 45.6 million (roughly 14.4 million under the cap)

Variables outside our control:
Joel exercises his player option for 10-11: 7.4 million
Variables under our control:
We keep our 2009 pick: ~ 1.25 millon
We keep our 2010 pick: ~ 1.0 million
Keep Freeland Rights: 824,200
Keep Koponen Rights: 824,200
Sergio's Cap Hold: 4.75 million
Blake's Cap Hold (if kept in 2009): 8 million
Outlaw's Cap Hold (if kept in 2009): 7.2 million

Conclusions:

As Dave has stated previously, even with Miles' back on our books for 2009-10, we can still get far enough under the cap to sign a max player or two players worth of 8-9 million dollar contracts each. Were we to want to, we can even extend a lot of our cap room into 2010 and try and be a player for the 2nd tier free agent talent that season (which there is a lot of,) or if Joel doesn't exercise, even get far enough under for a near-max contract. Alternatively (or even additonally) in either year, we can be a salary dump for other teams, taking back a huge contract (presumably a very good player) in exchange for much smaller contracts (read younger players with potential). How valuable might that be as teams try and get in on the 2010 sweepstakes?

Short versioin - don't worry Portland, KP still is in position to do a LOT of different things.

* - include 1.373 million in roster charges
** - includes 2.368 million in roster charges

3 recs | Comment 39 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Looks good, thanks.

How awesome are the contracts for Rudy, Bayless, and Batum? You gotta love long, cheap deals.

Brandon Roy is the Shawn Kemp of monogamy
-BE poster whose name I can't remember

by TheTinfoil on Jan 16, 2009 9:36 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention that KP got bargains on Joel, Travis, and Martell.

Brandon Roy is the Shawn Kemp of monogamy
-BE poster whose name I can't remember

by TheTinfoil on Jan 16, 2009 9:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and steve

The most hated Blazer is like the least hottest supermodel - Sabonis4Ever

by Philthyanimal on Jan 16, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Rudy, Rex, and Nic deals are what they are because the CBA screws over rookies... Same with Sergio's...

"Now with a non-provocative footer!"

by timbo on Jan 17, 2009 9:03 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

or makes young players actually earn their money… depending on your perspective

by danielfarrell on Jan 17, 2009 9:36 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Rookie deals are fair for most rookies

but unfair for rookie superstars-to-be.

by MiledAnimal on Jan 17, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

true

The most hated Blazer is like the least hottest supermodel - Sabonis4Ever

by Philthyanimal on Jan 17, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

at the same time

i don’t like the nfl’s method. granted i’m not an expert at nfl salaries, i just hate how there is always holdouts from rookies or when a rookie can make more than the top player in his position before he even puts on his pads.

The most hated Blazer is like the least hottest supermodel - Sabonis4Ever

by Philthyanimal on Jan 17, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The general consensus

probably has us picking up Trout and Steve’s options and signing Freeland, leaving us at around 12 million under the cap.

At that point, I’m of the opinion that we should not sign ANYONE else. Save that space for the 2010 trade deadline. At that point tons of teams will be dying to off unwanted salary, and we’ll be in a position to get the best of the lot.

by as11osu on Jan 16, 2009 9:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

im inclined to agree

the 2009 class has virtually nothing i think can help us. If we go with the “extend into 2010” option, our 09-10 roster looks like this:

C: Joel, Greg
PF: LMA, Outlaw,
SF: Batum, Martel
SG: Roy, Rudy
PG: Blake, Bayless, Sergio

That’s 11. add freeland for 12, maybe swap sergio out for another guy who’s deal ends at the end of the year. fill in with 1-year players (shavlick’s and/or 2nd rounders)

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 9:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

and then at that point, we can either:

make a move for a guy at the 2010 deadline
OR
hold pat, and go into summer 2010 either 7.5 or 15 under, depending on Joel P.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 9:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

one thing

given KP’s style.. it seems pretty likely that the Blazers will draft at least one 1st rounder in each of the next years. I think that’s the one thing the Blazers are likely to hold on to.

by idoltime on Jan 16, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe. That's been his style so far

because he was building a team from scratch. Now I’m thinking he may value the Blazers late-first-round pick more as a bargaining chip in a deal to bring-in a veteran player than to keep fresh prospects in the pipeline.

by MiledAnimal on Jan 17, 2009 10:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree his ability to judge potential is vaulable.

Because of that ability, I think the Blazers best chance at maintaining their window is to draft smart and train up young players as we go, rather than crashing and burning when our core gets too old. The other valuable aspect, is as we develop draft picks, we’ll gain some valuable trade bait if we decide we need to upgrade later on.

by Gelvalst on Jan 17, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

theres gotta be a point

where we say we can’t be developing talent anymore. kps draft record has been phenomenal up to this point however.

The most hated Blazer is like the least hottest supermodel - Sabonis4Ever

by Philthyanimal on Jan 17, 2009 2:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

KP talks about sustainability of talent all of the time

and is a GM but he really loves scouting talent. I agree that also look to add some extra veteran help, but I would bet that KP will add more than one draftee to the team in the next two drafts.

by idoltime on Jan 17, 2009 8:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I definitely think Portland goes staching

Euros again this year.

by parkinglotj on Jan 17, 2009 8:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I dont know

If we go the route of keeping the minimum players in order to keep cap space for 2010, I see the following drawbacks:

1 We give up Frye, LaFrentz, Sergio etc for nothing in return—just cap space.
2 As seen so often right before the trade deadline, expiring contracts increase in value, and also considering that LaFrentz’s contract is not just a big expiring contract but also PAID 80% by insurance, his expiring contract is worth MUCH more than the equivalent amoutn of cap space if we just let it run out
3 Free agent signings can get absolutely, ridiculously out of hand—like Rashard Lewis for 6 years 120 mil…. I think we can be pretty sure of having to really overpay any player we sign in free agency… which would also tend to de-value having cap space vs making a trade

So, I don’t know, I think we will be ok either way, I just tend to think that we can get the best VALUE—by far—by going the route of making a trade. Even if we wanted to extend our ability to make a move until 2010, we could trade for a big expiring contract that ends that year, which we could then trade… rather than just letting a bunch of guys walk for nothing in return, and then hoping we can get someone we want, knowing we will probably have to grossly overpay them.

About 2010 though—don’t forget, that is the Lebron year, and a LOT of teams are going to be trying to posture themselves for him or any one of the big names available that year—but they can’t all get Bosh or Bron, so once those guys sign, those teams are going to be looking to do something with that cap space. So while the FA class of 2010 may be much better, the competition will probablly be much bigger as well.

So, I tend to lean towards a trade, preferably for someone who has a contract which is not ridiculous (ie not 15 or 20 mil) which doesnt last more than a few more years, and who can help us NOW as well as over the next few years. We have a lot of time, and if we trade for someone now, he doesnt have to be someone who has to work perfectly for the next decade—he could turn into a valuable player with an expiring contract (=freedom to make anothe rmove in the future) in a few years.

by TimG on Jan 16, 2009 11:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

another option

if we do want to go the “delay everything another year” option, we could put Frye and/or Ike on the QO and essentially have the exact same roster next year as we do this one. Their contracts would be expiring contracts in the summer or 2010, so there would be potential trade value there coming up on February 28. So the question becomes, if you plan to head into jan/Feb 2010 looking to make a deal, is it better to have 9 milllion worth of expiring contracts (frye/ike), and young cheap players, or young cheap players and the ability to take salary back for nothing in return?

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 11:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Use em or lose em

My point is simply we can’t shelve Fry and Diogu for this year and next. That would create a lot of bad blood. Anyway, they both have considerable value for the right teams and could be nice parts of a sign and trade deal.

by oregonslee on Jan 17, 2009 10:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree about trading vs. free agency

but that trade doesn’t have to be made now. Trading RLEC plus talent now is no different than trading the same talent this summer, and just being able to absorb the extra contract by viruture of the 9 million in capspace we will have by not QOing Frye and Ike.

Like I said, we have a bunch of options, outside of the “normal” trades involving equal salaries:
1) RLEC trade before deadline 2009
2) 2009 free agency
3) 2009 summer trade, using open capspace to absorb salary
4) 2010 deadline trade, using expiring contracts (frye/ike)
5) 2010 deadline trade, using open capspace to absorb salary
6) 2010 free agency
7) 2010 summer trade, using open capspace to absorb salary

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 11:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with your options

And I really am not dogmatic on what should or shouldn’t be done either way—but I disagree with what you said here:

“Trading RLEC plus talent now is no different than trading the same talent this summer, and just being able to absorb the extra contract by viruture of the 9 million in capspace we will have by not QOing Frye and Ike.”

Since LaFrentz’s contract is paid 80% by insurance, there definitely is a difference, of 80% of Raef’s contract for the rest of the year—maybe around 4 million dollars or so, for the team receiving his contract in a trade—no difference for us as far as the cap goes, but a potentially big difference in the value of his contract as a trading chip.

That’s my main point, is that I think we can get the most value, out of any of these potential situations, by trading before the trade deadline.

But I won’t be sad if we don’t… though I would be a bit surprised.

by TimG on Jan 19, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're being too generous with your calculations. Anyhow, here's my assessment on the situation.

Travis Outlaw and Steve Blake’s salaries for the 2009-2010 season become fully guaranteed if they’re not waived on or prior to 6/30/2009, which is before the free-agent signing period for this summer. Also, Joel Freeland and Petteri Koponen will carry cap holds of $824,200 apiece during the off-season. Therefore, with the expectation that neither Channing Frye nor Ike Diogu will be tendered qualifying offers — which would be worth $4,264,761 and $3,946,875, respectively, as well as cost thrice that much regarding its cap hold — and Darius Miles’ $9,000,000 salary will be on the Portland Trail Blazers’ books, here’s the organization’s current projection pertaining to players’ salaries for 7/1/2009.

Darius Miles: $9,000,000
Joel Przybilla: $6,857,725
LaMarcus Aldridge: $5,844,827
Greg Oden: $5,361,240
Martell Webster: $4,319,654
Steve Blake: $4,000,000
Brandon Roy: $3,910,816
Travis Outlaw $3,600,000
Jerryd Bayless: $2,143,080
Sergio Rodriguez: $1,576,696
18th Pick In ’09 NBA Draft*: $1,198,900
Rudy Fernandez: $1,165,320
Nicolas Batum: $1,118,760
Joel Freeland: $824,200
Petteri Koponen: $824,200

Total: $51,745,418

*http://www.nbpa.org/cba_exhibits/exhibitB.php

In all likelihood, the Trail Blazers will be much bigger players on this season’s trade market rather than this summer’s free-agent market.

http://www.blazersedge.com/2009/1/6/710239/darius-miles-revisited#11187731

Well, that’s that.

by AK1984 on Jan 16, 2009 11:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

maybe you misunderstood my layout

I said we could get as low as 42.7 this year, which is true. take your 51.7, and take out Blake, Outlaw, Freeland, and Koponen. We CAN get that low. that’s the baseline. Then add back in to that whatever you want from the “variables” section, which is essentially what you did in arriving at your 51.7 number. We’re both right.

I never said getting down to 42.7 was the most likely scenario, just that it was the lowest we could possibly go. Your 51.7 number is almost certainly the most likely figure we go into the offseason with. That number still gives us the ability to sign an 8 million a year FA (unlikely, since the pool does not appear to contain anything we would want at that price), or more likely, make a very lopsided trade either in the 2009 offseason, or during the 2009-10 season.

Rule #1 of nitpicking is to get it right.

by douglast on Jan 16, 2009 11:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the most likely scenario

Maybe we trade players before, but we would have to take similar salaries back (and I doubt we trade important guys for expiring contracts just to have a little more space). The draft pick could be a little lower (let’s say 22) and make a little less, but $1 million is a good estimate. Freeland could be brought over pretty much at the cost of his cap hold, but that is likely after summer league/training camp and thus long after a free agent would have been acquired.

Assuming the salary cap is $60 million which is likely but not guaranteed (could stay stable, and in the following season even drop killing a few 2010 plans), we would have $8 million to operate with. That doesn’t even land you Hedo Turkoglu. Only gets you Channing Frye re-signed ;-)

by Norsktroll on Jan 17, 2009 4:01 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No but it could get you a Josh Childress

Which wouldn’t be too bad.

by TSE on Jan 17, 2009 4:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Good idea, but I don't think he is the target

I really liked him last year for Atlanta, high energy on both ends of the floor. But Atlanta liked him too (they were probably the most surprised that he signed in Greece). He remains a restricted free agent if they make him the qualifying offer which is likely they do, and you would probably have to spend considerably more than $5 million/the MLE to get him so that they don’t match. Even if the Blazers think they can get him to Portland for the money they are willing to spend, he has not much of an outside shot, which is an important quality for a small forward in the current system. Not sure Nate would like Chill over the guys we currently have.

by Norsktroll on Jan 17, 2009 4:28 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know whether Atlanta would match

if we offered $8 million, but I question whether he is enough of an upgrade for us to justify using the cap space that way.

I really like our future at SF. Even if Martell and Travis never progress, Nic will be an adequate starter for us in two years (max), and one or both of those guys will be an adequate backup. I’m not sure I see a need to spend at the SF spot unless we are offered someone so good that we can’t turn him down.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 17, 2009 6:17 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

We'll spend it on LeBron.

I just know he wants to play for the Blazers. We have the best chalk.

by MiledAnimal on Jan 17, 2009 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You know it will be Kobe. Admit it. You do.

by Norsktroll on Jan 17, 2009 11:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

where do we spend the money?

i’m not really sure at this point anymore.

The most hated Blazer is like the least hottest supermodel - Sabonis4Ever

by Philthyanimal on Jan 17, 2009 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the thing

Childress and Atlanta had kind of a nasty separation and Childress holds all of the leverage. If Atlanta tried to match any contract offers all Josh has to do is say adieu and head right back to Greece for another year. I imagine Atlanta has conceded that he’s never going to play for them again, but would likely want some compensation for relinquishing their rights, in which case you have to wonder if a sign and trade couldn’t be worked out.

by nikolokolus on Jan 17, 2009 9:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sort of

Josh has to walk from his Greek contract to sign for an NBA team. If he signs with another team, then if Atlanta matches, he’s in Atlanta.

He’ll want to know if Atlanta is going to match before he walks out on his Greek team and signs with someone else, which increases the likelihood of sign and trade.

Also, given the economy, European teams may not be so quick to splash out money, so Josh’s current contract may look very, very attractive right now.

I know you can put admiration in bags, because admiration is real, and tominhawaii says that everything that is real is measurable.

by jscot on Jan 17, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you guys are missing the boat.

That cap space is going to be used for a lopsided salary trade, not a FA outright signing.

Having that space means that team “A” is able to acquire a player—with 8 million wiggle room— for another young player from team “B”.

This assumes that we keep RLEC and let it expire. Then make a move this summer.

This is NOT a preposed trade. Just an example.

Say, the clippers want cap space. PG Davis for Surgio, Webster and a considerable amount of savings to the owner.

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=19430252795&teams=221212&te=&cash=

The 5 million difference is just eaten up with the extra room.

If I’m wrong on how this works, let me know, but I think this is right. The possible trades with this cap room are endless and do not restrict Portland to just signing a UFA. Most any player in the league could be a target.

by parkinglotj on Jan 17, 2009 10:31 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

You are right

I was thinking about this too, though it’s just another possibility and KP might have wanted to be able and do both which is now harder thanks to the Miles situation. What makes those kinds of deals attractive is that the team giving up the player with more salary often is getting a “traded player exception” that they can use for a year. E.g. Denver has one for the Camby/Iverson trades, and Golden State had one for the Richardson trade (and let it go to waste).

by Norsktroll on Jan 17, 2009 10:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs