Joe Smith signs with Hawks for veterans minimum.

Joe Smith signs for 1 year 1.2mil. This was the guy Portland needed at PF both on and off the court. If I understand correctly the Blazers have 1mil to spend now and will have 2.7 to spend at the start of the season. ~~To bad they didn't have just another 200k to pick this guy up before the hawks did.~~ [UPDATE: As blazerfansince1970 posts, any team (even if going over the cap) can sign a player to the minimum veterans salary] Looking at the free agents left that could fill in as a reserve PF, I don't see anyone that would be useful to the Blazers save David Lee and he won't want to come off the bench and Portland can not afford him unless they give up players that they don't want to give up.

3 months ago mrwonderfulone 19 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I doubt Smith would come here.

Portland probably didn’t have a chance even if they wanted him.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 16, 2009 3:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

"To bad they didn't have just another 200k to pick this guy up"

You can always go over the cap to sign players for minimum salaries so that wasn’t the problem. But the $1.2M would have lowered the Blazers cap space to $1.5M at the start of the season (assuming they still signed both rookies). So either they didn’t want him, or he didn’t want to come here, or they have plans for the $2.7M.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 16, 2009 4:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

saved for cunningam and pendy

Trade for Luis Amundson!!Do it KP!!

by CroRupt on Aug 16, 2009 9:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

2.7 is the Euro cap holds, Cunningham and Graph will sign with the remaining million or so left in cap space after Andre’s deal. He is getting less than 7 the first year, it’s an escalating deal.

optimism ftw

by Cablinasian on Aug 16, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can't you go over the cap to sign your own second round picks to minimum salaries anyway?

"I'm addicted to polo y'all...respect my fresh" - Travis25Outlaw

by Norsktroll on Aug 16, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would make sense, or else they would be worthless to overthecap teams.

*Unless KP has a secret plan that makes this statement incorrect.

by staylost on Aug 16, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes, but it would still eat into our cap space if we did so. If we can squeeze them in to our remaining cap room, then the 2.7 we can use during the season.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Aug 16, 2009 5:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, you can sign ANY player to a minimum salary regardless of whether you are over the cap or not.

The minimum salaries are based on years in the league. So rookies are less than 10 yr veterans, but you can go over the cap for any player as long as you pay them their minimum salary.

It just so happens that we are currently $962K under the cap (which includes the Euro holds) and the two rookies at minimum salaries are $915K. Here’s the numbers:

Cap Space (Current Roster + Euro Holds) = $0.962M

Rookies at Minimum = $0.915M

Cap Space (Current + Euro Holds + Signed Rookies [at minimum]) = $0.047M

Euro Holds = $2.66M

Cap Space (Current Roster + Signed Rookies – Euro Holds) = $2.71M
i.e. start of season if we do nothing but sign the two rookies to minimum salaries

If we sign anyone else (even at minimum) it goes against our $2.71M cap space.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 16, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To follow up the above, since we are $962K under the cap right now

we could do an uneven trade now using that cap space. We will probably delay signing the rookies until as late as possible before the season starts just in case some unexpected trade opportunity comes out of nowhere for which we might need that (almost $1M) cap space.

However, practically speaking it is of limited benefit because if a trade takes us over the cap limit we can still make that trade for incoming salaries that are 125% + 100K of the salaries we are trading away. i.e. if we trade away $3.6M in salaries (which just happens to be Outlaws salary) we can take back $4.6M even if we are over the cap. So the $962K cap space does us little good now unless we do a trade that only involves salaries less than $3.6M.

Under league rules we must have 13 players and we currently only have 11 players under contract. So we will have to sign the two rookies (or two other players) before the season starts. Then if we have done nothing else, we will have the $2.71M cap space to use after the season starts for a trade (which I predict will be Outlaw + cap space for a backup PF/C plus perhaps a draft pick).

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 16, 2009 5:45 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

thanks

I was wondering if we could sign the two rookies after the season started and thenfore have about 3.6 to use with a free agent.

by mrwonderfulone on Aug 16, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think so, but there is some room for arguing the possibility.

Here is what I posted previously on that issue (which was a repost of what I posted previously on that issue ….):

The CBA says that each team must have a minimum of 13 players (12 active and 1 inactive) under contract. But according to the CBA, "any Team may from time to time as appropriate" have 11 active and 0 inactive for "two weeks at a time during the Regular Season". However, I believe the intent is that you must have 13 players at the start of the season. Without the rookies we have only 11 players. Hence I believe we must sign the two rookies (or two other players) before the season starts.

Some have theorized here that the penalty for not having 13 players would simply be a fine (although much harsher penalties have been assessed for other CBA violations – see Minn. Kevin McHale, et.al.), and therefore we could possibly do a trade with $2.7M plus an additional $916K in cap space, and then pay a fine for not having 13 players.

However, there is also a specific clause in the CBA that prohibits teams from using "loopholes" or other means not specified in the CBA to circumvent the salary cap. Since this would obviously be seen as a attempt to circumvent the salary cap I believe the league office would invalidate any attempts to make a trade using the additional cap space (and probably fine us as well for trying!).

Here’s what Larry Coon’s Salary Cap FAQ has to say about circumvention:

The CBA has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.
In earlier discussions some people thought this was open for debate, but I think it is pretty clear violation of the circumvention prohibition.

It is possible that this was the subject, (actually unrelated to the Euro cap holds) about which the Blazers actually asked the league for a ruling. It doesn’t really fit with Quicks story but it probably does fit with what KP said on Courtside.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 16, 2009 10:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

^^^ The part quoted above from Larry Coon's Salary Cap FAQ is:

The CBA has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement.

The formatting got messed up when I cut and pasted in the comment above.

by BlazerFanSince1970 on Aug 16, 2009 11:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that means KP could deal Outlaw for Turiaf straight up, before training camp

assuming the Warriors would agree to the trade, of course

I wouldn’t mind “sweetening” it with a draft choice, but I’m not sure how Ronny would feel about playing 10-12 mpg behind LMA. He’d be a great guy to have around in case of injury or foul trouble, though

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 16, 2009 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that’s already an unfair deal from our perspective, talent-wise. Travis is a better player with more upside… though I would like Turiaf as a Blazer, to be sure.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Aug 16, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt G.S. does that deal, anyway

They need someone to rebound.

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

by jscot on Aug 17, 2009 2:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

you mean besides Biedrins?

you never know with Nellie, he might like the way Outlaw “forces” the other team to matchup at the 4

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 18, 2009 4:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That would be crazy.

Almost as bad as trading Outlaw for Jeff Foster. :)

He has a lot of value, just not on this team.

by Nick Van Excellent on Aug 17, 2009 7:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure KP will get better value than Foster, or Turiaf, for Trout

but the concept remains the same, subtract the 3-4 tweener and add the veteran PF banger, the “details” are for KP to negotiate

if KP hangs onto Outlaw too long he could wind up with less of a return, especially if every Webster (etc) stays healthy and Travis’ role is reduced. But if there’s a key injury to an opposing team’s forward it might drive the “price” for TO up, you just never know

When reached 39 years of following Portland basketball you have, be as passionate of the Trail Blazers you will not!

by two4larue on Aug 18, 2009 4:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs