On the record: which SF do you want?

Jefferson should be last trust me. You guys don't want any part of him. He's going to ballhog like he did in NJ and according to Milwaukee fans he's doing the same thing there.

 

The poll is for which SF we want not the most realistic trade. I don't think we can get Butler but he is by far the one I would want the Blazers to get from that list.

 

sounds like charlotte isn't trading wallace unless they can unload a bad contract also, so they're probably both pretty close to unrealistic.

 

I'd be happy to take a bad contract, like Nazr Mohammed, to get Gerald Wallace. Team is going to be over the cap anyway.

Whether Allen would sign off is a different question, a question to which I have no idea of the answer.

 

I don't trust Allen based on his past to make rational decisions in this regard.

In years past I flinched when the extensions to Ratliff, Zach and Miles were made. I was told - as you are now - that it doesn't matter since Allen is the one writing the checks and if he wants to it won't matter to the fans.

It does matter and it did matter. Those dollars came back to bite the team in the ass.

Making a bad deal financially now will come back to haunt the team later in some way. So, I say make the best deal - and include finances/contracts as an important part of that equation.

 

There was a difference. In that case, he was committing the dollars to what was supposed to be the foundation. Spending poorly on the players who are supposed to be the main drivers of the team's success definitely hurts, because when they fail to win, you have no way to retool.

In this case, the foundations of the team are already in place and paying those players will move the team over the cap. Spending inefficiently to "gild the lily" and add the final piece in an effert push the team to championship-caliber is a very different proposition. In virtually all sports, there is often some inefficiency in getting from "good" to "great"...those last marginal "wins" are hard to acquire and nearly impossible to acquire efficiently.

I think the specific logic I am advancing here is sound: If the team will be over the cap anyway, going further over, even inefficiently, in order to squeeze that last bit of value out is worthwhile. This can't be compared to other business environments, because there is an artifical constraint here: the salary cap. If there were no cap, I'd advocate efficient spending, because every dollar spent carries an opportunity cost. But with a cap, that isn't true. If the team doesn't spend money now, it can never spend it because the team will go over the cap with extensions to current players and the cap will forbid future spending. So, there really is no opportunity cost to the dollars spent right now. There's a real cost to Allen's pocket book, of course, but within the environment of the NBA, it's either spend it now--and get some value--or don't spend it at all.

 

Well it's almost a definite that Caron Butler wont get traded, while it's a super slim chance Gerald Wallace will get traded.

I think the SF's we're looking at as of right now are Jefferson, Carter, and Salmons. I would take either Carter or Jefferson.

 

Since 3 pt shooting is crucial from the SF position in the Blazer offense, I had to rule out Wallace and his 25% rock launching from 23'9". Butler was tempting, but in the end it came down to Jefferson and Carter, and Jefferson wins on age for me.

 

I (think I) understand the cap and the situation. Because of the likehood the Blazers will want to give big, long extensions to Roy, Aldridge and Oden in the next 2 years, they will be over the cap for some time and unable to obtain a free agent for more than MLE without trading a similar big contract out. If Allen is willing to pay luxury tax (or extra lux tax) for this and/or future years; he has the option of converting LaFrentz's ending contract into a player he wants, or making a lopsided trade this summer, or by cutting Blake/Outlaw to create extra cap room to sign free agent(s). These options will be gone soon, and thus the easy opportunity to bring in an impact player without giving one up.

It is not the cap that it is the issue. It is the luxury tax. That is the stick that hits you in the ass at a later date. If the Blazers spend foolishly now (long and big money for marginal short-term improvement) talent will be lost in the future in order to stop the pain.

Think of the luxury tax as being slowly whipped. A strong individual can take the whip for a time. After a while the pain becomes intolerable and they will do anything to stop the whip.

 

If this is true for Allen, then I certainly agree with you that he should not take on a bad contract. My comments were always in the assumed universe in which Allen is not concerned with paying the luxury tax (as he wasn't in the 1999-2002 period). If this assumption is wrong, then Allen should certainly take finances into account.

And to be clear, I wasn't advocating "long and big money for marginal short-term improvement." I was advocating "long and big money for significant long-term improvement." That is, taking on a bad contract in order to get a young-prime star or near-star from a team willing to trade talent for cash savings. Not taking on a bad contract to get a so-so player or short-term declining vet.