2009 Free Agency: Part One

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 10:53 AM PDT

I've been doing a lot of research on our 2009 cap space potential and possible free agents. This is the first diary in my multi-part series.

PART ONE: WHO'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE?

Disclaimer: I'm NOT including potential Restricted Free Agents (Chris Paul and Deron Williams). Why you ask? Mainly, because there is ZERO potential that we will even offer one of these guys a restricted free agent contract. Their teams will 100% for certain match the offer, which would lock them up long term, case closed. The ONLY chance (and it is a small one), that we can sign someone like this in summer 2009 is via a sign and trade deal, which will be covered in a future installment.

Okay, that out of the way, here's the list of potential signees. I'm limiting the list as follows:

Point guards and small forwards only.
potential starter-quality.

Unrestricted in 2009
--------------------
Andre Miller
Desmond Mason
Lamar Odom

Unrestricted in 09 if they play for the
qualifying offer only next season:
---------------------------------------
Delonte West
Ben Gordon
Jannero Pargo
Luol Deng
Josh Childress
Andre Iguadola

Unrestricted in 09 if they play
out their option for 08-09:
-------------------------------
Gilbert Arenas
Shawn Marion
Baron Davis
Corey Maggete
Ron Artest

Unrestricted in 09 if they opt out after 08-09:
-----------------------------------------------
Quentin Richardson
Kobe Bryant

This list will become much clearer after this summer, when we'll know who from groups 2 and 3 will join group 1 in the "unrestricted in 2009" category. We'll also know if anyone in group 1 signs an extension this summer. We won't know on group 4 until summer 2009.

So, who on the list do you all think we should target? How much salary do you think they will command? Who would be interested in coming our way? It seems to me most of them should be in the $10 to $15 million per year to start range, with a few very notable exceptions that will be higher, and a few that will likely be lower.

0 recs | Comment 57 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

None...

I wouldn't go after any of these guys (Deng though if I had to make a choice, no way Iggy leaves Philadelphia). I would rather use our cap space by pursuing a trade sometime during the next two summers, or possibly during the next season when LaFrentz's expiring contract becomes especially attractive.

by The Graduate on Apr 2, 2008 11:17 AM PDT 0 recs

mostly agree

As I peruse the list, no one is really blowing me away either. The players are either too old or have too much baggage, are unlikely to come here, or probably aren't worth the big dollars they would command. Maybe Deng and Andre Miller are the exceptions.

I think the "2009 cap space plan" we've all been hearing about and discussing for so long now has been mischaracterized. The plan isn't necessarily to clear space to get a free agent, it's to clear space to give us flexibility and options.

Given the list, I think it it is far more likely (and desirable) to use the potential space to acquire the piece(s) we want through trades or sign and trades.

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up 0 recs

none

theres no one on that list to go nuts over, and plenty of flawed players who have gone past the point when they might ever improve.

ignacio

by ignacio on Apr 2, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Great Post

Yes, I think every thing hinges on what kind of chemistry we get with MR. Greg Oden.
Save these names, because one of them may fit perfectly into the new look puzzle that is created by the end of next season.
Im positive there will be trades, so some of those names could be the missing link.

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 12:13 PM PDT 0 recs

We are in an interesting situation.

One one hand, assuming that miles is coming off, we should have a ton of money to be a big time player in the 09 FA game.

On the other hand besided Deng possibly and of course make an offer to Paul, there are not too many players that I would want.

I also see that we should sign somebody and take advantage of that salary cap window, but not just to sign them, as they might not fit in and will probably be making more than Roy, Oden and LMA before they are extended. Once the big 3 are extended we will have absolutely ZERO chance to sign anyone for more than the MLE. That window will be the last time we will be able to add anyone with a load of talent without having to trade one of our own guys to do it.

Still having room to maneuver under the cap is very advantageous as mentioned above, we can trade a player at $4mill for someone making $16mill and absorb the extra $12mill incoming. Perhaps some team will want to unload a bad contract but will sweeten the pot with a great PG or a pick.

So here is what I think what may occur in the summer of 2009:

We sign a FA SF or PG
We trade one of our young cheap quality pieces for a good vet making more
We sign Paul to an offer sheet and the entire state of Oregon prays that Shinn forgets to get the paperwork in time and we go on to win the next 10 championships in a row.

The NBA

Where Kyle Korver happens.

by SpyderRyder on Apr 2, 2008 12:18 PM PDT 0 recs

See, the lacking-ness of that list . . .

. . . is exactly why you HAVE to mention CP3 & Deron.

Most of all, the only roadblock is their teams' ability to match any Blazer offer, since they are restricted free agents.
That's no reason to not make the offer in the first place: On Day One of free agency, OFFER CHRIS PAUL THE SKY.
We'll have the cap space (pre-extension to our existing players) to offer him The Max.

Yeah, the Hornies should match, but you still have to MAKE THAT OFFER.
And part of that is not using up that space before then, especially not in a free agent acquisition this year.

Anything else fir 2009 is purely Plan B. That we'll probably have to execute that Plan B is worth noting,
but that doesn't make it not Plan B.

Plan A is, OFFER CHRIS PAUL THE SKY. Period.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 12:33 PM PDT 0 recs

Do you think he'd come here for the sky?

It's pretty cloudy and rainy in Portland.

I'd rather have cash if I were him ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 1:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

gotcha

side of cash, hold the sky

[ding]
ORDER IN!

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up 0 recs

Offer Paul and Williams the sky

Even though the chances that their respective teams will not match the offer is very small, I say we drive the prices up on two of our biggest future rivals. With as much cap space as these teams have wrapped up in other players they would be approaching the luxury tax with just six or seven players if forced to match a max deal. So either we win the lottery and they don't match(doubtful) or they are forced to search the scrap heaps to fill out their benches with trash. Either way it helps us and hurts them.

by TubbaDubba on Apr 2, 2008 1:12 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yep.

Put them in the same position the Suns put Dallas in, regarding Steve Nash.

And don't forget this, which says:

Not long after the Spurs beat the Knicks in the 1999 NBA Finals to win their first title,
[Tim] Duncan was heavily courted by the Magic, which was pursuing Duncan and Grant Hill at the same time.

Duncan said he seriously considered signing with Orlando, which offered a six-year, $67.5 million deal . . .

[snikt]

"It was probably a lot closer of a decision than people even think or even know," [said Duncan].

So, um, let's see: Orlando almost got Tim Duncan as a free agent, and Phoenix DID get Steve Nash.

Oh, so Chris Paul is not only untouchable, but MORESO than Steve Nash or Tim Duncan?

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yes.

Regarding Steve Nash: He was NOT a two-time MVP back them--not even close. Further, Dallas already had a WAY bigger payroll than either New Orleans or Utah. Dallas was looking at TONS of luxury tax money. If Williams and Paul are signed to the max, New Orleans might be looking at a little bit of luxury tax, Utah might not be looking at any.

Regarding Duncan, he had a choice. There was no "match" privilege for teams in those days, so this is not a valid comparison. Sure Paul or Williams might want to come play here. Heck, they might even sign an offer sheet--but Utah and New Orleans will match. End of story.

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up 0 recs

I'm sure Paul is worth a max offer.

Is Deron Williams? My guts says yes, but I'm not as sure as I am with Paul. Probably has to do with the fact that I don't know a lick about basketball. Too much time spend making off-topic comments, probably. Besides, Paul would fit very well into our system of having players whose last names should be first names.

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 2:43 PM PDT up 0 recs

Last first names

All Blazer fans should name their firstborn son "Pryzbilla".

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Apr 3, 2008 1:55 AM PDT up 0 recs

Then I screwed up.

I thought it sounded better as my daughter's first name.

by timg56 on Apr 3, 2008 6:44 AM PDT up 0 recs

EXACTLY

Praying is plan A-2

I'm super duper awesome

by hobobob on Apr 2, 2008 1:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

ONE QUESTION...

Can't Deron and CP3 be locked up this offseason. Isn't this typically when teams resign their stars, after three years in the league- at least that's when Lebron and D-Wade and Melo resigned (Chicago worked on the contracts of Gordon and Deng this past fall). Won't this all be a moot point come October (I think if you do not have a deal in place by then, you are forced to wait until the offseason)? Please, someone help me out here...

by The Graduate on Apr 2, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yes they can

I was going to get to this in part two or three of the diary. The CP/DW situation could become a LOT clearer this summer. If either or both sign extensions, we know to take them off our radar.

Conversely, if they DON'T, then our one true chance of landing them comes into play. That chance is that they play out 08/09 and then tell their teams "I'm not signing anything more than your Qualifying Offer for 09/10. So either sign and trade me (to Portland?), or I'll walk after one more year." This argument gets a bit of leverage for them, as their a a LOT of teams positioning themselves for major cap room in summer 2010 (LeBron/Wade), and these guys would have options that summer with teams with lots of space.

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 3:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yep.

But it seems like the about-to-get-the-max guys frequently don't extend,
that they try the free agent market before signing with their old team ANYWAY--
that whole year of LeBron/Wade/Melo signing extensions was a real weird change.
Usually, big-money guys used to wait until free agency to re-up.

So was that a big change in how it goes, or more just a one-year exception to the pattern?

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 4:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

they did extend.

Those three all signed their extenstion after their third year (with one year remaining on their rookie deals). This is pretty much standard fare for max deal type players.

The "new" thing was that they didn't take the max length deal, instead going with 3 year deals with a player option for the 4th. I can't imagine Lebron won't opt out after three years (summer 2010) and get even more money.

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

Where are you getting this from?

The superstar level guys (i.e. the guys who get offered max deals) usually extend. The guys you see who want to try FA are the ones who get offered less and who place a higher value on their abilities and worth than their teams do.

Even then that's not always the case. As I recall, when Gordon, Deng and Igoudala (sp?) declined extentions, most people thought they were making a mistake.

Here is reality where Paul and Williams are concerned. Unless their teams decide they are not interested in keeping these guys (not likely), the only way they come on the market is if they decide to accept the risk of playing for two more years (at the same time forgoing a few million in earnings) with no guarantee for the future. Who here would take that risk? Imagine being Chris Paul like. Since you were a kid you wanted to play for your home town Blazers. Would you risk losing a $100 million dollar deal just to do so? That's what these guys stand to lose if they get hurt during the next two seasons.

I don't know about all of you, but I'm going to go with the decision that is in my best interests financially. When you consider that Chris Paul didn't grow up a Blazer fan and that he plays for a team that already has the best record in the west, what motivation would he have to do something like this?

by timg56 on Apr 3, 2008 7:02 AM PDT up 0 recs

Motivation

Fear of getting all his shots blocked by Oden?

You know what I think. He needs to fall in love with our sideline reporter. Only way to get him.

It partly depends. If someone is not really motivated by money (a lot of people aren't), a few million would have him set for life. There are guys who just don't care that much.

Then there are guys who make so much in endorsements that salary just isn't a big factor. I don't think CP3 is in that category. Oden might be within a couple years, though. Lebron can afford to go to the team he wants to, even if all they can offer is MLE.

CP3 could ask for a sign and trade this year, too, I suppose, if he is really unhappy with his team and wants to go somewhere else. I just don't see it happening.

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Apr 3, 2008 8:02 AM PDT up 0 recs

The big moves are not in the free agent market

Just look at what happened this year.
The new opportunities in the NBA have to do with desperate franchises. When you have cap room, then you can make lopsided trades with expiring contracts (i.e. Raef lafrenz) Who will be the next Pau Gasol dump?

by DropstepJ on Apr 2, 2008 1:13 PM PDT 0 recs

The only guy on your list

that fits the categories of likely being available and being somebody I'd want is Josh Childress.

Atlanta may feel it can't afford to keep Childress, even though they like him very much. At least not if they plan on holding onto Williams and Smith. Smith is also in his qualifying year and Williams gets there after next season. That same year is also Joe Johnson's last. The odds are Atlanta wants to resign him. In fact I'd suspect they try to extend him next summer. An offer to Childress for .... say $8 million a year might be enough to get him.

The reason I like Childress is he has developed into a glue guy. He does all the little things (and one big thing - play defense) that coaches love. He's also shown he doesn't have to be the top dog, playing either off the bench or starting. That makes me think he'd be a fit culture wise and from a skills standpoint he'd be that perimeter defender who can score when needed and do all the little things to make the guys around him better as a unit.

I like me some James Jones, but I think Childress brings more to the table. He'd also make either Webster or Outlaw available for trade at some point.

Now I'm not advocating we go after Childress. I'm just saying he's the only guy up there I'm interested in.

by timg56 on Apr 2, 2008 1:40 PM PDT 0 recs

Just to reinforce that I'm not advocating

getting rid of Outlaw or Webster for Childress, here are some of their stats.

PPG Rbs Ast FG% 3PT% FT%

Childress
12 5 1.5 58% 35% 81%

Webster
10.5 4 1.2 42% 38% 74%

Outlaw
13.5 4.5 1.3 44% 40% 73%

They all play a similar number of minutes. Childress obviously has an edge is scoring efficiency and is a slightly better FT shooter. He's not as good from behind the arc, so he's not going to be the same threat to stretch defenses. His blocks and steals numbers are better. But all in all, it is not a sure thing that Josh is a definite upgrade over either Travis or Martell. If Pritchard signed him, I'd see it as a pretty good move. If he stayed with the guys he has, I'd consider that a pretty good decision as well.

by timg56 on Apr 2, 2008 1:53 PM PDT up 0 recs

I agree with you on Josh

He is the only one I would even consider. He has an ugly (and I mean UGLY) shot, but he is one of those players who always is around the ball and knows how to get to the basket. While he won't be able to stretch defenses, he can play defense, get some offensive boards, and knows how to finish a play. He could/would be a valuable bench player.

That being said, don't know if he is worth replacing either Webster or Outlaw.

by blazermaniac32 on Apr 2, 2008 5:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

I need help from Mortimer, here

OK, so I like the theory of offering Paul or Williams Max contracts in order to at least hurt our key opposition for the next umpteen years, but what exactly has to happen for us to have that level of flexibility?

Don't we have to drop Blake, Outlaw, and Webster and perhaps more?

Is there a way we can make the offer and THEN dump contracts to make room for a Paul or Deron in case they DO sign? Or do we have to drop contracts to even be able to extend the offer?

If so then I'm not sure it's worth it. It may result in less flexibility for both Utah and N.O. but if it means losing our back-up PG, our starting SF, our Sixth man and perhaps more to do it, then no way.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Apr 2, 2008 2:00 PM PDT 0 recs

We can sign our own free agents if over the cap.

So, we wouldn't HAVE TO ditch any or all of those guys, whose contracts are also up in 2009;
we'd just have to sign OUTSIDE FA's (like Paul) BEFORE re-upping any of our INSIDE FA's (like Frye, JJ, Sergio, Webster, Blake and JaJo).

And, of course, before extending Roy, LaMardridge, or Oden.
We can do those extensions even without cap room.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Of course, there's two things:

1) We're probably not going to re-up all six of those dudes, especially since they're redundant at three positions:
point (JJ/Sergio/Blake), starter OR backup; wing (MarWeb/JaJo/JJ/Trout), starter OR backup; and backup PF (Trout/Frye).
They're competing against each other for a role-player slot alongside/behind our studs of Roy/LMA/Oden/FA-2009.
We would need one backup point guard, one backup wingman, one back-up PF,
and (most importantly) the starter at whichever position we DON'T get a superior free agent for in 2009 between PG and SF.
That's four guys out of six, but Rudy probably fills that backup-wing position, so I'd say more like three spots are kept:

Backup point guard (since it'd be alongside Rudy, bet on Sergio)
Backup power forward (Trout, unless Frye takes a step up next year, or Trout is earmarked for:)
Starter alongside Roy/LMA/Oden/FA-2009 (this is Blake if we get a SF, Trout or MarWeb if we get a point guard)

2) If, before the 2009 off-season, we trade any of those six expiring-contract players,
what we trade them for (unless it's picks) becomes part of our post-08/09-season payroll,
and thus dilutes our off-season cap space, and that cap space is what we can offer a free agent.

So, trading our spare parts = lamer free agent addition next off-season.
VERY SIMPLE EQUATION.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

Whoops--forgot point #3:

3) While we're making big-money overtures at other teams' free agents like Paul,
we'd have to hold off on re-upping our own keepers, thereby leaving them vulnerable
to other teams swooping in and snatching them up while we're waiting to finish acquiring.

To this end, we'll need to do two things: Let our "keepers" know who they are, so they can resist overtures, and
NOT let other teams know who our "keepers" are, so they can maybe just nail the guys we were gonna let go anyway.
If they don't know who the "keeper" is between, say, Sergio and JJ, maybe they go after the guy we didn't care about anyway.
On the other hand, if they know, "Portland wants to keep this guy, but wants to wait out the CP3 signing first",
that "keeper" would be a huge priority for other teams to hit up, hard and fast.
That could result in a real game of chicken for us: do we match and chew up some FA cap space,
or do we sweat it out and hope our "keeper" rejects the overtures until we're in the clear to get back to him?

Remember, there's something like a two-week window when teams can TALK to FA's before actual SIGNING is allowed.

And, I believe that MarWeb, JJ, Frye and Sergio are all on their rookie contracts,
and thus are RESTRICTED FA's for whom we can match any offers,
while JaJo and Blake are simply playing on two-year contracts, and thus would be UNRESTRICTED FA's,
and they could just up and leave without any warning other than the talking-to phase during that window.

And, of course, Trout is under contract beyond 2009, and is not in this picture except how he, like Rudy,
will occupy a spot pursued by that pack of six (JJ, JaJo, Blake, Sergio, MarWeb and Frye).
So he is battling with them for a slot, even though you know he's gonna get SOMETHING.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:31 PM PDT up 0 recs

Ohhhhh, boy--TWO MORE THINGS:

1) If you read between the lines of my bullets a few posts up, the ones we'll be ditching will be:
JJ, JaJo, and either Frye, MarWeb, OR Blake (just one of those three, depending on where Trout and FA-2009 slot).
If you look at Rudy/Sergio as a package deal (and I guess that I do), then them NOT making it would also open up spots for
one more point guard (Blake, if he's not keeping the starting spot)
and a back-up wingman (I like JaJo's odds on this one).
In fact, I think Blake's been solid enough that, if we get CP3 or some other point stud,
Blake's superiority as best option for backup point guard is a HUGE threat to both Sergio AND Rudy.

(Either way, JJ's gone.)

2) When a restricted free agent is tendered an offer sheet, the player's old team has ten days to match.
So, for those rookie-contract guys (JJ, MarWeb, Frye and Sergio), if we wanna keep any of them, the schedule goes like this:

People can talk to FA's, and we talk to CP3 while other teams talk to our guys.
Two weeks later, signings can happen, including other teams making offers to our restricteds.
Ten days after THAT, we'd have to match or let go.

So that's two weeks to talk to free agents, and ten days to ink them and then match any offers we want to.
Tight schedule, but doable enough to hold out on our FA's, ESPECIALLY our restricteds, while we pursue a stud.
Blake and JaJo, being unrestricted, would not have that extra ten days, nor our ability to match.
Them, we may have to reach an under-the-table understanding before the season ends if we wanna keep them.

But, again, extending them before the season ends would hurt our cap-space/offer-to-a-FA amount,
so we'd prefer to reach a deal now, but sign later. Competitors would try their best to break THAT up.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:44 PM PDT up 0 recs

This is incorrect.

Sorry. Our own free agents have a "cap-hold" against our salary cap of something like 300% of their last year's salary to avoid situations like this. We wouldn't realize any cap space unless we actually renounced some of these guys.

Of course, this may not be an issue, because both Jack and Frye might be gone by then. Without Miles, Jack, and Frye, and including Rudy, Blake, and Outlaw, we're looking at 38.144 million on our cap that summer. Of course, we'll have a couple other players too, so maybe it's around 40 million. But if the Miles thing doesn't work out, we're sunk as far as cap space for big free agents in 2009 ...

But like I said, we can NOT make offers to other players and THEN resign our own guys. Darn, good-for-nothing CBA ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 2:39 PM PDT up 0 recs

Oooch.

A "cap-hold"? Didn't know about that.

Woof.

Ummm . . . is that ALL free agents, or just restricteds, or just unrestricteds?
And does it also apply to not straight-up signings, but offer-sheet-matches to unrestricteds?
I got the feeling from that Trenton Hassell fiasco (remember THAT?) that teams have more cap freedom on matching than on signing.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:47 PM PDT up 0 recs

Waitaminnit!

Sergio's not in this group anyway!
He's in with Roy and Aldridge, under team option until at least 2010!

(Why did I put him in this category? Of course, we could decline his option and PUT HIM in this category . . . )

But yeah, the BIG extention players (Roy, Oden and LaMardridge) don't have to be dealt with until the following year,
so thank heavens THEY'RE not in the way--just assume their extensions will hit the cap, AND the tax.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:51 PM PDT up 0 recs

Maybe, maybe not.

Honestly, at the moment neither Roy nor Aldridge strike me as max-level players. I think we could retain them and still be under the tax threshold. HOWEVER, if we sign a big free agent in 2009 then yes, we'll probably pay some luxury tax when we resign Roy and Aldridge and especially Oden. Something tells me Paul Allen won't mind this small detail ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yep--that's what I mean.

At the cap after our 2009 off-season, and pretty much entirely with contracts that don't expire in 2010.
That mean's all extensions in 2010 would be over the cap, and count against the tax.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 3:01 PM PDT up 0 recs

BTW

Thanks for that Larry Coon link.
That one's worthy of being in the sidebar links list, easily.
You are now officially my hoss.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up 0 recs

I've missed your uber-long posts.

In closing, I don't think it's likely we'll have enough cap room to offer max deals to Paul/Williams UNLESS KP decides that's a priority and makes moves accordingly. These moves would have to include, trading/renouncing/not picking up option years for some combination of Jack, Sergio, Frye, Blake, Outlaw, Webster, and Jones. We simply MUST get rid of some of these guys if we want enough room to make a max offer.

However, I believe that is A LOT to give up--to much--for an unsure thing. What happens if we don't land Paul or Williams and lose all the other guys as a result? That would be painful. I don't think KP gambles like that. The good thing is, I don't believe need Paul or Williams to win multiple championships. We need something more than Jack, but we don't need those guys, and KP knows that ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 3:22 PM PDT up 0 recs

Under that scenario, up-in-2009 guys . . .

. . . would be at a decided disadvantage, whereas anyone under contract beyond next season would have a leg up.

So JJ, Blake, Frye, James Jones and Martell Webster might just be let go if we get some studs.
Trout and Przybilla, on the other hand, have it made, and would have some space to operate after next season.

And for the Spaniards, they really get to breathe easy IF something changes for them that puts them on the 09-10 roster.

For Sergio, that would be having his option year picked up, which would have to happen before Halloween this year.
For Rudy, that would simply be getting signed, which would have to happen this off-season.

So I guess a big question for THIS off-season is, how many Spaniards will we put on our 09-10 roster?
Two, one, or none?

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 3:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

Both Blake and Outlaw ...

are signed through 09-10, but with team options. They are both at risk of being let go in order to make room for a big FA. But their trade values are also greatly increased because of their attractive contracts. Blake is reasonably paid for what he does, and it is likely that Outlaw will soon be underpaid ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 4:10 PM PDT up 0 recs

Well, what about THOSE?

Team options have to be picked up sometime during the previous season, right?
If so, then the decision on those two would be made during the 08-09 season, not the 09 off-season.
AND keeping them would be more affordable than a fresh signing, since there'd be no big raise.

Looks better for Blake, knowing that.
I think he'd've been kept even if he was hitting free agency.
He's the best of our current group, and even with the others being so young, I think he stays better, too.

Hmmmmm.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 4:17 PM PDT up 0 recs

if we renounced...

...some combination of Jack, Frye, and Webster to sign the Paul Offer sheet and then NO matches it, we do having the option of rescinding our renouncements and gaining back our right to match any RFA offers made to them.

I'm not sure what would happen though in a scenario like this:

We renounce Martel (11.3 million cap hold that summer).
Day 1: We sign Paul to an offer sheet
Day 3: Martel signs a UFA contract with team X
Day 8: NO matches our offer on Paul
Day 9: We exercise our option to rescind our renouncement of Martel

What heppens?
A) Does Marty's UFA contract get voided?
B) Do we get the right to match it?
C) Do we lose him altogether because he signed before we unrescinded?

This could be a very key question to this whole plan

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 4:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

We'd lose him.

He's fair game if we rescind.

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 4:20 PM PDT up 0 recs

right, but...

what if we UNrenounce him, as the CBA allows us to do in this one particular scenario. Does that trump it? I can't find an answer to this on the CBA FAQ sites.

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 4:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

found the answer

the player coming off of rookie scale and entering the qualifying offer year clauses appear to trump the renounce/rescind clause.

We have to offer the qualifying offers to these guys BEFORE the moratorium is lifted. If we don't do that, then they become UFAs.

Given that, I think it not a wise move to give up assets for nothing in return solely for the purpose of forcing another team's hand to do something it already will anyway. We have nothing to gain by it really.

We would be far better off to extend some QOs to the players, then try and work out sign and trade deals.

by douglast on Apr 2, 2008 4:34 PM PDT up 0 recs

Larry Coon meet Quality Pie.

Quality Pie meet Larry Coon.

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

My understanding is that ANY free agent a team has continues to count against that team's cap as a cap-hold until that player is either: a) resigned; b)renounced; or c) signed by another team.

I don't understand your last two questions. An offer-sheet is the same as an actual signing from the perspective of the team submitting the offer: A team cannot submit an offer sheet if they do not have the cap space to do so.

If I remember correctly, we didn't offer Hassell a huge contract (thank the Lord). We offered him something around the mid-level or less, and Minnesota decided to match ... Not sure what that has to say about cap freedom for matching vs. signing ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 2:56 PM PDT up 0 recs

No, no--I mean for the MATCHING team.

I seem to recall that, for the TimberPuppies, matching our offer made cap sense in a way that signing him did not.
Like, the fact that the deal itself was some other team's construction
gives a matching team something of a pass on some aspect of the cap hit.

I seem to hear some such nonsense about that, as applied to Minnesota in 2004 over Hassell.

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

I don't know of any reason ...

why it would have been better for Minnesota to match Hassell's offer sheet from Portland vs. offering their own contract ...

The only thing I can think of is perhaps they were over the cap and only had their mid-level to work with. So perhaps they had offered their mid-level to another player, and wanted to see if that come through before matching Hassell, since teams have 7 days to match an offer sheet to a restricted free agent.

The only other benefit I can see is that you are letting the market set the price on your restricted free agent. This can be a good thing, like with Cleveland and Varejao this year, because no teams had the ability to offer him more than the mid-level exception. So if he was to receive an offer sheet, it was likely to be small, and they would be in a position to match, which is what happened. The downside is that they ended up with a disgruntled player for awhile. This is also a risk, though, if there are a lot of teams who are under the cap. You might end up paying more than a player is worth to you if you let other teams have a go at him first ...

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 3:14 PM PDT up 0 recs

Or you risk letting them go . . .

. . . just because the price was to high, even though you really, REALLY were looking to keep him.

That's what happened with the Whizzers last year, when the Nix threw $5mil at Jared Jeffries.
Washington really had plans for him, but not at that price, so off he went.

Yeah, on the Hassell deal, it was a real head-scratcher at the time, why Minnie matched a deal they didn't care to make themselves.
There was some real reaching in the media for reasons why Minnesota made us go through all that.
I mean, we had that full-blown media session to introduce him as a Blazer and everything!

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Apr 2, 2008 3:19 PM PDT up 0 recs

It might not be the team's choice though ...

Washington might have made a pre-emptive offer that wasn't to Jeffries' liking ... so he decided to sign NY's offer sheet for what he thought he was worth. Washington cannot prevent the signing of an offer sheet--they can only match or not match.

In this case they knew what they were doing, though, since clearly Jeffries was not worth what NY signed him for.

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 3:27 PM PDT up 0 recs

If a player is renounced,

can he (or, for TominHawaii's argument, she) be resigned later? If this was answered above, and I missed it, then I will pronounce myself an idiot and move on, as if nothing happened.

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 2:59 PM PDT up 0 recs

Yes ...

But not by using the Bird or Early Bird exceptions. That team have to use their mid-level exception to resign their own player if doing so would put them over the cap.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#33

by bfan on Apr 2, 2008 3:06 PM PDT up 0 recs

Good to know.

Thanks!

"It just showed once again that half the world doesn't know how the other three quarters live." -P.G. Wodehouse

by T Darkstar on Apr 2, 2008 3:07 PM PDT up 0 recs

Nice

That was too the extreme!

I'm tominhawaii and I approved this message.

by tominhawaii on Apr 2, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up 0 recs

Sorry

I meant moldorf, not mortimer.

Besides Dave, he's the only blogger on this site I trust when it comes to CBA rules and regs.

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Apr 3, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up 0 recs

The criteria of PG and SF

is too restrictive. The one player who can opt out in 2009 and be interested and interesting is Dwyane Wade. Picture him in Miami this year and another mediocre year next year with the chance to come to Portland and win multiple rings......

It works for me. We look like we can offer a max contract to him that year. If we get him we can renounce some of the others. From my perspective we need basketball players. Roy, Rudy and Dwyane all at 6-4 to 6-6 can all handle the ball with GO and LMA patrolling behind and the rest of the league would have to adjust.

by lee3022 on Apr 2, 2008 10:26 PM PDT 0 recs

I agree

That lineup would create huge matchup problems, and perhaps result in a massive reworking of the whole PG/SG/SF paradigm.

Alternatively, that would give us the trade chips to acquire a really outstanding PG or SF.

Suppose Wade actually wants to play in NO, but they don't have the space to sign him. We could sign Wade and trade him for CP3, for instance.

People need to learn to think outside the box. KP does. Zach, Dan, Fred, and cash for Frye, Rudy, JJ3, and cap space. Who on BE saw that one coming?

I'm frequently right, but always certain

by jscot on Apr 3, 2008 2:11 AM PDT up 0 recs

Except ...

Wade's option year is 2010-11, so we'd have to sign him in the summer of 2010--the same summer we have to re-up Roy and Aldridge. We wouldn't have the cap room for Wade. Once again we're relegated to a sign and trade.

by bfan on Apr 3, 2008 6:36 AM PDT up 0 recs