(Cap) Space, The Final Frontier
by Dave on Oct 1, 2009 11:56 PM PDT
82 comments
As Ben foreshadowed in his piece below, in response to a training camp conversation we're going to update the Blazers' salary cap status and possibilities today. This is not to infer that a trade is any more or less likely than it was yesterday. But trading remains a possibility as the season starts so we want to cover it. As always in these matters we are indebted to our friend Storyteller and his excellent site.
As of this moment the Blazers have no salary cap space to speak of. Summer hasn't officially ended yet and during the summer months Portland's three Euro-prospects (Klaver, Koponen, and Freeland) create holds on the salary cap. With everybody else in place and Darius Miles a $9,000,000 albatross shadowing the Blazers' ship Portland's well is dry. Any trade made before the start of the season will have to conform to normal standards with no wiggle room.
However when the clock strikes twelve our European Cinderellas will flee the ball, leaving behind glass slippers and a cap space footprint of about $1.9 million. Theoretically the Blazers can preserve that much cap space to facilitate trades going into the season.
The only hitch in the giddy-up is the infamous 15th roster spot. Right now the Blazers haven't committed to anybody filling that space so there's no cap imprint associated with it. As soon as Portland decides to carry that 15th player his salary goes on the cap. The Blazers are looking at several players but the most likely two seem to be Ime Udoka and Jarron Collins. As BlazerFanSince1970 kindly pointed out in the comments below, veteran minimum contracts weigh against the cap at slightly above $800,000. That would put the Blazers down to $1.1 million in cap space. However any trade that potentially brings a team over the cap functions as an over-the-cap trade, invoking the 125%+100K rule we're all familiar with. Therefore if Portland ends up signing a 15th man the cap space will become superfluous in many situations. The 125%+100K will give more than $1.1 million in leeway unless Portland trades just a single player straight up and that player makes less than $4 million per year.
But leaving aside that bit of confusion, the Blazers will basically have between $1.1 million and $1.9 million in cap space to trade with when the season begins. This amount can be added to a player's salary to facilitate a (slightly) lopsided deal.
It would be impossible to detail all of the trade possibilities that would fit under these parameters so we'll contain ourselves to the most likely. Without prejudice against them as players or people, it seems clear that Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, and Jerryd Bayless are the most obvious candidates to move. Blake and Outlaw have expiring contracts. Bayless is talented, jammed up, and probably unhappy. Here are the salaries in question:
- Blake $4.0 million
- Outlaw $3.6 million
- Bayless $2.1 million
From this we can derive a range of possibilities. The minimum--just trading Bayless plus using the minimum cap space available--yields a figure of $3.2 million. (Though obviously figures below $2 million are also a possibility utilizing just the Bayless contract. The Blazers aren't required to use the extra space.) The maximum practical figure--combining Blake and Outlaw with the most potential space available--gives us $9.5 million. As you can see, that's quite a gap. And the $9.5 million isn't far-fetched either. A team taking Blake, Outlaw, and the cap space would see the entire amount come off of its cap at the end of the season.
Several of the players rumored to be available at last year's trade deadline fall within these parameters. Note that we're strictly talking salary here, not equitable talent exchange or desirability for the Blazers. Charlotte's Gerald Wallace makes $9.5 million as does Chicago's Kirk Hinrich. Golden State's Stephen Jackson makes $7.7 million. Only Al Jefferson on Minnesota lies outside this range. We could get Hedo Turkoglu back, as he makes $9 million. Utah's Carlos Boozer lies outside the range unless you throw in significant extra players. Obviously far less famous (and probably more suitable) names are also possibilities. This list just reinforces the impression that not all was lost with the expiring of Raef LaFrentz's Expiring Contract.
So what will the Blazers be doing with this money? Likely nothing at first. The smart move here is to watch for teams that hoped to excel but instead fall flat. At least one or two teams around the league will see their fortunes change in the first months of the season and will begin to think about rebuilding instead of playing expensive, losing hands. That's where Portland can come in with the offer of a little bit of young talent (more than a little if you want to consider some other players on the roster as available) or a lot of salary relief. Those deals don't always go through but the possibility is there.
The Blazers' roster is closer than ever to its settled form but it's not quite there yet. We're not through the trade window and the Blazers have reasonably strong cards left to play. We'll see what happens.
--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)
1 recs |
82 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Doesn't the league pay some of the veteran's minimum?
I think it also is not charged to the cap?
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
by lee3022 on Oct 2, 2009 12:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Never mind - I looked it up
Answer per Larry Coon is yes but you have already factored that into you numbers:
When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, ten-day or rest-of-season contract, the league actually reimburses the team for part of his salary – any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran. For example, in 2005-06 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $719,373, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,138,500, the league would reimburse the team $419,127. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player’s full salary. They do this so teams won’t shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive when filling out their last few roster spots.
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
by lee3022 on Oct 2, 2009 12:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about LMA's extension.
Does LMA’s hopefully new contract come off salery cap?
hg
by BBK on Oct 2, 2009 5:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. He is under contract for the next season at $5.85 million, and if the Blazers would sign him to a new one until October 31 that wouldn't come into effect until next summer.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 5:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes and Yes
We are charged, at most, $825,497 if we sign a player to a 1-year, minimum salary, regardless of what their actual salary really is. The league pays the difference, and that does not count against our cap.
Therefore, Udoka and Jarron Collins both affect our salary cap the same.
Dave’s starting number of $2.7M is also too high because it doesn’t include Howard. The starting number is really $1.882M (without the 15th player and after Shavlik Randolph is renounced or signs with another team). See my calculations a few comments down.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 2:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Post, Dave!
This clears up a ton of stuff and chances are I’m going to end up referring to it midseason when we’re legitimately pulling trades.
"Don't put anything crazy in the papers. I'll find out who you are." -- Andre Miller
by Jeremiah S on Oct 2, 2009 12:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hmm - not a PF in the bunch?
That amount is huge and will fuel the fires of those who insist Portland is still lacking something!
It is a great discussion piece.
I do think that a veteran will be released before season’s end as teams are looking to get more FA money and are out of the playoff picture. Every year guys like Drew Gooden are out there and the small cap space we have is better than the minimum.
Anybody want to speculate on who that might be?
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
by lee3022 on Oct 2, 2009 12:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Under that scenario, I'd be down with Kurt Thomas.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 2, 2009 1:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like I told someone the other day
just adding another big guy without dealing Outlaw is only going to increase the PT pressure, not provide relief to it
A funny moment during KP’s interview the other day. He said that Nate told him “that’s enough” when Miller/Howard were signed. I think McMillian knows he has more talent thatn he has minutes for, so if a new guy comes in, someone should be leaving, and if KP can pull off a 2-for- deal to get an experienced veteran PF/C in return, all the better
(I don’t think Blake’s going anywhere, though. Steve’s “irreplaceable” according to Freeman’s article)
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I agree with you about the likely roster overload.
Eventually, Travis Outlaw must be traded for a banger 4/5.
Stupid people have stupid ideas.
by AK1984 on Oct 2, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cap space at the start of the season (without a 15th man) would be about $1.9M, not $2.7M.
1) Storyteller’s site does not include Juwan Howard’s salary (our 14th man). Therefore, we are currently $779K (Storytellers site) + $825K (Howard) = $1.604M over the cap.
2) Shavlik Randolph has not been renounced in that number. By renouncing Randolph (or if he signs with a team by then) we gain an additional $825K in cap space.
3) The Euro holds for Claver, Koponen, and Freeland) equal $2.661M.
Therefore at the start of the season the cap space is:
2.661M + 0.825M – 1.604M = $1.882M
4) If we add another 15th player at a minimum 1-year salary, we are only charged at most the minimum salary of a two year veteran (the rest is paid by the league and does not count against our cap). That amount is $825,497.
In other words, Udoka and Collins cost us the same amount, and less than their actually salary.
Therefore, if we add a 15th player with a 1-year minimum salary our cap number becomes:
1.882M – 0.825 = $1.057M, i.e. about $1.1M under the cap
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 2:19 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Also remember we can trade for 125% of outgoing salaries plus $100K.
So if we trade two players our salary cap space with a 15th player ($1.1M) no longer matters.
For instance,
Suppose we traded Outlaw ($3.6M) plus Bayless ($2.1M):
We could take back 125% * (3.6+2.1) + 0.1 = $7.2M, which is more than what we could take back with $1.1M in cap space.
That would be enough to cover Jeff Foster’s ($6.1) salary.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does this work?
Doesn’t a team under the cap makes trades like a team under the cap, or am I missing something? 125%+100K applies to over the cap teams.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can always go over the cap and use the 125%+100K trade exception
even if you are under the cap before the trade.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ah...I believe you are correct.
If a trade would end up taking the team over the cap it functions as an over the cap trade. Odd…but true.
I’m not used to straddling the cap like this.
You know what else is going to mess people up? Minimum contracts don’t count as incoming cap ballast for the teams that receive them. A whole bunch of Ime and Juwon throw-in ideas aren’t going to work.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't know that
We can’t throw in Juwon as part of a salary match?
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 2, 2009 3:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are you ready for this?
Veteran minimum players count as outgoing salary for Portland but not incoming for the team that receives them. Go stick that in your calculator.
The NBA really, REALLY doesn’t want anybody but a lawyer-cum-accountant to be able to understand the cap.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This somewhat crazy sounding rule really helps when making BYC trades.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, it actually gives more flexibility
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 2, 2009 5:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The trade machines figure that rule in. ESPN even adds a remark if that rule made a deal go through.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 5:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, we can.
If we send out Juwan or another minimum salary player it counts as outgoing salary so we can take back more, but it doesn’t count as incoming salary to the team that receives Juwan. This becomes a really neat tool to make BYC trades work.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
For instance
Let’s say Indiana got drunk (the entire organization) and decided to trade away Danny Granger to the Blazers for scraps. Granger makes $9.9-ish million. BYC rules cut the incoming salary they can receive back in half, give or take that 125%100K. That means they can only take back $6.3 million max. The Blazers, on the other hand, have to absorb the $9.9 million, again give or take the 125%100K, which works out to about $7.8 million. So Portland needs to clear $7.8 million in space but can only give Indiana $6.3 million of that space.
The traditional route is to find a third team that’s under the cap to take $1.5 million-ish in salary off of your hands for nothing. But with this rule Portland could send $6.2-ish million in salary in the form of Travis Outlaw, Jerryd Bayless, and Dante Cunningham and then add Juwon Howard and Ime Udoka whose salaries total enough to bring them just over $7.8 million.
Since Ime and Juwon don’t count against Indy’s incoming salary restrictions they receive the $6.2 million (just under the max they can take). Portland clears just over $7.8 million (just over the minimum they need). Everybody wins. Except Pacers fans.
However if Portland needs $800,000 more in salary to balance a normal trade they can’t use Juwon or Ime to do it because they count as zero in that kind of deal as well.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 4:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, let's look at another one
Suppose we want to trade Travis and Steve for Player X. Travis and Steve make 7.6 million. 125% is 9.5 million, plus 100K is 9.6 million. But player X makes 10 million.
So we throw in Juwan. Now, we have outgoing salary of 8.4 million, incoming salary of 10 million, so it works from our end.
Player X’s former team sends out 10 million and gets back 7.6 million (Steve and Travis, Juwan doesn’t count). It doesn’t match, but you can always bring back LESS salary than you take back. The rule is to limit
So Juwan (and Ime, if he stays on the roster) are perfect throw-in chips. They always make the deal easier. This doesn’t hinder normal trades at all, and it could make it easier.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 2, 2009 5:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somebody call Paul Allen and have him send a truckload of champaigne to the Pacer's front office.....
I like the idea of Granger for scraps.
by upper left corner on Oct 2, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Probably think the champaign means they won the championship already!
Remember Dallas’ victory parade planning that got leaked after finals game 2?
Anyway Indiana might need grain alcohol nor champaign to get drunk enough.
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
by lee3022 on Oct 2, 2009 8:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what you mean by "match"
It can match out certain deals that otherwise would be inequitable, but they can’t be used, say, as the final player to make otherwise unequal salaries match. They count as zero for the incoming team.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If it didn't work that way then teams would be penalized for being under the cap.
i.e. a team over the cap could take back 125% of outgoing salary, but a team 1-dollar under the cap could only take back the outgoing salary.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be enough to cover Jeff Foster’s ($6.1) salary.
By my calculations, Outlaw’s salary plus the 1.1 mil capspace adds up to 5.9875
So, if KP had the Foster deal ready at the end of October, he could “not sigh” a 15th player, make the deal with Outlaw+space for Foster and go over the cap, then sign a 15th player (Ime, probably)
Or
KP could wait until Dec 15th, then deal Outlaw+Howard+space for Foster. Then sign another player or leave the 15th roster spot “open” until the 10-day contract period (January)
I don’t add Bayless to the “Foster deal” unless it’s absolutely necessary
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can't take 125% of (salary + cap space).
I think I see what you did to get $5.9875M.
Outlaw’s salary is $3.6M. Cap space $1.1M.
It looks like you took 125% * (3.6M + 1.1M) + 0.1M = 5.975M, but you can’t use cap space that way.
You only get 125% * 3.6M + 0.1M = $4.6M, well short of Fosters $6.1M salary.
If Indiana had been willing to trade Foster for Outlaw (and KP was willing) then we could have delayed signing Howard (or someone else) and a 15th man until after the first day of the regular season. Our cap space would have been about $2.7M so we could trade Outlaw for up to 3.6 + 2.7 +0.1 = $6.4M, which works for Foster at $6.1M. So I think this means Foster is not available for Outlaw.
If Foster were to become available for Outlaw later, then after Dec 15 we could trade Outlaw (3.6M) + Howard (0.8M) + the 15th man (0.8M) to Indiana for Foster (6.1M). The math is 125% * [3.6 + 0.8 + 0.8] + 0.1 = $6.6M for Foster ($6.1). We would have to wait until Dec 15 because we can’t trade the FA’s we signed until then. We would also throw in $1.6M in cash so that Indiana could waive Howard and the 15th man and not be stuck for their salaries. If we wanted the FA’s back we would have to wait 30 days to re-sign them after they cleared waivers.
But as I said, I don’t think Foster is available for Outlaw or we could have done that deal on the first day of the season using the cap space by not signing Howard or a 15th man until after that.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for cleaning up my math
My son could use help with his Alegbra, do you have time to tutor him? ;^)
I don’t think Foster is available for Outlaw
Probably not, but Jeff is the “right” kind of fit for Portland. Nick Collison, Turiaf and KThomas are others. Of all the deals that KP could make with his tiny “slice” of RLEC that remains, adding a veteran PF/C would help the team the most, in the playoffs
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Collison and Turiaf may not be available, either
Those teams need that kind of player more than an instant offense guy like Travis. They both have plenty of offensive firepower, and need someone to do the dirty work.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
By jove you are right
I shall repair that. I didn’t notice Howard’s omission.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dave - note the salary cap charge limit ($825K) for the 15th man too.
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 3:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Done and done
The range has been changed to $1.1-$1.8 million. I credited you. Fortunately the basic parameters don’t change. All of the players that were listed as possibilities are still available.
—Dave
by Dave on Oct 2, 2009 3:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who will come to Portland?
You are talking about 13 minutes of playing time for your umpteen million dollars. That is if we are talking about a power forward. No big player will want that. Unless we were, heaven forbid, to trade LMA. Since we have Howard under contract what is the point other then trading for the sake of trading?
hg
by BBK on Oct 2, 2009 5:26 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
We need a PF/C, rather than a PF/SF.
Jeff Foster ($6.1M) would be just about ideal. He played 25 minutes a game with about 7 rebounds last year, but he is 33 years old. He could play backup PF and also backup center in case of injuries. Backup center is where we would really be hurt if we lost Greg or Joel for several weeks. He could play 30+ minutes at both backup PF and backup Center in that case. I don’t think Howard could do that effectively anymore.
I don’t know what it would take to get him from indiana. Outlaw plus?
by BlazerFanSince1970 on Oct 2, 2009 7:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the desire for a ring
even though Foster doesn’t have a no-trade clause (to my knowledge) you’d have to think he’d be satisfied playing a reduced role for a team like Portland, because they’re much closer to contending than Indy. (Jeff could be 2-3 years away from retirement, and unless he doesn’t want to relocate his family You’d have to think he’d be motivated to play for a contender, versus the Pacers who could be more than 3 years away from reaching the EC finals)
The other factor is defensive rebounding and opponent’s FG%. These are being emphasized in camp and you have to ask yourself, which backup PF would be the better choice to upgrade these two areas: Outlaw or Foster? That’s an easy choice, for me
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mixing ingredients.
I tend to agree with the observation that we may need a center/pf to back up LMA, Greg and Pryz, but I can’t see any possible trade elsewhere that would improve the Blazers within the dollars being talked about. We have excellent players, and very good backups, some who can be future starters, at every other spot. In my view, it seems that other issues may arise. I happen to believe that assuming Webster is healthy, that Webster/Batum will lock up all the minutes at the 3, and Blake/Miller will lock up all the minutes at the 1. That relegates both Outlaw and Rudy to the 12-16 minute backup roles at the 2 & 4. As such, Outlaw for a Center/PF is certainly a distinct possibility. Rudy is going to become another issue as well. After the Euro Championships, he stated in an interview that he wanted more minutes because he wanted to continue to grow as a player – and that means more playing time – not less.
Always remember what you see today in the two squads we now have, because it’s very rare for any team to keep players who could be starting elsewhere, as 2nd team players. I think the Blazers will want to keep Pryz, and will make every effort to resign him, but as much as we like to talk about the Blake/Miller and Webster/Batum battles to start, we also have to consider the Rudy/Outlaw desire to start, which neither will do.
It’s going to be a very interesting year. Í happen to believe that the Blazers have the talent now for the 3, it’s just letting it develop – so don’t expect anyone to trade for another 3. We also have the 2 set up, but Rudy want’s more minutes than are available as a backup. I used to think that a three guard rotation w/Rudy as the 3rd would work, but that implies a younger starting PG than Miller or a better one than Blake, but we’ve all seen how tough and expensive it is to pry that kind of a PG away from other teams.
Cap space is only one determinant of who gets traded – and why.
The cake is baking nicely – but we are still mixing the ingredients.
by Eben Calder on Oct 2, 2009 8:21 AM PDT reply actions 2 recs
excellent take
what is the point of trading away that talent, just to trade it away.. as good of a position as we are in, these are still delicate times. a backup pf/c would be perfect. dammit, brandon bass would have been PERFECT. and i don’t think we’ll change anything at sf either. batum is becoming a man before our eyes, that is unless martell can’t stay healthy.
'do it, do it, do it 'til you're satisfied!' - brian wheeler
by blazersunited on Oct 2, 2009 8:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but that implies a younger starting PG than Miller or a better one than Blake, but we’ve all seen how tough and expensive it is to pry that kind of a PG away from other teams.
That’s why I’ve floated trade proposals this summer (including Rudy) for Devin Harris. NJ may never agree totrade him, but KP likes DH (a lot) and he could put together a package that would compensate the Nets with talent and significantly lower their cap numbers next July, just in time for the FA sweepstakes
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I read a rumor
that we could have had Harris before the draft, but KP wouldn’t pull the trigger.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 2, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you sure that wasn't HInrich?
the rumor I heard was from 2007, and the offer was Jack, Frye, Outlaw for Harris, right before Harris was traded from Dallas to NJ
Jayne’s and Vance’s sources said that KP turned it down. But Quick said last May that Harris is on KP’s short list of “special fits” so it’s hard to know who has their story right
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure
I don’t remember where I read it now, but there was a rumor running around that KP could have had Harris before the draft this year and passed on it.
Nobody believed it, because it wasn’t credible.
Which was my whole point in mentioning it. Rumors are fun and meaningless, even if someone reports them.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would Bayless me on the chopping block?
As I understand it, a putative deal with Chicago for Hinrich fell through because we didn’t want to part with Bayless.
Why would be more likely to trade Bayless now for probably a less valuable asset (a guy making $3.2 million)? Why would we try to trade away the only developmental PG on the roster when our other PGs are either old (Miller), close to free agency (Blake) and probably not all that amazing (Miller/Blake).
If we get rid of Bayless we need to replace him with a high-upside guy that can start sharing a serious number of minutes next year and step in as a starter in two years.
""I wanted to be a quarterback, but I got hungry."
-LG Rob Sims
by ninjasocks on Oct 2, 2009 8:50 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Well stated
Travis: "His length is unbelievable. He's long, it feels like he gets his go-go-gadget arm out there and gets the ball." Dante Cunningham
by lee3022 on Oct 2, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outlaw is surplus, Bayless is not
If you trade Outlaw, you do not have to replace him. If you trade Bayless, you need a third point guard with upside somewhere in the organization.
I still think Rubio needs to be that third point guard, with Mills taking the Bayless spot on the bench until Rubio is ready to join the NBA. Bayless and Outlaw for Rubio, Gomes, a throw in (Pecherov/Ellington?) and swap 1st round draft picks.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Rubio alone is considered to be worth a lot more than Bayless and Outlaw.
Understandably so, since we don’t have a firm idea on just how well he will play in the NBA Minnesota is going to support the best case scenario regarding his NBA talent, best case being Steve Nash in his prime
"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."
-Chauncey Billups
by Kelsoballa on Oct 2, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rubio is too high-risk to command too much
sure, his upside is greater than either Bayless or Outlaw (although neither are stiffs), but Rubio is 18, international (e.g., can he adapt?), not available to the Timberwolves for two seasons, and generally a much, much greater risk than either Bayless or Outlaw.
The Blazers are in a much better position to take on the risk that is Rubio than are the ’wolves.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must be joking…..Rubio should be a 3rd PG? He was taken with the 5th pick….but the Twolves will swap 1st round picks (bad for them), lose Rubio for Bayless(bad for them), and trade Gomes/Ellington for Outlaw (bad for them). Why dont we offer Greg Oden for Dwight Howard as long as they trade us Nelson for Blake as well?
by Bellringer21 on Oct 2, 2009 1:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Whither the criticism?
Try critical thinking as a more appropriate reply – rather than ridicule. Kahn overplayed his hand by taking Rubio and failing to convince Rubio to join the team. Now he has to sit on the 5th pick for at least two years with nothing in return, and potentially never getting anything at all out of that pick.
You might argue that others will offer more than Bayless & Outlaw for a package of Gomes/Rubio cap filler – but why would anyone – and if so, who?
Rubio was a wasted pick that is still under 20, might not be that good if he does get to the NBA, and at the very least, has no interest in playing in Minnesota.
It isn’t Rubio for Bayless or Outlaw for Gomes + whatever filler. Even if it were, it would still be a favorable trade for the Wolves. The only reason to even consider it for the Blazers is that Rubio might turn into a decent player sometime in the next 5 years. Taking Hollinger’s analysis for what is worth, this trade nets a +3 in wins for the Wolves and nothing for the Blazers. Granted, it helps the Blazers by getting guys off the bench that are looking at a minutes squeeze, but the Blazers are one of the few teams that can wait for Rubio’s potential.
For all you that think Rubio is the bee’s knees, remember he isn’t even an NBA player, and probably won’t be a regular for several years.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Wolves getting 3 more wins this season doesnt mean a thing. Then for the trade to be helpful, they need to re-sign Outlaw….and that will cut into their 2010 spending. Doesnt make sense to trade all that for Bayless….their pick is likely to be top 10 too, where Blazers will be in the 20’s….
Trade will help the Blazers alot and hurt the Twolves….not hard to see. Bayless’s trade value has decreased, while Rubio’s value is up for debate.
by Bellringer21 on Oct 2, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
funny thing is, I don't advocate this trade for Rubio, per se...
…it is the fact that Rubio could ferment in Spain for another 2 years before taking up a roster spot that makes this trade most attractive – besides the roster manipulation that clarifies roles and perhaps adds a better fit for the backup 4.
The problem the Blazer’s face is that they really don’t need more premier players, and there is very little to be gained by stashing potential on the bench. Consolidating a couple of potential starters for role players content with LMA scraps is hardly favorable to the Blazers unless they can score a long-term project with high upside that might fill a need down the road.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy for Rubio
I don’t think Kahn will bite unless Rudy is in the offer, and the Wolves need a starting SG
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kahn will be lucky to live this draft down.
Two lottery picks that are NBA ready is a far cry from a big maybe.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
David's in no hurry
right now the Minneapolis St. Paul area is ga-ga over Favre, nobody cares about Kahn and the ’Wolves. Kahn can “sit” on Ricky and let the Euro team develop him, then flip him for more than Outlaw/Bayless in a year or two
But offering Rudy would certainly get his attention, if not right now, then perhaps later
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It can be amazing (to me) how much two individuals can differ in value assessment
of professional athletes. You mention using Rudy to get Kahn’s attention, but I see no scenario where Rubio is worth anything close to Rudy.
Rudy is an accomplished player who demonstrated excellent value in his rookie season. He is bigger and more athletic than Rubio and will be playing NBA basketball at a high level for 2 years while Rubio is in Spain hoping to develop his game to an NBA level.
Rubio, right now, has very little value to any team except those that can wait for a return on the investment. Comparing a maybe to a sure thing is definitely where you stop the exercise and find a new comparison.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right, you can't compare the 2 players
Rudy is a SG, Portland already has an all-star at that position
Ricky is a PG who can defend and has superior court vision. He needs to work on his shot and to get stronger, but that will come with time
I’m looking down the road and projecting. Maybe Rudy can get to the point where he can adequately defend NBA PGs and play alongside of Roy for years to come, but Ricky is already a PG and the Blazers will need one in a few years
a Rudy-Ricky deal would appear to help both teams. If you choose to only look at where the two Spaniards rate today, that’s OK. Ultimately, it will be KP and Nate’s decision if Rudy is a good enough fit next to Brandon in the backcourt
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just want to say something about Bayless
I am not worried that he wants out of Portland. This is just his summer ego coming in to play here that is getting people nervous. Once our team starts winning and having fun doing it, I feel like Bayless will settle down. Look at it from his prespective: He gets to be part of a winning and perenial playoff team without all the pressure to perform, albeit playing minimal minutes for this year, all the while knowing that if he improves he could be part of a championship-contending team when he hits his prime in the not so distant future. The only scenario I could see him wanting out this year is if the Blazers go .500 or less through the first half of the season (not likely) and he goes to a winning team that has a definitive role and more than 20 minutes a game for him (also not likely). Like I said, he will realize how good his situation is here in Portland when we start winning and especially if an injury happens in the backcourt.
"Tough times don't last. Tough people do."
-Chauncey Billups
by Kelsoballa on Oct 2, 2009 10:43 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You had to do it, didn't you.
You had to go and talk about Kirk Hinrich and Gerald Wallace. Get the trade machine junkies all hopped up. We haven’t played the first pre-season game and we have people talking about what changes the team needs to make.
Nice Dave. I’m guessing the thought of winter coming has you depressed and hitting the bottle.
On a more serious note, it is always nice being reminded just how sharp Portland’s management group is. As you rightly point out, all the negative nebobs who have second guessed and trash talked Pritchard for not pulling the trigger on a Raef deal really aren’t as smart as they think they are. In addition to having one of the nicest collections of young talent in the league, we still have a considerable amount of roster and deal making flexibility.
hakkaa päälle !
by timg56 on Oct 2, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
My head hurts
whenever I try to delve too deeply into cap issues. I guess I can never be a successful NBA GM.
Oh wait….I can be like Chris Wallace!
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Oct 2, 2009 12:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
say what you will about Wallace
but he has singlehandedly transformed the most boring franchise (arguably) in the NBA into a team with all the sincere attraction of a tabloid. At least that’s better than no interest at all.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Chris Wallace is actually awesome at exploiting the CBA -> To let other teams rent his cap space and save his owners some money and late picks in the process
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is true....
and he has successfully screwed the Blazers out of $9 million in cap space.
But my head still hurts. (damn you tequila, damn you!)
"I'm a man, but I can change.....if I have to......I guess." - Red Green
by antediluvian on Oct 2, 2009 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Rudy, Travis, and Jerryd
are the three most likely to be traded because of PT and chemistry issues.
My guess is they don’t trade Blake.
by Blazin' on Oct 2, 2009 1:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When has trading the more talented younger players because of perceived chemistry issues ever worked?
If the Celtics this season would go ahead and trade Rondo for chemistry reasons, would fans appreciate that? Would the Celtics win more games in the future because of that? And that’s a player who actually starts and has some right to criticize his coaches because what he did so far was successful.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mainly it's playing time.
Don’t you think?
I mention chemistry only because I have the feeling that Rudy is not a good fit with Nate. Rudy would benefit from playing with more tempo. But that is pure speculation.
And I don’t think the Blazers are going to trade Steve Blake. And Martell has a year to show what he can do. And Batum is too much of a coach’s dream with his right mindedness and great athleticism.
That leaves 3 players at logjam positions. At least one of which, I am guessing, will be traded by the deadline.
by Blazin' on Oct 2, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
From all we are hearing out of training camp, Nate is scrambling to find Rudy more playing time
Eventually maybe with Blake as an off-guard in the second unit, maybe with Roy in a 3-guard lineup with Blake or Miller, Rudy, Roy. It should be possible for Nate to up Rudy’s minutes to close to 30 this season. Manu Ginobili played more than 30 mpg only once in his career with the Spurs, knows he is a big part of their success and the coach loves him, and is satisfied with that. I don’t get why we should worry about young players getting discontent down the line, pro-actively trading players who might or might not like their role in 2 years, and so on. If Roy gets injured at some point, Rudy can even start.
Jerryd is the insurance policy against injuries and aging. I really don’t see KP already willing to move him, and while Nate won’t let him see the floor much he is in no urge to bring in a different third point guard now that he has 2 vets to work with and 2 more guards who can facilitate.
Travis is the least of my worries, he has never complained about playing time, just that he would like to see some shots. If they trade him or not is entirely dependent on the progress of Martell and Nic, if there are injuries to the Big Big 3, and what they would get offered for him at some point in time. If nothing attractive comes along and the team is successful yet he wants out, they will just let him walk to a team that can use him more like Channing or Jones.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The concept that a player just walks away for nothing is something most fans really can’t get behind. Most teams don’t love it either, but it happens so often. Wolves fans debated at length what they can get for players who ultimately just get bought out and waived this summer. We dreamed up what we could get for Channing and Sergio etc., and in the end it just isn’t much.
"I think he can still play" - Kevin Pritchard on Juwan Howard
by Norsktroll on Oct 2, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
The only players with any real value are probably these:
Roy
Aldridge
Oden
Batum
Fernandez
Przybilla
Webster (maybe)
Miller (maybe)
Everyone else has very limited or no value overall. Bayless, Blake, Cunningham, Howard, Outlaw, Pendy…they just don’t have much value overall. Oh sure, you could probably find a team that wants at least some of them, but they’re not going to give you much for them.
"HA HA HA HA HA
I'm not laughing, I'm just listing the five ugliest Blazers ever."
- rockingharder
by jamon51 on Oct 2, 2009 2:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone else has very limited or no value overall…Outlaw
Dean Demo was on Talkin’ Ball this summer and said that Portland has gotten calls from “every team” re: Travis
I don’t know what the substance of those offers was, but to say Outlaw has “limited” trade value is incorrect
The risk for a GM is holding onto assets too long, and not getting any return for them. Sell when high
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 3:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On your list
I would say most teams would be glad to get him as the guy that is included to match salaries, because he’s better than at least part of their PG rotation. But they won’t be picking up the phone to call KP about him unless their PG goes down injured and Bayless is showing signs so they think Blake might be available. In other words, he has trade value only in isolated circumstances.
Bayless may still have quite a bit of value because many teams will think he’s available, and most everyone still thinks he can be an effective scorer in the league. And he’s still very young, so teams will see a lot of potential for improvement, which is attractive. A target for a team that is blowing it up, perhaps — he becomes an inexpensive guy that can keep the fans interested.
Travis might be attractive to a team like Houston if they find they are struggling to score.
I would say all three of these guys have trade value, but primarily in isolated instances, not for most teams necessarily.
Steve and Travis have expiring contracts, which does generate some value in some cases. Especially since they can both still play — lots of expiring contracts can’t.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can pretty much guarantee that Mr. Stats Daryl Morey will not be trading for Travis unless it’s in a salary dump.
They use scoring efficiency and adjusted +/- heavily.
"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.
by Cablinasian on Oct 3, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When has trading the more talented younger players because of perceived chemistry issues ever worked?
All you have to do is look at the San Antonio model, that’s where a good chunk of the Blazer’s front office is from, after all.
The Spurs rely on veteran role players. They will integrate rookies, but they don’t depend on them until they’re completely familar with their team concepts. Pop and Buford have built around a core of “star” players by adding intelligent role players. They draft Euros. They value defense and slow pace over small ball and an uptempo style
And they’re the only small market franchise who has won 4 titles in 10 years.
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're not depending on Bayless right now
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 2:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just don't like the idea of trading Rudy
He is one of the best young players in the league. We better get some serious value if we trade him.
by goblazer1 on Oct 2, 2009 2:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
maybe that's why he is often omitted from trade discussions...
because it would mean a reverse lopsided trade to get fair value for him. In other words, even if he is unhappy here we have little incentive to trade him.
This year is going to be very interesting.
by Blazin' on Oct 2, 2009 2:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it would mean a reverse lopsided trade to get fair value for him
That depends. You could “attract” another GM to a trade by starting the offer with Rudy, then add expiring contracts to the deal (Outlaw, Blake) and get a much better “return” than if you simply offered Travis and Steve
Everybody in Blazerland is saying the “right things” re: Rudy’s PT right now, and the chances of a deal involving Rudy this year are remote. But it’s hard to see the logjam at the wing positions being easily resolved, unless there another injury or a herd-thinning deal before the deadline
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Oct 2, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd like the idea of trading Rudy a lot more if the Blazers had an obvious need
Name a backup at any position on any team and tell me that backup is worth more than Rudy….
That problem is the heart of any trade discussion. If we acquire a player, where does he get his minutes?
If we have to scramble to find minutes for a player, let that player be a versatile playmaker with a knack for making big shots and big plays in big games.
by blacknoiseNW on Oct 2, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Hedo?
There is merit in considering a trade of a wing player for a draft pick that is likely to be a high lottery pick in the future.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as having too much talent. But I do believe there is such a thing as having more talent than you need, and we may be in that position at the 1-2-3 spots. If so, trading some of that excess talent for future talent is worth considering.
But at this point, I think that is premature. Something to consider next summer, perhaps.
As author of Da BOM (Blazer Optimist Manifesto), I hereby certify that we will win 62 games in the regular season. Disagree at your peril.
by jscot on Oct 3, 2009 2:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
