Blazersedge: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: SB Nation interviews Jerome Bettis

The Portland Trail Blazers' Cap Situation Heading into Summer, 2009

Yesterday Ben wrote a great piece on lopsided/asymmetrical trades, made possible by one team (in this case the Blazers) being under the salary cap and thus being able to absorb more salary than they send out.  This practically begs us to check up on Portland's salary cap situation this summer.  How lopsided can those trades be?  A few things have evolved since the last time we talked about this subject, including most of a season's worth of player evaluation.  This gives us at least a foothold for analysis of Portland's probable outlook, which we'll discuss at the end of the piece.

A quick look at Storyteller's recently-updated salary site shows us that Portland has the following players under guaranteed contract this summer:

 

Darius Miles

$9.00 million

Joel Przybilla

$6.86 million

LaMarcus Aldridge

$5.84 million

Greg Oden

$5.36 million

Martell Webster

$4.32 million

Brandon Roy

$3.91 million

Jerryd Bayless

$2.14 million

Sergio Rodriguez

$1.58 million

Rudy Fernandez

$1.17 million

Nicolas Batum

$1.12 million

#24 Pick

$0.93 million

Petteri Koponen

$0.82 million

Joel Freeland

$0.82 million

 

TOTAL:  approx. $43.9 million

ESTIMATED SALARY CAP:  $57.3 million

ESTIMATED DIFFERENCE:  $13.4 million

This would be the greatest conceivable amount of cap space the Blazers could wield this summer, barring a trade.  And that's a bunch.  Want to trade Sergio Rodriguez for Chris Paul?  You can do that.  Want to offer Ramon Sessions the max allowable?  You can do that and have plenty left over.  Want to package Rudy Fernandez, Sergio Rodriguez, and Martell Webster to Chicago for Kirk Hinrich AND Luol Deng?  You can do that.  It's Fast Kevin's world of deals out there for the asking.

But don't overheat your exhaust pipes there, Roger Ramjet.

This is the NBA and salary cap talk in the NBA means wrinkles.  And the Blazers have enough to keep Oil of Olay in business for a couple weeks at least.  They include...

THE TWO OPTION PLAYERS

The Blazers have options on two players:

Steve Blake                  $4.00 million

Travis Outlaw               $3.60 million

Each is in the last year of their contract.  The Blazers must make a decision whether to exercise those options by the end of June.  If Portland does exercise these options then those salary figures count directly against the cap.  If Portland does not exercise these options then the cap space remains free.  Up to $7.6 of the potential $13.4 million in cap space could be spent retaining these two players.

THE POTENTIAL FREE AGENT

The Blazers actually have four potential free agents this summer but I'm not going to spend much time agonizing Raef LaFrentz, Michael Ruffin, or Shavlik Randolph.  There's a small chance the Blazers could re-sign one of them to make a deal work somewhere but let's worry about that when it happens.  More likely they'll simply be renounced.

The important thing to know is that until they're renounced free agents count against the cap of the team they last played for, just in case that team wants to re-sign them using its incumbent cap prerogatives.  And Portland has a semi-intriguing restricted free agent in Channing Frye.  One of four things is going to happen with him.

1.  They're going to renounce him just like the other three free agents, meaning that he'll not count against the cap at all.

2.  They're going to offer a one-year qualifying offer to him which he'll immediately accept, meaning he'll add $4.26 million to Portland's cap burden.

3.  They're going to offer a qualifying offer to him which he won't accept right away, preferring to test the restricted free agent waters.  In that case he'll count $9.49 million against the cap until he signs a contract somewhere, either for the original offer or some other offer that another team makes and Portland has the right to match.  After a new contract is signed the actual amount of the contract will count against Portland's cap if Portland re-signs him.

4.  They're going to agree to a different, multi-year contract and he'll count against the cap for its amount.

Depending on what the Blazers and Channing decide, he could have anywhere from zero impact to $9.5 million of impact on the cap.

POTENTIAL DRAFT-DAY TRADES

Many have speculated that the Blazers will move up in the draft by trading the 24th pick, using the Michael Ruffin trade exception to acquire a pick that somebody wants to dump, or simply buying another pick outright.  Each move has associated cap costs.

The #5 pick of the Washington Wizards has been bandied about as the highest pick the Blazers could acquire.  That pick would add $2.72 million to Portland's salary cap this summer.  This graduates downward by pick.  Chicago's #16 selection would cost the Blazers $1.33 million in cap space.

Obviously the cap would be modified downward by any assets from the list above that the Blazers traded away in return, but if they buy a pick or use the trade exception those figures will simply be added to the current total.

THE TOTALS

So...barring pre-draft trades here's your options menu of salary cap totals.

--Retain only the players under guaranteed contract or hold:  $43.9 million, $13.4 million in cap space.

--Retain only guaranteed players plus Steve Blake:  $47.9 million, $9.4 million in space

--Retain only guaranteed players plus Travis Outlaw:  $47.5 million, $9.8 million in space

--Retain guaranteed players plus both Blake and Outlaw:  $51.5 million, $5.8 million in space.

--Retain Channing Frye with a deal signed:  Add $4.3 million to cap and take away that much space.

--Retain Channing Frye without a deal signed:  Add $9.5 million to cap and take away that much space.

As you can see, that runs the gamut between the max amount and zero, depending on the Blazers' decisions.

ANALYSIS

The Blazers obviously have some interesting choices before them in the next few weeks.  Let's look at the immediate ones first.

Do you exercise your options on Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw?

Looking from the current roster standpoint you have to exercise the option on Steve Blake.  He's your starting point guard.  He costs a paltry $4 million.  You don't have any replacement ready in the wings.  It's a serious no-brainer.

On the other hand he's a big chunk of cap space, almost a third of your projected wiggle-room for the summer.  If you knew you were going to make an unbeatable offer to another free agent point guard and/or you had a rock-solid trade ready with that cap space, you could take the risk of releasing him.  The problem with either of those scenarios is that the release must pre-date the signing or trade.  If things fall through in the intervening time you're up the creek.

Because of this I'd say there's a 90% chance we'll see Blake's option picked up.  If we don't you know something major is up.

Travis Outlaw doesn't leave the same sized roster hole as Blake does but he's younger, has more potential, and is worth more in trade.  The question here is, "In a worst-case scenario (i.e. you don't care about his talent and are just extending him to trade him) do you think Travis is worth more than $3.6 million in trade value?"  In almost every conceivable case the answer is going to be yes.  Therefore there's virtually no chance you'll see the Blazers release Travis outright to save $3.6 million in flexibility.  Because of this for all intents and purposes you can consider Portland's open cap space no greater than $9.8 million.

What Do You Do With Channing Frye?

The Channing case has far more permutations than those of Blake or Outlaw.  For one thing the options to deal with him are more complex than exercising a one-year extension or not.  Channing and his agent have some say in how the proceedings go.  You can't force him to sign a contract early, which would be the key to the Blazers retaining him painlessly.  Both parties have to agree in order for anything to happen.  We can see at least part of Portland's agenda.  Channing's may or may not fit.

From Portland's end re-signing Channing may not be a top priority.  He doesn't have the indispensible roster role of Steve Blake.  He doesn't have the guaranteed trade value outweighing his salary that Travis has.  Plenty of teams would be interested in Channing.  Some might not think he was worth $4.3 million.  Others might think he was worth that but would balk at him only being on a one-year deal, renegotiating (presumably for more money) next year.  Those to whom an expiring contract would be attractive would probably want more than just $4.3 million coming off the cap.  On a one-year deal Channing is kind of in a no-man's land when it comes to trading:  not quite productive enough, not quite cheap enough, not quite guaranteed enough, not quite enough cap relief.  He could still be dealt for any of these reasons to the right team, but it's not a lock anywhere.

Certain problems resolve but others increase if you sign him to a multi-year deal.  Other teams could get him at a good rate but they'd have to want him for sure.  That limits your trading options to a few partners, though it may increase the interest of those teams.

From Channing's perspective signing a contract quickly with the Blazers may not be a top priority.  I'm sure he enjoys the atmosphere here but he's in rotation hell.  He's unsure of his future role.  He may not have any.  If he accepts a one-year qualifying offer then he has a single season to prove his worth before becoming an unrestricted free agent.  If he can't get playing time this year his track record going into next year's free agency will be poor and the offers likely low.  He may prefer to at least look at offers other teams could make to him as a restricted free agent, which Portland would have the right to match.  That would keep him from signing an offer from the Blazers early.

In neither case does it seem likely that the two sides negotiate a deal early on.  That means Portland is likely to go into the summer with Channing's situation unresolved.

As long as Channing is not signed he counts against the cap for $9.5 million, either substantially reducing or completely eliminating Portland's cap space for the summer, depending on who else they retain.  One solution is for the Blazers to release him outright, not issuing any qualifying offer and not retaining any rights to him.  In that case he has no hold on Portland's cap anymore.  Another solution is for Portland to extend the qualifying offer to hedge bets (they could retain him later on if there were no better options) knowing they could rescind the offer at any time before late-July without prejudice and at any time after that with Channing's agreement.  Either one of these seems a likely solution.  We may hear before the end of the month that the Blazers and Channing are parting ways.  We may hear that Portland has extended an offer.  This doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to keep him.

If neither of these happen--if we see a deal done soon--I'd bet it means that a trade is in the works directly involving Channing.  The Blazers either know or are betting that some other team wants him and values him at least $4.2 million worth.  In any case, that $4.2 million would be targeted at that team and sacrificed in cap flexibility.

What Do You Do About the Draft?

This depends on what kind of deals you think you can make and how valuable cap space/flexibility is to you when making those deals.  If the Blazers are in a position where they need every million they can get in cap room then they need to trade out of this draft or at least avoid moving higher.  You'd get about a million by getting out of the draft.  You'd get up to $1.6 million more by renouncing your rights to your overseas prospects (Koponen and Freeland).   You only do these things if you know that last $2.5 million in space is critical, but they can be done.

If the Blazers have some wiggle room then they can move up quite a few spaces without blowing too much extra dough.  If, for instance, your goal was to offer Ramon Sessions $8 million per year you can actually get pretty far up in the draft while still retaining Outlaw and Blake and still make that happen, as long as they trade the #24 pick to do so.

Acquiring higher picks without trading away #24, which is the scenario you'd have to use if you posit other teams dumping picks to avoid salary, gets more problematic.  Assuming you retain Blake and Outlaw then every million dollars extra salary you take on is one-sixth of your remaining space.  You want to get into the middle lottery?  You're talking a third of your flexibility gone.  That's not impossible, but it's a big chunk.

Do You Retain Your Exceptions?

Most people are familiar with the mid-level and bi-annual salary cap exceptions, allowing teams over the cap to sign extra players.  What you might not know is that both exceptions count as holds against the cap if you are under the cap limit.  The Blazers will probably be under the cap but these cap holds (over $10 million) would take away much, if not all, of the team's flexibility.  The exception they got in the Michael Ruffin trade also counts as $3 million against the cap.  All of these exceptions can be renounced, however. 

If the Blazers are going to retain enough of their current players and/or acquire enough draft picks to push them near the cap limit they may want to retain some or all of these exceptions.  If not they'll have to renounce them in order to use their full available cap space.

The one loophole would be the Ruffin trade exception.  As explained in the draft section it's the one exception that can be used before the new year kicks in come July.  But anything you get with that exception cuts your cap space by a corresponding amount.

What WILL the Blazers Do?

It's hard to pin down concrete answers without seeing their priority sheet, but if I had to guess I'd say the following would happen:

1.  The Blazers will exercise options on Blake and Outlaw, trimming their available cap space to $5.8 million.

2.  The Blazers will make a hedge-bet, one-year qualifying offer to Channing Frye understanding that he's not likely to sign it and that they're going to rescind it and renounce him if a better offer comes along.  They'll not have a dime of cap space until he signs or they do rescind it but the offer gives them a chance to explore options until July.  They can't really use the cap space before then anyway.  If they find a trading partner who wants Channing in the deal (say someone who's interested in him but wouldn't have the money to sign him on the open market) they still have that option available.  Likely they'll end up releasing him anyway.

3.  Unless their franchise player is available on the cheap the Blazers will not move up in the draft nor end up acquiring extra picks.  They'll take the 24th selection if they see any prospects they like, otherwise they'll try to move it for a second-rounder without the guaranteed contract. 

4.  The Blazers will renounce their exceptions for the year but, much as with Channing, not until after they've seen the lay of the land.

5.  The Blazers will work like mad to combine Outlaw, Blake, Bayless, Fernandez, Rodriguez, and/or Webster in some kind of package that gets them within $5 million of a salary of an available player they really covet. (Or a couple million plus throwing Frye in to sweeten the deal.)

Plan B would be renouncing Blake and Frye and making a free-agent offer to a guy like Ramon Sessions.

Either way, we should know more in a couple weeks when we hear who the Blazers will retain and whether they'll make an offer to Channing Frye.

A side note:  You can see clearly why Blazer management went into a near-apoplectic fit when Darius Miles went back on the salary cap.  Imagine these numbers with $9 million added to the ledger in the Blazers' favor.  Now all of a sudden you can retain everybody (maybe not Channing), acquire an extra draft pick, and still throw around $10+ million in the free agent market or in asymmetrical trades.  That's some serious lost leverage for Pritchard and company.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

4 recs  |  Comment 229 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

You should know better than to throw Rudy into trade talks two different times

He’s no more for sale than Batum is. You also didn’t include Przybilla in there. If you’re not going to throw either of those guys names into the picture, stop throwing in Rudy’s.

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 1:32 AM PDT reply actions   1 recs

Neither Joel nor Nic play the same position as Brandon.

It makes more sense to trade Rudy than the other two.

by wepto on Jun 4, 2009 2:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

Joel plays the same position as Greg and is 30 years old

Nic is not nearly as good as Rudy. Rudy is one of three players on this team that is primetime ready. He’s of the perfect age and has a perfect contract. Despite the fact he plays shooting guard, as has been rehashed over and over, he plays really really well when paired when Brandon at the wing positions (Brandon is just as good at the 3). None of this is really my point. If Batum and Przybilla are considered keepers, Rudy is as well. I’m very confident that KP sees it this way as well. Unless a franchise point guard becomes available, these three players won’t be dealt. Our core of six are Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Rudy, Batum, and Przybilla. It’s not like we don’t have enough pieces to make things happen without these six either.

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 3:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’d be really interested in what the team thinks about keepers. I got the impression around the trade deadline that Bayless may be on the keeper list as well.

by danielfarrell on Jun 4, 2009 5:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Greg also fouls out at an extrodinary rate, Roy plays heavy minutes on the other hand.

 But that is besides the point, Rudy and Batum are a keeper for the next 10+ years. Joel for 3-4 if his body holds up.
 All three should stay.

The ink of a scholar is worth a thousand times more than the blood of a martyr.

by The Pirate on Jun 4, 2009 5:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Batum is a potential championship-run starter. Rudy will never start here because Roy is too good. Przybilla won’t be traded because quality bench centers are even more rare than quality starting centers.

What does a Blazer do? He blazes! Where? Up the trail. Why? Portland dunks the ball! Believe RubiOden will happen.

by by on Jun 4, 2009 6:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

Rudy

I dont think it matters if he starts. I think as long as we get him the minutes he needs (ala Manu & the Spurs) we should be fine.

If you start or not doesn’t matter. Its all about roles, minutes, and impact on the team IMO.

* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...

by OdenFanBoy on Jun 4, 2009 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

He can also end the games instead of Batum

Late in 4th, the star (Roy) needs to be guarding the other team’s star because this is how things are done! That means Rudy can be in instead of Batum.

Granted, there are still minute issues with Roy/Rudy/Batum/Webster, even if Outlaw is gone.

by Zaig on Jun 4, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

You Sir,

Have very agreeable points. Its all about matchups and who finishes the game.

* Building a Greg Oden Fanboy Treehouse Clubhouse this summer...

by OdenFanBoy on Jun 4, 2009 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

totally agreed

And any GM looking to trade Rudy for Hinrich would get “Isaiah” tattooed on his forehead.

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

IIRC

I thought if the Blazers want to sign Sessions they can only offer the MLE? (Arenas Provision)

by EagGolfer3 on Jun 4, 2009 1:42 AM PDT reply actions  

My thought as well

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 1:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

I've fixed the wording to avoid the possible misunderstandings

and because I think this issue should be in a separate Ramon Sessions piece (which may be coming soon) but technically the Blazers can offer much more than that over the life of the contract.

By rule the first year of the offer has to be in line with the average salary amount. That could be matched easily by the Bucks, which is the purpose of the rule limiting the first year offer. The second year can only raise 8%. No problems yet. But if the Blazers have sufficient cap space (which they would in the example in which Sessions was used) they could actually offer a substantial raise for further years of the contract. Milwaukee would technically be able to match the first year offer and retain him if they wish. But they might balk at eventually having to pay him for the third year of the contract and beyond, which they’d also commit to by matching the offer.

In other words if Portland offered a contract of 5 million, 5.4 million, 10 million, 11 million, 12 million (just pulling numbers out of a hat there) the Bucks probably wouldn’t want to commit to that contract even though by rule they could have it for the cost of 5 million today.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 2:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ah - thanks for the clarification

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 2:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

No problem

I had it kind of wrong-ish at first, in that I though Sessions had just finished his third year in the league and not his second. So it’s not like I had the situation down cold. Your question clarified that for me.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I was just going to make a comment about this very thing

I explained the Arenas clause as it relates to Sessions in another post at the beginning of the week and was going to do so again – but you beat me to it.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 8:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Arenas Provision, for anyone who is interested boils down to this:

—First year of the offer must be average salary (and thus matchable by the incumbent team).
—Second year of the offer can be an 8% raise max.
—The third year and beyond can contain substantial raises, but they must average out so that for the life of the contract the total offered cannot exceed the cap capacity of the team at the time the offer is made.

The example Larry Coon uses (somewhat simplified) is that if a team had $11 million in cap space to work the deal and wanted to offer a five-year contract the total value of that contract could not exceed $55 million over the life of the deal. Obviously with the first and second years being limited to $5 million or so there’s a lot of give in those last three years before the contract totals $55 million, which is where the balloon raises come in.

If the Blazers wanted to make Sessions just that kind of offer using, say, $10 million of their cap space it could look like $5 million, $5.5 million, and then the remaining $39.5 million spread out over the last three years of the deal, totalling $50 million over 5 years.

You can see Coon’s section on the Arenas Provision here:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q37

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 2:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

What about all the talk in Milwaukee about him wanting too much money?

Is too much money for them between 5 and 6 million dollars per year?

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 1:53 AM PDT up reply actions  

It'll depend if they can shed salary......

I think there trying to dump either Redd or RJ to make room for him and / or Charlie V.

by EagGolfer3 on Jun 4, 2009 1:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

It is clear as mud but it covers the ground

(Old Harry Belafonte song)

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 1:51 AM PDT reply actions  

I don't like the idea of offering Channing Frye the qualifying offer

I don’t think that contract piece is good enough around the league to have its necessary trade value. That’s 4.3 million dollars that we can’t take on in the future, and what’s Frye’s role on this team anyway if we’re not able to trade him. I think it’s a lot easier to not offer him that money and plan around him moving elsewhere. He simply wouldn’t be worth the hassle. The 2 or 3 teams that might want him at that price, probably wouldn’t be our trade partners anyway, and if they were, getting an uneven trade would probably have the same value to them as well.

I’d be much more comfortable knowing at the end of the draft if we’re not able to involve ourselves in an uneven trade, or moving up or down in the draft much, that we’ll be able to sign a slightly higher than mid level exception player, which would have vastly superior value to us than Channing Frye would (Ramon Sessions, Trevor Ariza, Brandon Bass… etc).

So basically these are the decisions I’d make before the draft.
1. Steve Blake – Option Exercised
2. Travis Outlaw – Option Exercised
3. Channing Frye – Not given Qualifying Offer
4. Petteri Koponen – Rights Renounced

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 2:16 AM PDT reply actions  

I agree.

Frye is not likely to be in the rotation so why not renounce him now? I would rather bring Freeland over for a look-see. If Portland needs a garbage time four then they might as well bring in someone cheap.

Signing Outlaw is a good move because he’s the kind of player other teams would want so he has high trade value. If Portland is “stuck” with him, it’ll be alright since I think his positives just barely edge out his negatives.

Blake would make a great backup PG for Portland, but he may be necessary to git ’er done in a trade.

by torsoheap on Jun 4, 2009 3:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

renounce kaponen????

he makes minimum wage, and he had a good summer last, why would you renounce him and not bring him back this summer? he can take sergios spot on the roster and freeland should come over and take fryes spot. freeland is the banger everyone says that portland needs. maybe we can trade frye to metro and he can make some more lame recycling commercials and become a towel boy. he fits in perfect with the citty, just not the team. we dont need any more pf that shot 19’ jumpers all game. hopefully kp can make a deal with frye to be an assistant coach when his playing years are over and he will sign for the minimum max length contract.

fire nate before its too late

by pipgras on Jun 4, 2009 4:27 AM PDT up reply actions  

Koponen seems to be a few years away from being a few years away

He played in Bologna last year behind Earl Boykins, and saw very limited minutes. He was their Sergio/Bayless. And not always playing on point guard, but instead used as a SG next to Boykins when they wanted to play him a little more. His assist numbers (0.8 to 0.9 turnovers per game) and three point percentage (24%) became bad, his PER was 5. Boykins is now a free agent, so if Koponen is lucky Boykins moves on and he gets the starting spot, although they have a young Italian prospect who they might prefer to develop. It’s just not a very good situation for him that he has to overcome or he won’t see much development. I wouldn’t be surprised if deadline rumors came back that saw him put into a trade to a team that might need a combo guard quite a while down the road (worth about as much as a future second round pick). http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Petteri-Koponen-1273/stats/

Freeland did overcome a phase in which he didn’t play much, and now is a regular rotation player on his team in a stronger league getting about 20 minutes which KP seemed to like a lot. I would put the chances to see him in Portland next season at about 70%.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 4:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks for the info.

Given what you say and what I saw from him here in Vegas during the past two summers, I would tend to agree that he’s still a few years away. And I think that the Blazers would rather have him overseas getting even limited minutes than languishing on their bench, using up years on his rookie scale deal.

Then again, last summer I didn’t think that Batum was ready for NBA minutes…..

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

i never once said he needs to come over

i just cant see any reason at all to renounce him as as11osu said. worst case is that he never pans out as a nba talent, and even then there is no reason to renounce him

fire nate before its too late

by pipgras on Jun 4, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

As Dave has pointed out

as far as Sessions is concerned, if we renounce Petteri, we can give Sessions an offer of 4 millions dollars more. That money would be far better used getting a big piece. Petteri is never going to be on this roster. He’s probably never going to be an NBA player, let alone good enough to play on this team during its Championship runs. So either trade him or renounce him, and do it now.

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 3:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

trade him....

let’s get some value from him… and pass the burden of “If this kid will ever be an NBA player” to another team.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’d take Frye on my City “metro” league team…

by Heizer on Jun 4, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think you've got it spot on

Cap space is worth more to the Blazers than Frye’s trade value. I’m not so sure Frye could even get anyone to match 4.3 million. Koponen is anyone’s guess, but I’m sure it will come down to numbers. If the Blazers need to cap space they will renounce playboy’s rights.

by neilan on Jun 4, 2009 4:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

agree

I don’t see them offering the QO. They can keep the benefits of being able to sign him (for trading purposes) by just not renouncing his rights. This is much less risky and more flexible than actually extending him a QO.

Worse case they can replace what Frye brings to the team with a veteran player for less than $4.3 million.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 8:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Lesser Risk when KP already has a deal...

So IF (let’s assume this for a second) Pritchard has a deal on the table where the other team value’s Channing’s skills and want him, and market conditions prove to get Channing as good a deal as he is gonna get on the open market (I bet closer to $2.5 than $4.3…) then they don’t worry about the flexibility at all.

If Portland doesn’t have a deal that would involve Channing, then extending the QO is not a good idea. But like Dave said, it is then highly probably that whatever is gonna happen with Channing is gonna happen before that Q.O. deadline. In the past some deals had taken a while to fully come to light. There might be a scenario that Channing signs with Portland and all is pretending that he is gonna be around in Portland… yet behind the scenes he is part of a multi-stage deal… In the mean time people on this site will be FREAKING OUT claiming “KP is an idiot” or something because so many people lack patience…

Speaking of patience, karate legend David Carradine died yesterday. Moment of silence. Peace out dude.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 7:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Anyone who plans to be in the Lebron DWade sweepstakes could be very interested

Frye has shown is a a capable NBA player – even a decent starter. We just have a better player at the position, and their similar games mean we want something different off the bench. He can also play Center, but we’re pretty well taken care of there. There may eve be some teams who look at how he played when he had a role season before last, and see some real upside.

So, a team that wants to have as much as possible coming off their cap next year, but can’t completely throw away this season could be very interested. Get two or three contracts like Fry’s, plus a big expiring one and you could have the space needed to complete next year.

by hoopla-pdx on Jun 4, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

We totally SHOULD offer Channing the Q.O.

I know Dave is speculating that $4.3M is what the deal with Channing would for and that some other team values Frye enough to be good with that in a trade… but I would say there is a good, if not great, chance that the contract with Channing is LESS.

I mean these economic times don’t just affect the BIG stars in this league, ya know? If Channing might be worth that $4.3 because that is comprable to previous similar contracts and works with the natural progession of his deal, but this is the new state of the NBA economics…. Channing and his agent might look at players like Chris Wilcox and Drew Gooden who are both less than $2M, there are lots of other players that fit into Channing’s rank of being a solid young talent originally drafted high that hasn’t put it all together yet but has shown some good stuff… so these players are VERY risky, therefore driving down their value. So they end up signing a lesser 3 year deal to give them time to prove themselves before they enter their primes.

Channing Frye might be signing for $3.5M or even less down to $2.5M. I don’t think that is too much of a long-shot, do you? I mean these economics could affect the lesser talent or impact players greater than the big namers and starters.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 7:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

In which case....

At a $2.5M-ish contract Channing Frye’s value would be better than cap space and it would be worth it to sign Channing. I am sure Frye’s agent is shopping for deals, but seriously how much is he gonna get? The QO is worth it and can help the Blazers in a trade if market conditions force Frye’s leverage down to this $$$ range.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

The 4.3 Million is not just a guess

that’s what we would have to offer him just for this year in a qualifying offer. If he accepted it, we’d have to pay him that amount, and thus he would be extremely hard to trade given his lack of talent and bloated one year contract. It seems to be a waste of resources. The only reason to do it would be to be able to match offers in a trade, but we’d be able to do that anyway, just by taking on a bad contract or two, and giving the team we’re dealing with a trade exception and a cut in payroll (things teams would desire more than a 4.3 million dollar Frye.

by as11osu on Jun 4, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

That is only if Frye is offered the Q.O.

the other option is that Frye signs a new contract altogether. Like a 3 year deal which helps him avoid being low man on the FA totem pole come 09-10 offseason. Since the deal would not be the QO, it won’t have a minimum amount.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure you understand

The qualifying offer for Channing is not a minimum contract offer – it is a one year deal for nearly $4.3 million. So if Portland makes the QO here in June and Channing accepts that offer – bang! There goes $4.3 million in cap space.

And as long as the QO is out there, Channing would have a cap hold of nearly $9.5 million that would keep the team well above the cap – unable to use cap space to make other deals.

At this point, Channing is IMO not worth $4.3 million for 2009-10, so I wouldn’t tender the QO.

by Storyteller on Jun 5, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

A quick question for you Storyteller

as I’ve gotten the answer elsewhere, but would love to hear it from you.

If we’re over the cap come July 1st we get to keep the MLE AND our trade exception?

If we’re not over the cap on that day, we don’t get either exception?

So basically the worst place possible to be would be anywhere between 0 and 5.5 Million under the cap.

So basically there is a trade that happens on draft day that puts us over the salary cap, or we focus on creating a little more space to be more than 8 million under the cap. Anything aside from those two options seems like a poor place to have positioned ourselves.

Give me a top 3 basic overview (not player specific, but using strategery) of places the Blazers could be going into the free agent season.

Thanks in advance….

by as11osu on Jun 5, 2009 1:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

the basic thing to remember is this: By definition, you can’t have (and don’t need) ANY exceptions if you are under the cap. This includes the MLE, biannual exceptions, any trade exceptions, etc, etc.

That said, we don’t have to worry about being slightly under the cap at the end of June. By default, all players coming off contract automatically have cap holds on our books. These alone will take us something like $20 million over. Even if that didn’t take us over, againg the the default is that the MLE and biannual exceptions (and any other exceptions a team has) are automatically added to a team’s total, and unless that STILL puts you under the cap, you are considered over the cap, and retrain all your exceptions.

The ONLY way we go under the cap this summer is if WE decide to do so. We will do this by renouncing cap holds on a few players, and by renouncing our exceptions. We can decide to do this at whatever point we want to, which would obviously not be until about 5 minutes before we execute a trade or free agent signing that requires us to be under the cap.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 5, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

retain, not retrain

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 5, 2009 6:20 AM PDT up reply actions  

I'm not sure I understand....

the options to deal with him are more complex than exercising a one-year extension or not. Portland could sign him to a multi-year deal, outside of the QO, this is the scenario I am talking about. Other teams could get him at a good rate once he is renounced, but they’d have to want him for sure. I am not talking about trading Frye to a team who wants the highest possible expiring contract out of him, I am talking about signing him to a 3 or 4 year deal that would make his value highly desireable, this may increase the interest of those teams who really like Frye.

Don’t tender the QO, instead sign him to a new deal… that is an option is it not? The economy says that players are gonna get less this season that in seasons past, so why not capitalize on that with a player who is at a career crossroads?

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 5, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

One small note: You need to have 12 players under contract at all time in the offseason or you immediately get a roster charge

It doesn’t have to happen, but if someone makes plans to get as far under the cap as possible by renouncing rights, trading a player away for a pick, etc. this could come into effect.

If a team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks) a “ghost contract” equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player below 12 is applied immediately. Cap holds for unsigned draft picks (Koponen, Freeland) are not included in the 12 players.

For the Blazers it might not have a big impact, but it should be considered. E.g. when we would sell the #24 pick, we wouldn’t save the whole $0.93 million (could be even a little higher, since it’s quite typical to sign a rookie to 120% of the rookie scale in the first year), just this amount minus ca. $0.46 million.

 It gets important e.g. in the plans of the NY Knicks when they try to get far far under the cap to make an offer for 2 max free agents in 2010. That’s where I first read about this rule.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 4:45 AM PDT reply actions  

question

“Cap holds for unsigned draft picks (Koponen, Freeland) are not included in the 12 players.”

You sure about this one? Source? My reading of the Larry Coon FAQ makes no distinction between signed or unsigned first round picks, and indicates that first round picks DO count toward the 12 players.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

FYI Norsk

douglast is right. Unsigned first round picks such as Koponen and Freeland do count as part of the ‘need to get to 12’ because their cap holds do count against team salary, just as a cap hold for a FA counts against team salary.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 8:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Here's the quote from the CBA:

In determining whether a Team has fewer than twelve (12) players included in its Team Salary for purposes of Section 4(f)(1) above only, the only players who shall be counted are (i) players under Contract with the Team who are included in Team Salary, (ii) Free Agents who are included in Team Salary pursuant to Section 4 (a)(2) above, (iii) players to whom Offer Sheets have been given, and (iv) unsigned First Round Picks who are included in Team Salary pursuant to Section 4(e) above.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

sign/trade Raef?

could Raef be signed to a partially guaranteed contract and traded to a team looking for cap relief? As Keith van Horn was in the Kidd/Harris trade. We can sign him for essentially arbitrary amounts, but I don’t know how that works in terms of a) packaging with multiple players (van Horn was); or b) how much must be guaranteed. I believe that, for example, Blake or Outlaw could be traded on draft day, and the receiving team would have the right to not pick up their subsequent options, thus saving the salary. That is pure salary dump, but we’ve seen it from teams in the recent past. My question then is, how much of an option is using Raef as salary fill in a trade — I haven’t really seen anyone discussing it as an option.

by BrailleTaser on Jun 4, 2009 6:11 AM PDT reply actions  

why not just sign me?

Sign me for about $10M (or more if it would help the team) and dangle me as cap relief to anyone interested. Heck, I could not play for any one of the 30 teams!

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

I would never

not play for the L*kers. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

by BrailleTaser on Jun 4, 2009 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

What will happen

I disagree with Dave’s points.

KP will make a deal on draft day (or sooner) which will clarify all this. Decisions on Blake, Outlaw, and Frye will be determined largely by the outcome of that draft day deal (or deals).

And the deal will be one that hardly anyone anticipated.

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 4, 2009 7:38 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

reading the tea leaves, it seems there will be a deal made. Just who will it be with and how big of a deal will it be…

proud hinrichsheeple

by Cablinasian on Jun 4, 2009 8:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

REC

The Princess of Blazersedge

by BlazerFan1 on Jun 4, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Especially like "one that hardly anyone anticipated"

I tend to agree. I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the rumored deals (ie, Hinrich) goes through, but KP’s MO is usually to pull something out of left field….

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's what I'm looking forward to

the “one that hardly anyone anticipated.” That’s what makes following the Blazers in teh off-season so much fun. We all speculate, obfuscate, and regurgitate…..and then KP pulls off a surprising move.

by antediluvian on Jun 4, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

I would love to play KP chess

"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.

by postup on Jun 4, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I don't quite think that's how it'd go down

but it’s very interesting to see how someone thinks, and chess is a good way to observe that.

"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.

by postup on Jun 4, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

online yes, but not much lately

link

"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.

by postup on Jun 4, 2009 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

Looks like fun!

But I haven’t played in years and am not starting now.

by MiledAnimal on Jun 4, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

1897!

Yeah, I’d say you play a bit of chess. I’d love to play you sometime, but I’m 1450ish so not sure it be much fun for you…

by ThereGoDaGame on Jun 6, 2009 10:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Actually playing against 29 other players simultaneously!

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes, the surprises are fun

And then everyone screams and complains, and then thinks about it, and then says, “Well, maybe,” and then thinks some more, and then sees what happens, and then sings KP’s praises to the heavens….

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 4, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

KP is the guy who screws the cashiers in a store

He pays with cash, then changes his mind and pays with debit, and wants change for the cash by breaking the bill, but then he decides he doesn’t need that much cash and pays some debit and some cash. Next thing you know, he walks out of the store with 20 dollars and his food, while the cashier is sitting there wondering what just happened.

by Zaig on Jun 4, 2009 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

KP is so sharp

He could sell 2 automatic milking machines to a farmer who only owns one cow

And take the cow as a down payment

by two4larue on Jun 4, 2009 6:59 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

The one that hardly anyone anticaptes from KP.....

My guess the wildcard move by Kevin this off-season is the that sneaky Trade Exception! We are gonna be looking at our roster after pre-draft move, draft day moves and the bulk of free-agency… we think it is all finished and our roster is finalized… and then <<<<>>>>> KP grabs “the perfect” final piece with by way of trade exception with some team who sets sights on a top remaining free-agent signee and needs a few million in capspace and may play similar positions.

Maybe Jason Maxiell from Detroit. We are hearing that the Pistons are corting Boozer or Bosh as well asnother top free agent, both in the $10M+ contracts, KP just taking advantage of a team who is in the middle of a $20M+ overhaul on their roster. They definitely aren’t ever going to the be the Pistons of yester-year; Billups+Big Ben gave that team lots of character and game. I digress… SOME player with similar impact-ability as a Jason Maxiell is going to be added to our roster late in the off-season… so let’s look at all those players in the league who are > $3.1M. Any of those palyers could be THIS GUY. Wouldn’t it be great if it was Jason Maxiell?

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 8:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hopefully it will be the good left field.

I don’t want to wake up and read a story about KP trading Roy and Aldridge for the “awesome talents” of Marbury and Mikki Moore.

by torsoheap on Jun 4, 2009 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

KP is too smart to trade for Hinrich

It really doesn’t take a whole lot of research to see that he is inferior than Blake at more than double the cost

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 4, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just by cursory research of 82games and basketball-reference he seems to be superior. Are there any points you’d like to share that show Blake’s superiority?

proud hinrichsheeple

by Cablinasian on Jun 4, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Any word on whether Portland is petitioning the league with regard to ....

…. the possibility of Miles contract still coming off the books?

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 4, 2009 8:10 AM PDT reply actions   2 recs

I nominate you.

That way you can lobby for Penn’s old job at the same time!

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Jun 4, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions  

been wondering about this

but my guess is i’ts a dead end. we got the shaft of unintended consequences of the retirement clause. Maybe they will fix it in the next CBA, but won’t do us any good.

One thing is for sure, if we don’t win a petition and get that $9 million off the books by July 9, it’s too late really.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

you know...

The team did sign the dude to the long, horribly expensive K. No one forced the Blazers to do that.

And Darius may be one of the world’s greatest slack-offs, but there’s no question that he’s not “medically retired” as evidenced by the fact that he played.

So in a just world, we’re stuck with the junk K. I don’t like it cause it hurts my team, but I don’t see the straight faced argument as to why we shouldn’t be stuck with our own crappy decisions.

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Brilliantly put.

"A bizarre and extremely rare hybrid Blazer/Laker fan, Timbo has always struggled to contain the Beast Within, like Dr. Jekyll, Bruce Banner, or Ted Kennedy." — Miled Animal

by timbo on Jun 4, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

Physically unable to play

doesn’t mean that he can’t perform minimally. But Miles will never again be a league average player because of his injuries. Teams don’t sign the Miles’, usually, because they are high risk, low reward. Without question, Miles’ deteriorating play is connected to his injury (even if his mental/emotional state is also connected). Isolated bursts of athletic ability do not an NBA player make. He cannot sustain it, and should be doing something else – for his own good. Miles, from all the reports I have seen, has bone-on-bone in his knee. That isn’t healthy, and it isn’t good to subject that condition to extreme physical stress.

by blacknoiseNW on Jun 4, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

No, we really did get screwed by the retirement rule.

Because we’d be in a better position now if he hadn’t been medically retired and was still on the team.

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Seriously????

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yes because then we could trade his contract. No we're stuck with it.

A fair compensation from the league would be to keep it in our cap space, but allow us to trade it as an expiring contract with no actual player attached.

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Darius did not 'medically retire'

Portland asked for a league and NBPA approved doctor to examine Darius. He/she did. The doctor ruled that Darius had experienced a career-ending injury. Then the Blazers waived Darius. Darius cleared waivers and, well, the rest is history.

It’s a misnomer to say that the cap relief was obtained because of a ‘medical retirement’. He was waived by the Blazers. Darius never filed retirement papers with the league.

The Blazers knew at the time that they waived him that they would never be able to trade him again. That was their decision, not Darius’.

Do I believe that the Blazers should still have the cap relief? I do. But I’m not going to say that Darius stuck it to the Blazers by retiring then coming back. That simply isn’t true.

by Storyteller on Jun 5, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

IF (and it is only an if) anybody “stuck” it to Portland it was the team of Ainge and Wallace.

And even then, it most likely was a move to limit the options of a competitor, which is not outside the bounds of competition.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 5, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Reading that Darius Miles bit made me sick to my stomach. Why couldn’t he have just taken his $48 million and smoked pot all day? Wouldn’t that have worked out better for all parties involved?

by AndrewD on Jun 4, 2009 8:27 AM PDT reply actions  

Sounds good to me

Clippers also owe us big since we let Randolph go and he eventually ended up there. Clearly since he is better than Bosh, we did the Clippers a HUGE favor. They should give us their pick.

In other words, we can draft Griffin and Rubio and trade both to NO for CP3.

by Zaig on Jun 4, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Dave, you're so smart

I bet you’re the first person to realize that I posted 09-10 on the site even though I haven’t put a link to that spreadsheet on the front page. I uploaded it the other night when I forwarded a copy to Ben in anticipation of linking to it eventually. I guess the secret’s out now, though…..

Excellent analysis, as usual. Personally, I agree with most of your guesses as to what will happen, with a couple of disagreements. My guess of what will happen:

1) Portland will either trade up in the draft or trade out of the first round altogether. I don’t think they’ll keep the #24 pick. I could see them using the Diogu exception on draft day along with #24 to get a $3 million player that they want. Or (shades of Rudy Fernandez) use the exception and the pick to get a higher pick and a player that the other team wants to dump. I could envision Portland drafting for somebody else at #24 and including the picked player in a July trade. I could actually envision a lot of things happening on draft day. What I don’t envision is Portland staying pat at #24 and keeping that player into the season.

2) I expect that if Blake and/or Outlaw are not traded on draft day, they will not not be cut before June 30th, thus guaranteeing their full 2009-10 salary.

3) I do not expect Portland to tender a QO to Frye. I don’t think they want to pay him $4.3 million and will not risk that he accepts the QO during the Moratorium or before they have a chance to revoke the offer.

4) I expect that Portland will not renounce Frye, LaFrentz, Randolph and Ruffin immediately – they’ll keep their FA rights and be over the cap on July 1st. But as soon as an opportunity to use cap room presents itself (FA signing, lopsided trade, etc.) they will renounce them to get below the cap
[NOTE: This assumes that Portland does not make a draft day trade that brings back a significant salary. If they do, and the amount of cap room would be less than the MLE, they won’t renounce anyone and will just keep all their exceptions.]

5) I expect that the Blazers will swing for the moon in trying to get the best possible player(s) this summer. They might not land everyone/anyone they target, but they will at least try. I don’t expect them to get Deron Williams, for example. I do, however, think that the team will make at least one offer to try and get him. Does this mean the creation of a huge list by the organization? Then moving down the list if/when players targeted are found to be unavailable? Yes, I think so.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 8:44 AM PDT reply actions  

YOUR INFORMATION WILL BECOME AVAILABLE WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT

:)

by Ben Golliver on Jun 4, 2009 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

On 3)

I assumed that the Blazers could rescind the offer even if he’s accepted it in principle. If not, then I agree with you. I don’t think they risk that space on him, or more accurately on being able to trade him.

On 4) I agree that they’ll not renounce right away because it behooves them to stay over the cap and protect their exceptions just in case. This is what I was trying to do with the Channing thing too. The general principle is that you don’t give up your access to an avenue of approach until you’re sure you don’t need that avenue of approach anymore.

On 1) I think the Blazers will want to trade up or out. I’m skeptical of the right guy being there and us giving the right offer to get him so I’m not as sure as many that the trading up thing will work out. I also don’t know the price we’d get for trading out but I agree that will be their next option. I fear they may get stuck with 24 as the practical best option.

—Dave

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

yep

standing pat at the deadline was at least defensible for a variety of reasons.

Not doing something of decent significance this summer is not

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

They did not stand pat - they got the trade exception

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

of course

but that isn’t exactly the big move everyone was waiting for.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'll be extremely dissapointed if it's not significant

Huge? Depends on how you define that. If huge means getting another All-Star…..

BTW, didn’t know that BlazersEdge had royalty….

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

I count 11

Oden, Przybilla, Aldridge, Outlaw, Webster, Batum, Fernandez, Roy, Blake, Bayless and Rodriguez.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

on top of 5 picks...

Still should be fireworks of some sort. I think standing pat is a pretty poor plan at this point.

by as11osu on Jun 5, 2009 1:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Great Post Dave

It helps to clarify the situation quite a bit for me. Its also nice to know what the potential scenarios are for the Blazers in terms of trades and FA signings. Thanks

by lilseal18 on Jun 4, 2009 9:22 AM PDT reply actions  

I love the post
But don’t overheat your exhaust pipes there, Roger Ramjet.

And I’m still laughing about this.

I know less than half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

by haildablazer on Jun 4, 2009 9:50 AM PDT reply actions  

Steve Blake

Just a thought why don’t we not take the option on Blake, he just had surgery and he is contributing to a clog at the PG this way we could sign a nice FA PG put Jarryd in as the back up and draft a third, use Sergio to move up in the draft.

Draft Cole Aldrich 2010

by jlarose78 on Jun 4, 2009 9:53 AM PDT reply actions  

The problem, as Dave wrote, is that
…the release (of Blake) must pre-date the signing or trade (of his replacement). If things fall through in the intervening time you’re up the creek.

We can still go pretty far next season with Blake running the point. If we roll the dice by letting him go and fail to sign someone at least as good, Bayless as the starter would make for a long season.

by MiledAnimal on Jun 4, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

How much salary could Blake get on the market?

If we renounce him, and then want him back, would we have to pay much more?

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions  

probably a bit more

and definately more than 1 season. so if we did end up resigning him, we are going to be locking into him for longer term than we are committed to now, which maybe is not desirable for us.

Also, there is always the question of whether or not he would even be willing to come back after we cut him and strike out on someone (or more than one someones) that we want more than him.

It’s risk/reward for sure. It might be worth the risk, hoping we can use that extra $4 million and land a veteran PG.

Of course it all might be moot – if we make some draft day moves, he could be included there, OR maybe he’s not included, but the move we make brings back a PG, in which case we could cut him between draft day and June 30 and save the 4 million.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

Blake came back

after we traded him to Milwaukee.

by torsoheap on Jun 4, 2009 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions  

yep

but this would be quite a bit different of a scenario.

Not saying he wouldn’t necessarily. I"m just saying it’s a factor that would have to be taken into account.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions  

I think these guys understand

it’s a business. If Blake feels Portland is a good fit for his game and his family then he won’t get upset that Portland traded him once and didn’t pick up his option. In fact, he will probably make more money if his option is declined this summer.

by torsoheap on Jun 4, 2009 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

Bayless as the starter

would mature quickly. It would cost us some wins early. We might make up some of them later, and we might be better by the playoffs.

It’s not a move I would make, but if KP is as high on Bayless as Ben says, who knows?

When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.

by jscot on Jun 4, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

KP seems to hype Bayless more than Batum, Rudy, Oden

Why would he do this unless he wants everyone else to think that Bayless is better than he really is?

by Zaig on Jun 4, 2009 11:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Maybe to bolster Jerryd's confidence,

or because he really believes that once Jerryd puts it all together, he is going to be the Blazer starting point guard and a star in this league for a long time.

by MiledAnimal on Jun 4, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well he should believe the same about the other 3

Oden/Batum should be awesome in this league in a year or two… and Batum is even younger than Bayless. Rudy is a few years older, but still has star potential.

by Zaig on Jun 4, 2009 2:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think this comment is sensationalistic...

“KP seems to hype Bayless more than Batum, Rudy, Oden”….

yeah, maybe if you are only listening to the interviews where people are asking questions about Bayless and not those other players.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

You know Dave

it’s this kind of posting that gets us all branded as the nerdy-geek clique in that we all (as a community) like to be so accurate all the the time about the Blazers b-ball player situation. Why can’t we just drop an F-bomb and Travis and Frye for Lebron. It works under the cap right. and it makes those other cliques feel better know that such a situation is “technically” possible.

Thanks Dave
PS. you get my snarky post here becaase you closed the “I Hate Bedge” thread before I even got a chance to read it.

by NWfan on Jun 4, 2009 10:17 AM PDT reply actions  

Darius

I think the Blazers are still going to fight the league on this. Tom Penn in an interview about midseason said Portland had some options going forward and that even if Miles played in ten games they still might be able to get him off there books this summer. Did Miles play an entire games worth of minutes this season? Seem like he would come in in spot situations every 7-10 games for about 2-4 minutes.

I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.

""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."

His stare became blank. It was apparent he was back in that place, on the Rose Garden's logo, picking up Aaron Brooks as the crowd nervously roared.

by Dragonage on Jun 4, 2009 10:24 AM PDT reply actions  

He did play more minutes than that.

I think what may be more telling is that once Memphis signed him to that second 10 – day deal, thus assuring he would be with the team the remainder of the season and get in the required number of games, I don’t believe Darius appeared in more than a couple games over the minimum number needed. I don’t believe he even got of the bench for a minute the last month and a half of the season.

Danny Ainge and Chris Wallace (who has Celtic connections – I believe he was even their GM for awhile) worked the system to eliminate what was looking like a huge competative advantage for Portland. They might have done it out of dislike for Pritchard. More likely in my mind is they viewed it akin to a chess match and just wanted to remove one of Portland’s pieces from the board.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 4, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

It would serve the Grizzlies right

if OJ Mayo gets arrested for DUI and the cops find a few oh-zees and a couple of local strippers in his Escalade.

by MiledAnimal on Jun 4, 2009 2:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Darius' minutes

These comments got me to thinking…

 I wonder if the provision for Darius to play a minimum of ten games stipulates a minimum minute requirement. There are 48 minutes in a game. Multiply that by 10 and you get 480 minutes total. If the averages I read saying that Darius played in 34 games averaging 8.8 minutes, then his total number of minutes played this season (not counting preseason games) would be ~300 minutes (299.2 to be exact). This is 180.8 minutes (equivalent to 3.7 games) less than the total time for 10 full games.. So, in reality, Darius only played the what would be 6.3 games this whole year. To put this in perspective, Jarryd Bayless, a rookie with “limited minutes” played 657.2 minutes, equivalent to 13.7 games, almost twice as many as Miles.

If my reasoning is not flawed here, than if I were the Blazers, I think I would really look into this and see if it plays a factor in the legal proceedings surrounding this situation. I’m sure it’s already been investigates, so if anyone knows more about how the Blazers are trying to handle the “Darius File” legally I would love to know what there plan is.

by OmoriumVerum on Jun 4, 2009 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

The CBA speaks of 10 games, and later it came out that even pre-season games counted.

Nothing mentioned about minutes. We can claim all day long that it’s a poorly defined rule (since it originally was designed to keep teams from waiving aging veterans with bad contracts and then re-signing them for less, aka another Allan Houston rule). But it will very likely stand until the next CBA gets negotiated in 2011.

Other team owners have no real incentive to support the Blazers in challenging the rule either. The are only a few other current candidates for medical retirement with Eric Snow (Cavs) which will be no problem since he already has a follow-up job, Cuttino Mobley (Clippers /Knicks) which could be a problem since the league has already ruled he sustained his heart problems before being traded to the Knicks, and maybe Jerome James (Knicks/Bulls) though that will rather just be a long-term injury and Peja Stojakovic (Hornets) if his chronic back problems force him into retirement.

And Darius is the only player to come back from medical retirement, which was the root of all problems: He never really wanted to retire.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m not familiar with the legal structure for the NBA nor can I claim to be smart on the CBA. I’m sure it’s setup to be as confusingly comprehensive as possible. However, to me, if the wording of a provision or clause is ambiguous or vague, wouldn’t that create a better opportunity for a team to legally question it? Since there is there is too much latitude for misinterpretation?

I mean, if the intent of this provision was to ensure that Darius didn’t come back (which would mean salary added back to the Blazers) from his “career-ending” injury. Wouldn’t it be possible to carefully read through the provision and while doing so realizing that you may have an advantage in the future if things go awry so you don’t say anything?

For instance, if I were the Blazers, at the time of Miles’ medical retirement, and read through the provision noting all the loopholes and various conclusions that could be formed by it (I.e. is it 10 full games worth of minutes? Do preseason games count? etc.). I would be thinking to myself, “This provision is great. If, by some miracle, Miles comes back and plays next season, we will have the legal advantage because this is so poorly written.” I don’t know, maybe I’m giving the organization too much credit. Also, I don’t know if it could really “work” this way.

Basically, what I’m asking is…if the provision is too ambiguous, wouldn’t that favor the complainant?

by OmoriumVerum on Jun 4, 2009 3:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I believe the answer to your questions is ....

…. maybe, if Portland was to make a legal challenge in court. This is, they would have to sue the league. I don’t see that happening.

If we are talking about petitioning the league, then the answer is probably no, as the league itself will be the final determiner. They simply need to state that the rules have no mention of number of minutes, only games.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 5, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

This is the post I've been waiting for...

Thanks Dave. I’ve been reading your old posts on salary info, trying to extrapolate to today. Now you drop an updated knowledge bomb and saved me the effort! Excellent post.

by ItsMrHarris2u on Jun 4, 2009 10:27 AM PDT reply actions  

+1 Excellent Post Dave

This is the best post of the off-season so far….

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 9:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Miles played in 34 gms his avg minutes played was 8.8. What a shame.

I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.

""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."

His stare became blank. It was apparent he was back in that place, on the Rose Garden's logo, picking up Aaron Brooks as the crowd nervously roared.

by Dragonage on Jun 4, 2009 10:31 AM PDT reply actions  

Does Shawn Kemp

still count 2 mil a year against are cap? When we bought him out it was a 10 year 2 million doller a year buyout on his contract.

I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.

""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."

His stare became blank. It was apparent he was back in that place, on the Rose Garden's logo, picking up Aaron Brooks as the crowd nervously roared.

by Dragonage on Jun 4, 2009 10:39 AM PDT reply actions  

No

Kemp may still be receiving payments but his contract – as it counted against the cap – no longer appears on the team salary figure.

There’s a difference between how he’s paid and how it counted against the cap. Zach Randolph’s contract is another example of differing terms between how much and when he’s paid and how the contract counts against his team’s cap.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

We're still paying Kemp??!?

Boy I’m glad the old Front Office Regime is in our rear-view mirrors.

Bingo, bango, bongo!

by Babyshoes on Jun 4, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why not hold onto space for next year? DWade+BRoy backcourt anyone? LeBron or Pierce at the 3?

With Darius definitely coming off the books next year, we’ve got a pretty good start on freeing up space. Add to that the championship potential of our core, and I think we’d have a pretty good shot at some marquee free agents.

Having Frye for a year wouldn’t be the worst position to be in. With a full healthy season we might see him do pretty well. With a healthy and more experienced Greg, Joel will play more with the second unit, so we will need some front court scoring.

by hoopla-pdx on Jun 4, 2009 10:42 AM PDT reply actions  

It's an option, but

to get that kind of cap room, Portland would have to renounce Roy and Aldridge. Yeah, I don’t see that happening…..

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Just ran the numbers and realized that I was wrong

With BRoy and LMA getting max contracts, we’re probably committed to around $56M for 2010/11. That is without a starting PG, back-up PF or the next two years draft picks.

by hoopla-pdx on Jun 4, 2009 12:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

can't clear enough space

Joel not picking up his option next summer is the only realistic scenario where we could clear any kind of space in summer 2010. And even then, we are talking 9-10 million in space, not max money.

Not to mention, we would be competing against the other 15 teams that have cleared a ton of 2010 space.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree... we can't clear enough space....

Which means that THIS off-season is gonna be when KP and crew need to make the moves that are going to “complete” this roster. With Joel Pryzbilla in mind, he is a great value and hopefully will stay with Portland to keep our Center position totally shored up!!!

My guess is that we will do a lop-sided trade moving Blake and picks, a sign-n-trade involving Channing & Sergio & picks, a very affordable free-agent signing to get us just to the cap enough to spill just over. We walk away from the draft with one draft N stash player, Then KP will add the final piece via the $3.1M trade exception. I guess what I am saying is that I anticipate this to be here at least….

PG: Jerryd Bayless
SG: Brandon Roy. Rudy Fernandez
SF: Martell Webster, Nicolas Batum
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge, Travis Outlaw
FC: Greg Oden, Joel Pryzbilla

Those nine players plus the four transactions above neting a total of 13 players… so maybe we can anticipate a 14th player about the caliber of contract that Shavlik had if we really need the depth at any position.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

No trade exception in July if Portland is below the cap

Also, very unlikely that Channing would be involved in a sign-and-trade if Portland is under the cap.

by Storyteller on Jun 5, 2009 12:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Can we trade Blake or Trout during the draft

and another team does not pick up the option thus saving another team salary?

Draft Cole Aldrich 2010

by jlarose78 on Jun 4, 2009 10:53 AM PDT reply actions  

yes

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

then we could

Pull off something similar to the detroit, denver trade, Trade Blake to a team that needs to save money by cutting him and then resign blake

Draft Cole Aldrich 2010

by jlarose78 on Jun 4, 2009 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Just another + in the column

of the intelligence of the Blazer front office. They didn’t give Outlaw and Blake team options for 2009-10 when they signed them – they gave them unguaranteed contracts for 2009-10 if they are cut before June 30th.

If they had team options, neither could be traded on draft day. But because of their status, trading them on draft day is possible if the right deal presents itself. It gives the organization even greater flexibility.

My hat consistently goes off to KP, Penn and the rest of their staff.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

please elaborate

I am surprised to see it because I always think their 2009-10 are “team option”?

Can you explain why they have unguaranteed contracts for 09-10 but it’s not a team option? Is there a special terminology for this kind of contracts?

Also from Coon’s FAQ #85:

When the trading deadline has passed. Teams are free to make trades again once their season has ended, but cannot trade players whose contracts are ending or could end due to an option or ETO.

So On draft day, Blake/Outlaw’s contracts could end, but NOT due to an option because there’s no options whatsoever in their contract. That’s why we can trade them on draft day. Is that right? If yes then doesn’t it sound like a loophole? Because Blazers basically have a team option on them but it’s not called “team option” so they are not limited by the CBA when it comes to trading those players.

by iverigma2 on Jun 4, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

team option vs. unguaranteed contract

In practice, there is very little difference.

but in the cap-world there is significant differences. For starters, it requires ACTION to pick up an option. As soon as you do it, the money is on the books for next year. Doing nothing makes the player a free agent. This is why they can’t be traded. the situation is reversed in the unguaranteed contract realm. the default (do nothing) scenario is that they are on the books and under contract through next year. This is why they are tradeable. ACTING would be releasing the player, which you can do to anyone, regardless of contract. It just so happens that in this case his salary is not guaranteed, so he doesn’t get paid the money.

It’s not a loophole. non-guaranteed contracts (or partially guaranteed, like Stackhouse next year), are perfectly legal in the NBA. They just aren’t widely used.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

thanks for clarifying

yeah I do realize in Storyteller’s salaries page these two are labeled as different colors.

by iverigma2 on Jun 4, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

This goes squarely

into the "Tom Penn is a Sneaky Bastard" column.

I guess we’re about to find out whether the mods will allow the use of the "B" word upon occasion if especially appropriate. (I am as subject to having a comment deleted as anyone, by the way. It’s your call, Mods.) But even if they do delete it, I believe I will have that phrase printed prominently on the next run of Blazersedge t-shirts.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

Do you know for a fact that Penn's parents were not married upon his conception?

Because you could be factually accurate, and therefore beyond reproach.

Trying not to get banned from the internets

by TheTinfoil on Jun 4, 2009 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think being factually accurate automatically makes something okay.

For example, what if I responded to a commenter by saying that I ****** their mom last night? Even if I really did **** her, it’s still not allowed for me to write that.

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

It seems so much better.

Why doesn’t everyone do this? Will they start now?

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 4:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

A wrinkle I was not aware of

though now that I think of it I believe you told me right to my face in person last year about this and it didn’t sink it.

That is brilliant and it does allow for far more flexibility than otherwise would have been allowed at the draft.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

They are not the only ones

Jerry Stackhouse e.g. has a partially guaranteed contract with the Mavs (to be guaranteed before August 30 or sometime around that). Greg Buckner has one on the Grizzlies. Etc. But yeah it’s creative.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is brilliant

Combined with the trade exception (which some are unfortunately calling insignificant), Portland can make a whale of a trade on draft day.

For example, Portland could deal Outlaw, Blake and #24 to Golden State for Corey Maggette, Brandon Wright and #7. Golden State cuts Outlaw and Blake before June 30th and saves themselves over $12 million in salary in 2009-10.

That kind of cost savings doesn’t present itself on draft day all that often. Teams that are looking at their balance sheet might just be ripe for the picking.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

it doesn't work before July 1st

If I understand it correctly, before July 1st we will still be over the cap so the rule of 25%100,000 comes in: 1.25*(4.25M (Blake) + 4M (Outlaw))0.1M = 10.4125M is not enough for 10.77M on Golden State’s side.

But still, 10M can get a lot of impact players, I agree it’s really a brilliant move by Penn & KP.

by iverigma2 on Jun 4, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

It does work

Outlaw and Blake for Maggette.

Wright comes via the trade exception obtained when Portland traded Diogu.

The draft picks carry no $ value for trade purposes.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

2 trades

Blake + Outlaw + 24 for Maggete + 7 (well within 25%)
Wright for the trade exception

add the draft picks into

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

bah, you beat me Story

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

I see

it’s basically the same trick in James Jones trade.

Man… you guys better fess up… which one of you is KP and which is TP???

by iverigma2 on Jun 4, 2009 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Two of the most popular reason to trade Outlaw is that....

1.) he isn’t strong enough at rebounding and post play to be our ideal backup 4
2.) he is the third wheel of SF’s making it a crowd, but he is truely not a SF, but a 4

So if we make a move to get Maggette, are we not just adding to that crowd? I mean we have reasonable contracts with Rudy, Martell and Batum and those are the guys that would lose time to Maggette… does Corey have the defense to make this fanbase and coach Nate happy? I heavily doubt it. The deal works, but the deal wouldn’t work for a roster I would want to see.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

OK, let's assume your statements are correct

Then Portland either trades or buys out Maggette, keeps Wright and Curry and life is much better.

I’m not saying that this deal is THE DEAL that Portland should make. I’m using it as an example of the type of deal that can be made on or around draft day. Showing the flexibility that Portland has because of the status of Outlaw and Blake, along with the trade exception.

Similar deal ideas could probably be put together for other teams rumored to have financial problems – Milwaukee, Washington, New Orleans, etc.

by Storyteller on Jun 5, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions  

another question though.

why does team want to include team option in the contract instead of just making it unguaranteed? I know rookie contract has to have team options in final two years. But I just look around the league, many veteran players have contracts with team option in the final year instead of unguaranteed. Ex. Billups, Josh Howard, Andrew Bynum, Marquis Daniels…,etc.

by iverigma2 on Jun 4, 2009 1:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

the team probably wouldn't

but the player’s (and their agents!) would push/accept a team option before accepting an unguaranteed deal. of course they are going to start with neither (or even better – a player option), but in the end a 3rd year (even unguaranteed) is much better than a 2 year deal, because the 3rd year gives you full Bird rights.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

great post… especially the channing analysis.

by Ben Golliver on Jun 4, 2009 11:37 AM PDT reply actions  

Dave already loves you Ben.

Maybe even as much as you love Jerryd.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 4, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

miles

I hope Miles’ contract will only be an albatross on them for one year. Does it expire after that?

I am amazed at how low their payroll is right now. I would think we will be looking at way higher numbers a couple years from now. Max contracts for Roy and Aldridge just for starters.

Glad Paul Allen has deep pockets.

by lsjogren on Jun 4, 2009 11:38 AM PDT reply actions  

yep.

after 09-10, Miles’ is off the books for good

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

misc

I am suprised that Frye is viewed as having potential to get an offer over 4 mil. More power to him if that is the case.

by lsjogren on Jun 4, 2009 11:40 AM PDT reply actions  

A lot of talk about Sessions... 2 concerns

First is our long-term salary structure if we sign him to a deal, as discussed, starting at $5.5M and averaging $8M over 4-5 years. That means the last few years of that deal is going to be big money. We have a buch of inexpensive guys on the team that are going to get paid eventually. You know the list. Such a contract is likely going to push us into luxury tax territory in the future. OK… I know it’s just Paul Allen’s money, but I don’t have a problem with fiscal responsibility. I’m not sure Sessions is the guy I would want to lose all my future cap flexibility on. If we could get him starting at $5.5M with reasonable yearly increase for a 4-5 year deal that would be appealling.

That leads me to my 2nd concern. I wonder if all the hemming and hawing by the Bucks about not being able to match an aggressive offer for Sessions is a ruse. If they scare off all of the buyers for Sessions, then he might sign a 1 year deal and be an unrestricted free agent next year and really cash in without any limitations. They don’t want to do that. He would have a full year as the starting pg. Ridnour is not going to start for them next year if Sessions is on the roster. It costs Milwaukie a lot to keep him as an UFA the following year.
If, however, they get Sessions agent to agree with a team on a reasonable deal this off-season. They match it. Find another way to unload salary (ie dump Richard Jefferson’s deal) to stay under the cap. They come out smelling like a rose. Most teams take the approach Utah is taking with Millsap suggesting they will match any offer to scare teams away, but this Arenas rule may create a different situation. Maybe! Or maybe the Bucks are just preparing their fans to be disappointed.

by 52therim on Jun 4, 2009 11:41 AM PDT reply actions  

Is the management of the Bucks smart enough to pull that off???

Their past moves do not suggest an extremely high level of synaptic activity.

by 52therim on Jun 4, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

They just got a new GM around the draft last season.

Not enough time to brand them as good or not.

וָאֹמַר אוֹי-לִי כִי-נִדְמֵיתִי, כִּי אִישׁ טְמֵא-שְׂפָתַיִם אָנֹכִי, וּבְתוֹךְ עַם-טְמֵא שְׂפָתַיִם, אָנֹכִי יוֹשֵׁב: כִּי, אֶת-הַמֶּלֶךְ יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת--רָאוּ עֵינָי.

Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?

by T Darkstar on Jun 4, 2009 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is a great point,

A long-term deal for a guy who may or may not work out for us seems like a bad idea right now.

Bingo, bango, bongo!

by Babyshoes on Jun 4, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions  

That is exactly why I think the "lopsided deal" as mentioned by KP on the radio is the likliest scenario...

KP is gonna get a player that is more established than Sessions… like Kirk Hinrich via a lopsided trade. It is less risk…

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

This is the year to see what kind of tradster is KP

KP has been quite good at making draft deals, but has yet to make any major trades for veteran players. This is the year we find out.

There seems to be a ton of expectation that some miracle will happen. I’m not holding my breath. Trades for unproven assets are easier to pull off then trades for proven talent. That is another game entirely.

And even if you pull off a great trade on paper, the whole team chemistry thing is not determined until you’re well into the season.

by ralphzillo on Jun 4, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions  

isn't this the summer when

We can offer extensions to Roy and Aldridge to make sure we have them wrapped up past next year?

If so, how does that affect cap?

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 12:10 PM PDT reply actions  

yes

it will not affect the cap at all for 09-10, because their new contracts wouldn’t kick in until a year from now, going into the 10-11 season.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

thanks!

I thought I was missing something as I’ve been assuming resigning these two was our top off-season priority.

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

You're correct

But the extensions don’t have to be signed until October 31st. There’s time-a-plenty. My guess is that the front office focuses almost exclusively on the draft, free agency and trades until the end of July – at least – and then starts talking to the guys about possible extensions in earnest.

And, as douglast correctly states, any signed extensions for Roy and Aldridge will not affect the 2009-10 team salary figure.

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 2:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dunno

I mean tactics-wise, I’d want a max deal offered to Roy the day it’s allowed. I’d have it prepared well in advance and faxed to his agent early in the morning so it’d be waiting at his office when he got there.

This is not the negotiation in which we should risk any slights, real or imagined.

“This is as much as we can legally offer you for as long as we can legally offer it.”

That’s my advice to Blazers management, but I’m not a lawyer.

by sagcat on Jun 4, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

Its almost a certainty that....

BRoys next deal goes down exactly like that.

by Portland Dynasty on Jun 4, 2009 10:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

So

Is Storyteller Tom Penn and douglast KP or vice versa? In any case fantastic info.

Thank you.

I try to help with everything," Fernandez said. "If the coach says go rebound, I go rebound. I work for the team.

""If I'm playing this game to get media and attention, I shouldn't be here," Aldridge said. "I'm here to play basketball, and do what I can do to help this team win."

His stare became blank. It was apparent he was back in that place, on the Rose Garden's logo, picking up Aaron Brooks as the crowd nervously roared.

by Dragonage on Jun 4, 2009 1:09 PM PDT reply actions  

I wish...

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 4, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

then they would have to get paid.

this way KP & co. get the fruit of their labors for free.

see what dave said about sneaky bastards above.

"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.

by postup on Jun 4, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This is hilarious!

I can just picture it now. Tom Penn’s phone rings.

TP: This is Tom.

KP: Tom, it’s Kevin. Has that Storyteller guy updated his website yet?

TP: Nope, I just checked it a couple of minutes ago and there’s still no update.

KP: How does this guy expect us to evaluate possible trades if he doesn’t give us the most up-to-date information?

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

do you have good security on your pc?

i bet they’ve managed to infiltrate some form of spyware that notifies them whenever you update your site or post a fanpost. Like twitter for an IP address, chinese government style.

"We really don't reference the rulebook." ~Joe Borgia, NBA VP of referee operations, to Henry Abbot regarding the calling (or lack thereof) of traveling.

by postup on Jun 4, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

KP: Wait. What does Larry Coon's site say about this?

TP: I don’t know. I have a hard time finding stuff in there.

KP: He’s added an index with links.

TP: Really? Wait…COOL! Now I can finally figure out whether that Outlaw-for-Batman trade works.

KP: What’s with you people and Batman?!?

TP: Come on…small forward…utility belt.

KP: We already have a couple of promising, young small forwards.

TP: He might let you drive the Batmobile.

KP: Just Outlaw for him, did you say? Straight up?

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

From a profile of the Rockets assistant GM Sam Hinkie
When you first enter Hinkie’s office, it’s the walls which immediately grab your attention. Opposite the doorway is a giant flatscreen TV but, believe it or not, that’s probably the least interesting decorative device in the room. Far more intriguing is the wall behind his desk, filled as it is with magnets featuring the names of every NBA player – organized by team – and their current salary. Meanwhile, the adjacent wall doubles as a giant dry-erase board currently littered with a bevy of concepts and strategies for playing against (and hopefully defeating) the Utah Jazz.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

But if you see all that

then he has to kill you.

—Dave

by Dave on Jun 4, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions  

The same issue of the paper that profile ran in also included ....

… in the metro section an obituary of the reporter doing the profile.

When you think about it, not a bad way to fill up column space. Two stories for the price of one (reporter).

Besides, with all the papers going out of business, finding replacement reporters should be no problem.

hakkaa päälle !

by timg56 on Jun 5, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

jksnake99

Is that a job offer? I can send a resume if you need one……

by Storyteller on Jun 4, 2009 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

haha

I’m not in a position to be doing any hiring, but if I was Paul Allen, you and PoliSam would be at the top of my list.

by jksnake99 on Jun 4, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

DMEC?

Can the Blazers offer anyone Darius Miles Expiring Contract? If there was interest in RLEC, why not interest in DMEC? Wouldn’t that be helpful for the Blazers?

by PoliSam on Jun 4, 2009 4:47 PM PDT reply actions  

That would only have worked before the medical retirement

Now he is like a waived/bought out player a la Steve Francis. The Blazers gained a roster spot but after he came back still have to pay the guaranteed contract and the salary came back on the cap. He is no longer a player on the roster who can be traded.

It might have been the way to get more out of him (asking a player to stay away from the team with pay is possible, the Pacers are doing it with Jamaal Tinsley hoping to find some team to trade for him for a year now. Similar with the Knicks and Marbury before they bought him out), but now it’s too late.

by Norsktroll on Jun 4, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Thanks

I cannot decide if that rule makes sense, but it is what it is. I suppose that’s an additional reason for the Blazers to be upset about the medical retirement fiasco. If they had known Mile would be able to come back, then it would have been better to keep him on the roster.

by PoliSam on Jun 4, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions  

That would be nice.

That’s exactly what we could do if we hadn’t been screwed by the medical retirement rule. But since we did get screwed, even though he’s still on our cap, we technically don’t have his contract.

by pualo on Jun 4, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok - mud cleared up fine

I can’t decide if it is better that I am informed now or that the rest of the NBA might have been in the dark about the Blazer options before this post. Sigh – the price of greatness.

Thanks Dave and Storyteller and Norsktroll and Douglast. You all rock!

"What's so interesting is that this team took on a dynamic that was very special. I don't think we as a group, in terms of management, coaches and players, realize what we did as a young team. We broke all the metrics. We broke all the molds. Our challenge is can we continue to do that. As young of a team with 54 wins, no issues off the court, phenomenal chemistry." - Kevin Pritchard

by lee3022 on Jun 4, 2009 10:37 PM PDT reply actions  

You mean other GMs?

Oh, I’m sure they understood this. But it doesn’t change the fact that some teams are still in ‘sell’ mode going into the offseason. Knowing that the Blazers are ‘buying’ and that they have resources favorable to that position doesn’t necessarily create a deal-breaking situation.

But there’s still plenty of fans and media types who don’t understand. Of that I am certain……

by Storyteller on Jun 5, 2009 12:25 AM PDT up reply actions  

Dave it just hit me who I think KP is going after. Portland is going to trade Sergio to the east most likely.

No way you’re going to trade a guy that can average 10 assists a game in your own conference. Now Boston isn’t going to deal with Portland, they have been burnt too much.

The Blazers also aren’t looking for a shooting guard, power forward, or center. That leaves point guard and small forward. Though Batum and Webster basically lock up the small forward spot for Portland. That leaves Portland going after a point guard from the east.

What point guards from the east would make KP say a statement like, “you won’t believe who I’m talking about”? Better question, what teams want to trade and have a buzz worthy point guard? The New Jersey Nets.

I think New Jersey is going to send Portland Devin Harris and take in a cheap guard like Sergio, in order to have more money to pay Lebron.

by BRoyInThe4th on Jun 5, 2009 2:37 AM PDT reply actions  

If I were a Nets' fan, I'd be cheesed off with that deal.

LeBron + just ok players has not yet proven to be successful in the playoffs. You might argue that Vinsanity and Lopez are better than just ok, but I think LeBron is looking for a Jordan + Pippen + role players kind of team.

by torsoheap on Jun 5, 2009 3:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

I've thought about this move too....

it’d be Sergio, Blake, Rudy, and Travis, Frye and some fake contract (like Raef’s).

Basically getting them 3 max contracts under the salary cap for next year. And we’d take on Devin Harris, and Vince Carter.

by as11osu on Jun 5, 2009 3:50 AM PDT up reply actions  

Take a look at what they could do for 2010 (if the cap is 60 million)

They’d have cheap contracts…

Yi (4 million)
Rudy (1 million)
Brook Lopez (2 million)
Ryan Anderson (1 mllion)
Brandon Jennings (1 mllion)

Putting them at 51 mllion under the salary cap.
17 million LBJ
17 million Bosh
17 million Wade

Did I just scare the crap out of you? Good. Keep this in mind.

by as11osu on Jun 5, 2009 4:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Crikey.

That would be an awesome team.

by torsoheap on Jun 5, 2009 5:17 AM PDT up reply actions  

couldn't quite pull that off

if they really only had 5 guys under contract, add about 6 million in roster charges, which would cut down their available money to $45 million.

How did you guys win that?
"We scored enough points. We scored 107, they scored 105.
-Nate McMillan Postgame, 3/4/2009

by douglast on Jun 5, 2009 6:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Devin Harris is BYC

I just noticed these three letters next to Harris’ name on the ESPN trade machine. I don’t know all the intricacies re: base year compensation but B.Y.C. might as well stand for “ain’t gonna happen”

by two4larue on Jun 6, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oops my bad

upon further review, Harris’ BYC expires on July 1st

carry on…I will do cartwheels if KP finally pulls off a Devin deal

by two4larue on Jun 6, 2009 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

aarg

Man, I hope there’s some article out there someone has written that explains all these rules in a systematic way. This stuff is confusing as hell.

I particularly like this one:

“You need to have 12 players under contract at all time in the offseason or you immediately get a roster charge "

I guess that is sort of like putting only 4 players on the floor during a game?

by lsjogren on Jun 6, 2009 1:30 AM PDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

A site by Blazer fans, for Blazer fans
Start posting about the Trail Blazers »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

Connect_with_facebook

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

No_doubt_about_it_shirt_small
How the L*k*rs became the lakers - thank you, Albus Dumbledore
Jma_small
A player groups approach to the rotation
Deathnote-movie_small
Rudy's blog: A long dream and the nightmare of Mills
Dsc05510_small
Pickup Basketball in Haiti (updated with a pictures link)
Summer_04-_05_073_small
Stand, Pat. Now sit. Staaaaaay...There's a good boy!

Recent FanPosts

Arkitect_small
9-9-10 Junk of my depression
Roy2_small
Free Agents for the taking
Small
Do we need a/some 3-point specialist/s?
Small
Improving Rudy's Trade Value
Small
NBA Jam East Roster
Dscn1600_small
Jumbled Junk 9/8/10-- Fall Edition
Small
where have all our whipping boys gone?
Small
A Good Bet?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

FanShots

Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.

Recommended FanShots

Bill Bayno interviewed on WaW (Sept 1, hour 2)
Arvydas with the Laser Background. 

Because hey, why not?
France vs Lith on now! World Championships
Finally a Portland Trail Blazer theme that channels that 1977 spirit. 2010 could be a great year for the Portland Trail Blazer if Oden stays healthy and LaMarcus can soak up a little of that Buck Williams toughness! GO BLAZERS
NBA Fanhouse story on Nic Batum at the FIBA World Championship

Recent FanShots

Van Exel added to the Hawks staff
ESPN the Mag's Feature Story on Wes Matthews (insider)
Travis Outlaw 2010 Summer Workout
Mike Born Talks From Turkey
Rudy is my player (Nate McMillan).
Cho Has Yet To Call Knicks About Rudy
Some information regarding how much cable TV channels cost
I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but to take a snapshot of this and upload it here after I found it plastered over all of our lockers in studio.
Rudy's Blog
Newsday: Latest on Rudy

+ New FanShot All FanShots >

SBNation.com Recent Stories

LAS VEGAS - JULY 24:  Chauncey Billups #4 and Jeff Green #12 of the 2010 USA Basketball Men's National Team try to stop Kevin Durant #5 of the 2010 USA Basketball Men's National Team during a USA Basketball showcase at the Thomas & Mack Center on July 24 2010 in Las Vegas Nevada.  (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images) +4 updates

FIBA World Championship 2010: Team USA Blows Out Angola, Advances To Quarterfinals

PHOENIX - SEPTEMBER 05:  Sue Bird #10 of the Seattle Storm puts up a shot against the Phoenix Mercury in Game Two of the Western Conference Finals during the 2010 WNBA Playoffs at US Airways Center on September 5 2010 in Phoenix Arizona.  NOTE TO USER: User expressly acknowledges and agrees that by downloading and or using this photograph User is consenting to the terms and conditions of the Getty Images License Agreement.  (Photo by Christian Petersen/Getty Images) +1 updates

Bird's Game-Winner Sends Seattle Storm Into WNBA Finals

Partizan Belgrade forward Strahinja Milosevic, left, looks to take a shot as Phoenix Suns forward Jared Dudley, right, defends in the third quarter of an NBA exhibition game Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009, in Phoenix. The Suns won 111-80. (AP Photo/Paul Connors) link

Jared Dudley Talks About Expectations For Suns, His Role And Contract (And Bobbleheads)

More from SBNation.com >


Editors

Kitten_small Dave

Headshotsmall_small Ben Golliver

Moderators

Pict1126_small -ken

No_doubt_about_it_shirt_small jorga

Terryporter_small prezofdeath

Small usmcr3049

Lamb_small T Darkstar

Wallpaper_small geoffm