Cap Space 2010 - edited w credit to douglast
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 8:39 AM PDT
112 comments
So I'll leave a lot of this to the cap gurus and the folks inclined to really do the research, but Mike Barrett on the radio got me to thinking. The assumption here is that this is our last chance, after this year cap space is gone for a long time. Is that true?
Next year:
D Miles comes off the books 9M
Outlaw expires 5M
Blake expires 6M
Joel opts out. 7M
Even with Roy and LMA signed to long term agreements, there is cap space there, a lot of it.
Am I wrong?
douglast in a comment below did the heavy lifting:
I re-ran the numbers and was surprised by what I found. Here you go:
Players:
LaMarcus 12,000,000 (assumes extension starting at that amount. if not extended, his cap hold is over 14 mil)
Brandon 13,500,000 (assumes max extension. alternate cap hold amount is 11,732,448)
Martell 4,773,218
Greg Oden 6,760,524
Bayless 2,292,600
Rudy 1,246,680
Nicolas 1,196,760
Euros:
Claver 1,088,800
Freeland 886,000
Koponen 886,000
Roster Charges:
player 11 473,604
player 12 473,604
This totals 45,577,790. Or about 12-13 million under the cap. not enough for a max player, but certainly enough for the next tier of players after that.
5 recs |
112 comments
Email
Print
Comments
That all hinges on a huge assumption, and your numbers are off
What if Joel doesn’t opt out? He could stink next year, get hurt, whatever. Or just decide that he would make more in his current contract.
Outlaw makes $3.6M, not 5. Blake makes $4M not 6. Not going to have cap space.
by AndrewD on Jul 7, 2009 8:52 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Even using your numbers (which are off high)
You have 27 million dollars listed. Roy gets a max deal no questions asked, and LaMarcus is going to easily be in the 12-14 million per range. The 27 million you have listed above, yeah, gone in those 2 guys. Even if you could get Roy and LMA to sign discount deals (ain’t going to happen, shouldn’t happen) at best you have 2-3 million dollars in cap space, not exactly money that is going to sign anyone of significance in ’10.
by diskord on Jul 7, 2009 8:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
why so much for LMA?
I don’t think he’s come even close to that. I think he’s a really nice player, but from what we’ve seen so far, he’s in the $10m/yr range, and anything on top of that is being awful generous. That’s near-MAX, and LMA is not a currently a near-MAX.
by matthewcc on Jul 7, 2009 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see the article by Quick? His agent has printed a booklet showing all kinds of stats that show LMA is better than some huge earners
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/06/rip_city_revival_faith_keeps_l.html
He knows and fully accepts Roy will get more, but I would be surprised if he would accept a bargain deal far away from the max.
The booklet was prepared by the Wasserman Media Group, the powerful agency for which Tellem works, and it no doubt will land on the desk of Blazers general manager Kevin Pritchard.
The booklet notes the average salary for a starting power forward not on his rookie contract is $13.4 million a year.
It highlights that statistically, Aldridge ranks as the NBA’s sixth best power forward behind Pau Gasol, Bosh, Tim Duncan, Antawn Jamison and Dirk Nowitzki. Those players averaged $14.6 million last season.
The statistics, charts and comparisons go on for about 50 pages, all of them centered around how much other players are making, and how Aldridge is just as good, if not better.
The booklet is the product of an agency that has done its homework, and an indication that Aldridge’s representatives are ready to roll up their sleeves and fight for their client.
Aldridge is quite pleased with the booklet, for it plays to his personality while stroking his sometimes fragile ego.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offensively, Yes
Defensively, Oh no…
My avatar is 3 years into the future for sure...
by Taskmaster on Jul 7, 2009 12:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
he will base his price
off of similar players that got re upped at that price like Bogut and Okafor
we would like to get him for a david west price, but that is aiming a little low
Life is exhausting when you are this stupid.
I will talk about DeJuan Blair no more forever
by jonestr on Jul 7, 2009 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LMA will get a max deal, or very, very, very close to one.
"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 Jul 7, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we don't pay him big...
…someone else will.
Guaranteed.
An Oregonian in Texas.
by NoiseMekanik on Jul 7, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, the 27 million doesn't represent a 27 million increase in salary. The increase is 27 million
minus whatever they will be paid next year.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are both on the rookie scale
it’s something like… a million bucks each. I think LaMarcus might be closer to 2 million because of his draft position, but both are peanuts.
by diskord on Jul 7, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Barrett was pretty sure Joel would opt out and test the market.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 9:05 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is why it would be benifitial to us to...
1st sign Brandon Bass
2nd trade Trout in a lopsided trade to a team looking to clear cap space in 2010 for either a decent replacement for Joel or a good 1st round draft pick and make a run at Cole Aldrich (Pryz 2.0)
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Jul 7, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no way to be sure about anything
that won’t happen for at least a year…Things change, rapidly.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was about to post this.
I re-ran the numbers and was surprised by what I found. Here you go:
Players:
LaMarcus 12,000,000 (assumes extension starting at that amount. if not extended, his cap hold is over 14 mil)
Brandon 13,500,000 (assumes max extension. alternate cap hold amount is 11,732,448)
Martell 4,773,218
Greg Oden 6,760,524
Bayless 2,292,600
Rudy 1,246,680
Nicolas 1,196,760
Euros:
Claver 1,088,800
Freeland 886,000
Koponen 886,000
Roster Charges:
player 11 473,604
player 12 473,604
This totals 45,577,790. Or about 12-13 million under the cap. not enough for a max player, but certainly enough for the next tier of players after that.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:08 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
assumptions:
Joel opts out of 7,405,300 for 10-11 and is renounced
Outlaw is renounced next summer
Blake is renounced next summer
Anyone we get now for 09-10 is on a 1 year deal and is renounced next summer
Of course you wouldn’t have to renounce any or all of these guys until you need the space, but in order to get it, you would.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
slight correctly
If Roy is given a max extention it will start at 25% of the cap, so using the predicted $57 million cap number that means Roy’s deal will start at $14.25 million next year. So that eats up a little more space, but the biggest issue I see with the Blazers “counting” on having cap space next year is Joel. $7.4+ million is alot to give up, he might not get more than that, as he will be on the wrong side of 30, and there will be alot of big name FA next year which could drown him out. If he doesn’t opt out then the Blazers will be between $52 and $53 million in payroll, without their starting PG signed, and without their 6th man signed. The commish has even said that the cap might fall again that summer down to as little as $55 million, which would leave the Blazers with nothing as far as cap room is concerned.
This is why this summer is more important, this is why it is seen as the time to make a deal if a deal is to be made. While it is possible to have some cap space next year if all the chips fall in place correctly, it is nothing to count on, and the Blazers are not counting on it, and neither should we.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
usmcr -
They use a different ‘base number’ for determining maximum salary amounts.
When determining the salary cap, they use 51% of expected revenue. When determining maximum salary amounts, they use 48.04% of expected revenue. So although you’re correct in that 25% is used to determine Brandon’s maximum salary, it’s 25% of a figure slightly less than the actual salary cap. That’s why douglast is using an estimated $13.5 million.
And, yes, I know that it’s confusing, but that’s the way it is……
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
bah, you just beat me
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if the Cap is lower this year
Does that mean we should make the effort to get Roy signed to an extention this season so we would pay him less then say next year when the Cap will most likely go up again
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Jul 7, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cap is actually
projected to go down even more next year.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this sounds confusing, and it is, but
the “cap number” used to compute the “25% of the cap” is actually different than the actual salary cap. I know, it’s insane, but that’s the story. Larry Coon’s FAQ, question 11, look at the asterisks. I based my projection for Roy’s 25% on Chris Paul and Deron Williams’ recent extensions. They are projected to start at 13,758,000. But since the cap is supposed to go down somewhat, my assumption is that the number used to calculate 25% will to, so Roy’s number might be a tad lower than that.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol
Well I guess it is true what they say about getting too many heads together, they are not always better than one.
Which is a way to say, that is way too complicated, it could be way easier.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now renounce Freeland and Koponen and you have close to 15 million.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 9:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really
if you renounce them, you have to add back in another 473,604 roster charge for each one. so you are only cutting about 400k each off the bottom line.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I added this to my original post and gave you credit - if that's not ok with you let me know and I'll remove it.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no problem
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you might want to fix the bolding that i messed up in my comment, for readability
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cap will come down next year. A lot. A number of teams positioning themselves for LeBron & Co. will be very disappointed.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To put a number to it: I would guesstimate $4 million lower than this year. Hollinger assumes $6 million.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 9:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I read on ESPN
approximated this years cap at $57, and next years at $55 million.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 9:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That is likely a best-case scenario. I think the $6 million was something Hollinger said "might" happen, so take that as the lower level.
The cap follows the actual figures with some delay, Mark Cuban claims it’s pretty much one year even though the accountants are allegedly supposed to figure it out between the end of the season and the end of the moratorium. What keeps it from crashing down hard is the TV deal the NBA has in place with TNT and ABC/ESPN, which is still going on for several years and fills their vault. Also some teams are still big luxury tax payers. However the NBA has already used this TV deal as collateral to take up a debt, so it’s basically their mortgage. Attendance was down last year and will be down next year. Season ticket sales will be down in a lot of arenas. And even the people sitting in the seats are just paying big discounts for teams like NJ, Memphis, Minny, Milwaukee, etc. Even Dallas has lowered prices. Concession sales are going slow since that is something many fans can easily skip. Sponsorship deals in cities like Detroit and Charlotte are going slow, same with the profitable suites. Merchandise sales for bad teams are going slow. All in all it’s pretty bleak for next year, even if that is likely the nadir and the stock market and the economy could rebound then.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A question for you or someone else who might know
Roster Charges, we know a team must have 12 players under contract, if they don’t then a roster charge of $473,604 will be added for each spot under 12. But do the Euro’s count in that 12, if they are not signed to contracts? I would assume they do not count, and if that is the case then you have to add in about another $1.4 million in cap holds.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 9:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they do count according to the sources I've seen/read on the subject.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They do, as does current first round pick Claver and any players offered a new contract
Second round picks only count if they are actually offered/signed to a contract. Darius Miles doesn’t according to some discussion I had with douglast and Storyteller. It’s still pretty unlikely we will have to add a roster charge this season.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OKAY, this is sort of off the wall, but maybe somebody can answer this...
KP picked Claver in the 1st Round instead of the 2nd because something went haywire with a trade he had in the wings and he freaked out and moved to get Claver early.
This means he is subject to the rookie scale rather than being free to negotiate his price. Which makes it hard to compete with European clubs for 4 years, who can pay more.
The question is this: Is there any rule which prevents the Blazers from making Claver one of the 12 guys counted on the cap BUT allowing him to collect a second paycheck in Europe at the same time? In other words, to run out the Rookie Scale clock for a couple years, with the understanding that Claver will happily take the “pay cut” in years 3 and 4 since he has been “double dipping” at the Blazers expense in years 1 and 2???
In other words, Euroteam pays him, say $2M and $2M in years 1 and 2 to play for them….
Blazers pay him $1M and $1.25M in years 1 and 2 (just making these numbers up) NOT to play for them…
Victor then comes over in year 3 and takes the rookie scale $1.5M and $1.75M (again, just making the numbers) up TO play for the Blazers, which might represent a pay cut from the $3M or whatever that he might make in each year in Europe… BUT since he was “overpaid” in years 1 and 2 by double-dipping, he doesn’t lose much in the transaction…
Following this?
Is that somehow prohibited? Must a paid roster player actually play for the team paying him???
"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 Jul 7, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not sure, but I don’t think that is allowed.
I find the following scenario much more likely: let Claver spend three seasons abroad, at which point his starting salary is negotiable. This is how San Antonio is going to sign Europe’s best center, Tiago Splitter, in the summer of 2010.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the 4 rookie cap years kept rolling forward — does the clock actually run out on them automatically?
"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 Jul 7, 2009 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
here’s a basic rundown, provided by 48minutesofhell.com, Truehoop’s Spurs blog.
Essentially, it appears that after three seasons, a team is allowed to dip into their MLE to sign a first round pick.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Coincidentally, Claver’s European contract with Pamesa Valencia ends in 2012… three years from the time he was drafted.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 4 years start when you sign the contract and start playing. it doesn't roll forward before you sign
however, there apparently is a provision which allows the team/player to bypass the rookie scale entirely – essentially operating like a 2nd roundpick. That mechanism is by letting 3 years pass. So, in Claver’s case, if he signed a deal with Portland in 2009, 2010, or 2011, he would be subject to the rookie salary scale for 4 years, starting with the year he signs his contract. But if he waits until summer 2012, then we can use part or all of the MLE to sign him if we want.
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 Jul 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Will Claver be restricted or not?
Draft Cole Aldrich 2010
by jlarose78 on Jul 7, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
After three years without signing, they could offer him whatever they want up to MLE-level salary
Which is what the Spurs will do next year with Splitter.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 12:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cablinasian was faster :)
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely prohibited
Players with active NBA contracts cannot play for another franchise or overseas. The only exception I know of is allowing players to play in the D-League.
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't forget
that Portland has a 1st round pick that will have a cap hold as well.
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point
i suppose if we are going for space, we could sell it if need be. if not, add in another 1 million roughly
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well 1 million minus the roster charge that the 1st round pick hold would replace
so about 525k net added
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
douglast, just FYI
The cap holds, assuming that Portland doesn’t sign the Euros this summer will be as follows:
Claver – $1,045,600
Freeland – $850,800
Koponen – $850,800
Their cap hold ‘re-sets’ to the first year amount of their rookie salary slot if they don’t get an NBA contract this season.
Not enough difference to make an impact in this thread, but as I said, just FYI…..
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was just using what you had slotted for them in the 2010-11 column of your new spreadsheet.
;-)
but thanks for the update
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 Jul 7, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I know
It’s just one of those technical things….
My numbers are mostly concerned with ’what’s the current picture’ and not ’what’s the likely picture’. In this case, those two are slightly different.
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i see that
i was too lazy to go look up/figure out what the cap hold would be next summer, and I knew it was only a couple hundred thousand difference total, if that, so it didn’t matter that much.
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 Jul 7, 2009 10:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Am I wrong
saying that the cap holds for our euros disappear after the first game in the regular season?? Another reason for us to hold out?
by Salem Team Regional on Jul 7, 2009 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
get rid of two of those guys and bring the third over, i'll let the talent scouts decide
by StocktonNEP on Jul 7, 2009 11:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Freeland and Claver are both very nice prospects. Koponen, less likely to come over.
by Cablinasian on Jul 7, 2009 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was under the impression that
the Blazers would not be players in the 2010 free agent mess… besides the mid-level exception.
by Escrote on Jul 7, 2009 9:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
MLE
might pick up a nice player in ’10. Maybe someone who gets left out in the frenzy"?
Come on you gotta listen unto me,
lay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be. ~Johnny Cash
by HurraKane212 on Jul 7, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is the correct
assumption.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Three problems
1. Unlike this year, to create the cap space, we would have to gut a decent chunk of our roster. Losing Joel, TO, and Blake is significant. We would need a relatively significant piece in return to make renouncing those guys worth while, which leads into my second point…
2. Given all the teams gunning to create far more cap space next summer, I doubt the Blazers would be able to acquire a significant player through free agency in the $10-15M range. Even this year, when there is relatively little competition from other teams with cap space, we have been unable to recruit a significant player. I realize the list of available guys is much larger next year, but I don’t really see a star opting to come here for $10-15M when there are more desirable locations willing to pay them.
I suppose we could use the cap space to swing an unbalanced trade with a team looking to clean their roster out to make a big singing, but that is equally true this year.
3. As per Dave’s main post today, we need to start solidifying things and answering questions, not putting them off for another year. If there’s some amazing opportunity that will be available to us next year, then maybe this makes sense. Simply deferring cap space to avoid answering the hard questions now does not seem like a great idea to me.
Props for dispelling the rumor that we will never have cap space again, however.
by DC Blazer on Jul 7, 2009 9:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
keep in mind, this is just an illustration of what is POSSIBLE, not necessarily what is advocated or likely.
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 Jul 7, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right, the point is that there are options. Renouncing Outlaw and Blake
may not seem palatable now, but it might make more sense than using them in a trade if the main reason you are trading is because you think you have no choice.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 10:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
while you have shown it is POSSIBLE
I think many need to be informed that it is not PROBABLE.
Assuming Joel opts out, is a bad assumtion, $7+ million is something he won’t get more than next summer with a smaller cap, and possible large number of higher profile FA on the market.
Assuming LMA doesn’t get a max deal, seems right as a fan, but if we are wrong and the team gives him that deal, then there goes another $2 million or so.
If those two things go opposite of the assumtion, then the Blazers have no cap space next year, without signing Blake or Outlaw. They basically will have wasted a year in my opinion if that happens.
They Blazers will make a move this summer becuase it is something they can control, they KNOW what they have and there for can make a decision. Waiting till next year on the hope that they might have cap space is a gamble that they will not take.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
disagree on Joel
I would put money down right now that Joel will get more than 7.4 million next summer. A rebounding, defensive, 7 foot 1 inch center on the market with that kind of money available? Once the big dominos fall, there will still be a LOT of cap room to be had, and Joel will be an attractive option for a LOT of teams. Even if he doesn’t get a raise, he can still lock in 4 years or so starting at the same rate rather than staying here for 10-11, seeing his PT (and value) diminish, and having to settle for an MLE at best.
Don’t disagree with your base premise that this option is not probable – it really isn’t. But the point is to dissuade those who are willng to “settle” for a craptacular FA signing or trade because they think it is the only thing we can do.
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 Jul 7, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then we agree
I don’t want any of the FA’s left, except some vet minimum type guys, either. I just don’t want someone to read this and really believe that the teams best option is to wait until next year, because most likely that would end badly for the Blazers.
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You could also trade Martell to someone who has cap space in an
unbalanced trade or a tram with a trade exception.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 10:04 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
team with a trade exception....
Anyway, that’s another 4.5 million.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
was gonna say
we have too many overpriced trams as it is
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 Jul 7, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't put off for "tomorrow"
what you should be accomplishing during this FA period
we have heard enough of these “the grass will be greener, later” promises last February. It’s time for KP to bite the bullet and take a chance trading one of these young players to get a veteran who can help out Brandon (etc)
They’ve certainly had enough time to evaluate all the young players. No risk, no reward
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jul 7, 2009 10:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
agreed
we should be making the best unbalanced trade(s) we can this summer. But this post illustrates that we don’t need to allow ourselves to be extorted out of a fear of not having any other options.
If we don’t make a big deal this summer, I’m going to assume it’s because the asking price has been too high. I’d be disappointed, but I would accept it and roll into the season, with the idea that things change and an in-season trade may be a better option or a more reasonable asking price.
Kind of like a game of chicken – who’s gonna blink first. A hypothetical: Let’s say Charlotte wants to dump Wallace and his contract. They are demanding Batum, Rudy, and Outlaw. We are unwilling to part with both Batum and Rudy. We are at an impasse. Either they blink and agree to something less, or we blink and give them what they want. Or nothing gets done. Fast forward to December. Maybe they are now even more desperate to do the deal and come back to us willing to take less.
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 Jul 7, 2009 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
but in that game of "chicken"
If nobody blinks, KP is going to drive the capspace off a cliff in mid-February
and his rival GMs know this, so KP’s leverage “should” be reduced as we get nearer to that date
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jul 7, 2009 11:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
id rather let the capspace go
than relinquish too much in a trade for a guy is a sub-optimal fit for us anyway.
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 Jul 7, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The capspace goes into Paul Allen's wallet, just like the RLEC insurance money did... So there is a cost in doing the deal, the loss of $$$$$$.
"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 Jul 7, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line
We only have cap space next year, really, if Joel opts out AND we both do not sign him and we renounce our Bird rights AND we let Blake go AND we let Travis go. Otherwise, we have less than MLE available, so we will just keep our exceptions.
If you are dreaming of cap space next year, you are counting on Joel, Travis, and Steve being gone. That is the only way we have any cap space for a free agent. If so, you would be better off trading Joel those guys and getting something for them — because even so, you won’t have enough space to get anything more than a good role player.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 7, 2009 11:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
"if so, you MIGHT be better off trading Joel, Outlaw, Blake and getting something for them"
we don’t really know, no one does. The question becomes can we get more by trading those 3 guys NOW (or in-season), or by using the 13 million in cap space next summer? Good question, wish I knew. Assuming the target would (should!) be a PG, we should consider who’s going to be on the market next summer:
-Rondo (Restricted if not extended this summer)
-Alston
-Duhon
-Livingston
-Nash (but he might be extended this summer)
-Foye (restricted if not extended this summer).
Not exactly a stellar crop. Nash will be ancient and Rondo is unlikely to be had. Given that, I’d rather make a trade now or in-season.
Also, if we trade Joel now, we have to be getting a serviceable (or better) center back, especially since Greg still has availability questions right now. Next summer, we might know more about that, and thus be able to get away with a lesser player as his backup.
It’s definately deferring the decisions that need to be made, and it is potentially a high risk move, which is why I don’t like the option, nor consider it very likely at all.
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 Jul 7, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed on all points
Except we don’t have to get a serviceable center in the same deal as which we trade Joel. If we trade Joel, unless it is for an absolute max guy, we are still going to have some cap space to work with, and we still have a lot of young talent sitting around.
So if it is the right guy, we can afford to let Joel go and then work another deal for a backup center. And if we grab a strong PF to backup LMA, we can let LMA be our main backup center, and get by with a lesser talent at backup center. So we really need either an adequate center to back up Greg OR a very good PF.
I think guys like that can be found.
But you’d better get someone very good for him if you let Joel go. Very, very good — the kind of player that makes you say, “We can contend right now.”
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 7, 2009 1:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't make sense
for the reasons that others have mentioned.
1. You make zero moves this year. No help. No lopsided trades. You don’t have any option to take on salary.
2. You’re planning on losing Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, and Joel Przybilla. Keep in mind that you cannot retain them and then sign them again using Bird Rights once you’ve used your cap space. You have to renounce them in order to get the space in the first place.
You give up the opportunity cost of anyone who could help you this year plus three players in order to get roughly the same amount of cap space next summer that you have this year and a chance (just a chance) at signing someone. Plus if it didn’t work by the time you figured that out it would be too late. That’s a huge risk to take for the possible right to sign New York’s leftovers.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 12:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Were in exactly that situation right now, except you are proposing trading them
for leftovers, rather than using their salaries to buy leftovers.
And, 2) practically no one is proposing making zero moves this year. Most people are against swapping massive amounts of young talent for old talent.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
at least not old talent that is a poor fit.
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 Jul 7, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree with the idea that they are leftovers
Half the teams (maybe more) in the league would love a starting lineup that included Lee, Hinrich and Battier. We’re talking about bringing them in as support players. That’s strong.
by Storyteller on Jul 7, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Those guys are all legitimate NBA starters, arguably top 15 in the league at their position. One of them (Lee) wouldn’t even start for us.
When I rule the world, everyone will know how to use Excel.
by jscot on Jul 7, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know exactly what you're talking about here
The point I’m trying to make is that in order to preserve cap space for next year, as you are suggesting is possible, you could not execute any trades or make any signings beyond one-year minimum guys this year. This isn’t a value judgment on the merits of players, it’s a specific, technical cap issue. If you were to use any of this year’s cap space for a free agent or a lopsided trade you would not have it next year. Even if you were to do an even, straight-across trade of guys like Blake, Outlaw, or Przybilla you still would lose cap space next year because you’d be getting players whose contracts ran into next summer.
As far as the “leftovers” designation, it applies far more next year than this. If you execute a trade this summer with cap space you have almost no competition left. The Blazers are among the only teams that capability. The free agent market is another matter. Both the free agent market and the trade market will be more intense next summer. The Blazers won’t get any farther up the ladder by waiting. In fact they will likely be farther down. So you’ve lost a year to end up in at best an equal position, more likely a worse one. Definitely a worse one when you consider that you’ve lost Pryzbilla, Blake, and Outlaw to get to that point.
I don’t get how Point 2 applies to the issue of cap space this summer or next. I’m confused as to why it’s in there.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2) applies because I think you are setting up strawmen to beat down in support of your own point of view.
You seem to be saying that unless one is for wholesale restructuring, one is for doing nothing.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your attribution of my motive
is completely off-base. I guess this is the part I don’t get.
There are 10 players on the Blazers’ active roster right now:
Przybilla
Aldridge
Oden
Webster
Blake
Roy
Outlaw
Bayless
Fernandez
Batum
If you want to preserve cap space for next summer you must immediately take three of those out of consideration for trades: Pryzbilla, Outlaw, and Blake. You cannot trade them without losing cap space because you’re depending on dropping those contracts to get the cap space. Also Martell Webster is probably not trade-able right now.
Neither can you sign a free agent because that loses you next summer’s cap space too.
So when you say, “Nobody is proposing making zero moves” but you’re also positing that we preserve the cap space you’re talking about, then the only remaining option left is using the other six for trades: Roy, Aldridge, Oden, Fernandez, Batum, Bayless. Ironically enough, those are exactly the players people least want to part with, the same players that people consider “wholesale changes”.
If you preserve cap space you mentioned one of the following must be true:
1. You trade players (probably more than one because their salaries aren’t huge) from the core six.
Or…
2. You literally cannot make any moves.
There’s no strawman there that I can see.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we COULD (not saying should)
sign some combination of Pendergraph, Cunningham and Mills to 1 year deals (perhaps with options for year two) and /or maybe add a veteran deep bench guy (or two) on a minimum contract, and enter the year as-is. We can wait to see if better options for unbalanced trades develop throughout the year up until the trade deadline – or even at the draft. Our lineup is largely unchanged from last year, except Frye is out, Webster is in (?) and Bayless takes Sergio’s minutes. That’s essentially the same team we rolled with last year, so it’s not farfetched.
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 Jul 7, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess the point is
I’d rather stand pat than “reach” for non-ideal fits that don’t meet our chief needs and/or we would pay a premium for. I’m still waiting to hear of a realistic deal that doesn’t feel like we are reaching and/or overpaying for guy(s) who don’t appear to meet our primary needs.
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 Jul 7, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah
That part can be argued all day. (And I’m sure will be all summer and maybe beyond.) But wherever you end up on it, it’s still true that if the Blazers end up not making a move it wasn’t because that’s the outcome they wanted, it’s because (as you say) literally nothing was out there for them to get. That would be a semi-serious setback in their plans.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But what you consider to be a "non-ideal fit" may be different than KP or Nate's opinion
This quote from Andy Miller (Rudy’s agent) caught my attention
“I don’t think they operate like everyone else, where they have to fit everyone into a hole,” Bartelstein said of the Blazers. “They work to acquire great, young players and they make it work. And that’s what I think they are doing, trying to get the best players they can. And if (Pritchard) has an over-abundance of bigs? That’s a good position to be in in the NBA.”
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2009/07/blazers_next_move_is_a_mystery.html
When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!
by two4larue on Jul 7, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
clearly
as evidenced by the Blazer’s claims (if true) that upgrading the point guard is not on their priority list really at all. And by the fact that they have shown zero interest in any of the veteran backup 4s out there.
so, I’m not exactly sure what the plan is. The Hedo move made it clear to me that they were looking for a versatile player who can create for himself and others. I"m on board with that, but don’t see a lot of those guys out there.
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 Jul 7, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's definitely not far-fetched
to see the team go into the season without having made a move. In fact I think it’s quite possible that the Blazers try to raid somebody in December/January when that other team’s season isn’t stacking up right. But taking it past the trade deadline would be pretty far-fetched. And making a move in December would still harpoon any cap space for 2010 just the same as one in August would.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
i guess the point is that if you are going to roll into the season as is, it’s because you are holding out for a better/different deal(s) than we can get now. But the risk of course is that you have to be willing to sit on your hands if that doesn’t materialize.
Personally, I think waiting until December-February is a reasonable risk. Teams will be looking for that last little bit of capspace for 2010, and a team like us with two mid-size expirings plus capspace will be one of only a couple of teams who can facilitate deals. If we’ve answered some questions concerning Martell, Rudy, Bayless, and Batum, all the better. The question then becomes can we put together a better offer than Memphis or OKC can? I think we can, because while all 3 teams will have space and expirings, we also could have 2 young guys on good contracts to move, while the other teams won’t.
By all means, make some moves now if they fill our needs. But if not, I’d wait.
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 Jul 7, 2009 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To me
there’s not a jot more risk waiting until February than there is making a deal in August. I’m all for it if we think we can get the better deal then. That’s all covered under making a move “this year”.
I’d like the summer better for continuity/chemistry reasons but getting the right talent and fit is more important than those.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would be a bit worried they wouldn't make a move (again) waiting in vain for a team to implode
Although that time KP might be forced to without getting the perfect no-risk deal. Hedo was a somewhat risky proposition already.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Seems like we've been waiting for this mythical implosion for a while now
waiting till the deadline last year to move Raef, waiting for teams to evaluate financials this offseason, and now potentially waiting till this deadline. At some point, we’re going to have to realize that a Pau Gasol trade isn’t walking through the door.
My only issue with waiting until this deadline is that it puts a lot of urgency on us to make a move before our cap space expires, so we have less leeway in the sense of being able to tell teams that we’re completely willing to just sit on not making a move.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, the risk is similar to what it was by not moving Raef
that we are shunning possible deals now in hopes of getting a better one later.
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 Jul 7, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It may or may not be. I don't advocate it as a strategy, but the point was, and remians,
that the “now or never” mantra is, well, incorrect. The idea that this is the Blazers last chance to sign a free agent for the next decade is, well, wrong.
The point is not to deal from a position of weakness because you think your options are closing off.
This is arguably the best time to use cap space, it is demonstrably not the only time that cap space can be used.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The cost of a FA right now is nothing
the cost of a FA you’re talking about next year above the MLE is…
Steve Blake, Travis Outlaw, Joel Przybilla. In your plan they may as well just disappear.
by as11osu on Jul 7, 2009 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where did I say it was my plan? Please don't put words in my mouth.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 1:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
no need to get defensive
as11osu makes a good point.
If the team decides that no deals this summer are good enough, and moves on without making even a single move, because they believe they will have cap space in 2010 to sign a FA then, then if they sign that FA, the cost will be Blake, Outlaw, and Joel, plus the cost of the FA contract.
Where as if they make a move this summer, they could sign a FA while losing nothing if they choose.
Trades are another thing, I don’t think it would matter this year or next year, (if the assumptions made come true).
Ben II Blazersedge.com || New to Blazers' Edge?
by usmcr3049 on Jul 7, 2009 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, so which FA do you want to sign right now?
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 Jul 7, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which free agent would we sign next year? (As stated above I think the cap will be so low we can't)
Excluding team options, it’s safe to assume teams will pull team options on top players. Some remotely interesting targets:
PG: Rajon Rondo (RFA, likely to get re-signed or traded with extension until then), Derek Fisher (UFA), Jordan Farmar (RFA), Luke Ridnour (UFA), Shaun Livingston (UFA), Steve Nash (UFA, unless he re-signs until then in Phoenix or NY), Sergio Rodriguey (RFA, just for good measure)
SF: LeBron James (UFA, snowball’s chance in hell he comes to Portland for our space), Rudy Gay (RFA, is he so much better than Nic or what is available now), Bruce Bowen (UFA, ancient), Peja Stojakovic (ETO, unlikely to use it if he hasn’t retired already), Kyle Korver (UFA, not really filling a need), Mike Miller (UFA)
Other: Tyrus Thomas (RFA), Dirk Nowitzki (if he uses ETO, unlikely), Amare Stoudemire (ETO, exactly the type not fitting our team culture), Anthony Morrow (RFA), Luis Scola (RFA), Yao Ming (if he uses ETO), Kobe Bryant (if he doesn’t use player option, not nearly enough cap space), Michael Redd (ETO, unlikely to use it to get that salary again), Tyson Chandler (ETO), Darko Milicic (UFA), J.J. Redick, Manu Ginobili (UFA, unlikely to go elsewhere), Chris Bosh (player option, only if LMA would leave), Mehmet Okur (UFA, maybe if Joel leaves), Carlos Boozer (UFA), Randy Foye (RFA)
The second and third tier players there might be had with some of our MLE next year if they want to come (say a vet like Fisher). The stars are highly unlikely to be attracted even if we do manage to get $10 million again.
In fact, we have enough to do to re-sign Roy and LMA and potentially Travis and Blake and Joel (ETO) as these might be attractive targets for other teams.
If you want to trade our spare parts for Devin Harris, I have three quarters I would like to trade for your dollar
by Norsktroll on Jul 7, 2009 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cap sapce next year allows you to do an unbalanced trade just like this year.
Again, I don’t think it’s the best option. But it’s an option.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well put,
Although you’re leaving out two guys who we wouldn’t/couldn’t sign anyways (Wade and Johnson), I assume because they play the same position as Roy, although I’d take either in a heartbeat and make it work. Those guys will deserve far more money, anyways.
The unspoken rule is that outside the top 4-5 guys (LBJ, Wade, Bosh, Amare, JJ), there’s a gigantic dropoff in the quality of 2010 FAs. Sure, there are some big names like Dirk, Manu, and Allen, but most of these guys will be at an age where you don’t want to throw big money at them. Maybe there will be some teams that panic after missing out on one of the absolute top guys and throw money at Okur, Boozer, or Miller, but it seems like most GMs have learned from the mistakes of the early 2000s and aren’t spending silly money on the Z-Bos and AK47’s of the league any more.
Once you remove those top guys that we don’t have a shot at anyways, it’s arguable that even what’s left on the FA market (Marion, Lee, Millsap, Miller, Sessions, Odom) is still better than what we could get in 2010.
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If that's true, then why are we excited over the prospect?
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
cuz Lebron James would be sweeeeeeet
and we all like to dream
by neilan on Jul 7, 2009 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who's excited over the prospect?
You made this post, so I assume that this was part of some plan you had in mind. In general, people are excited about the prospect of 2010 cap space because they haven’t looked at what the situation actually looks like. Unless you’ve cleared enough for one of the top level guys, it’s pointless, even moreso for us considering our needs (the only “top level” guy that could be potentially available in the $12-13 million range is Boozer).
by Royster on Jul 7, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, I made the post because I observed that under certain circumstances
the team could have significant cap space in 2010. It was a data point, not a proposal. I haven’t proposed doing a darn thing.
by raoulduke on Jul 7, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with that list
there’s no guarantee we’d get one of those guys, which is the key issue here to my way of thinking.
If you make a trade now using Przy, Blake, or Travis, for instance, you know exactly who you’re getting in return. We can quibble about Battier or Wallace or insert any name you want, but you know you’ve traded those guys for that other guy. If you wait until next summer to make a deal you have to pay the cost, which is releasing those players into the free agent market, without having any idea who you’ll get in return, if anybody. You’ve paid the price without getting the reward. GM’s don’t do that…not unless they’re forced into a very, very bad place. And GM’s who get forced into bad places usually get fired soon afterwards.
This is why we won’t see Portland wait. The choice being offered here isn’t trading these players versus keeping them, it’s trading these players now for something you know versus trading them a year from now on a gamble. You lose them either way. Even if there were no palatable options available this year the Blazers would probably prefer to re-sign at least a couple of these guys and see what they could trade them for eventually (or get service out of them) versus just letting them walk for cap space in 2010.
Keep in mind that we’ve already paid Channing Frye to get this $9-10 million in cap space. Paying Pryzbilla, Blake, and Outlaw as well to get the same amount next year doesn’t seem at all practical. In the end that’s a return of $2.5-$3 million in cap space for each player released. Probably each of those four players is worth more than that.
—Dave
by Dave on Jul 7, 2009 3:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
