From: Behind The Beat (Hopefully, it's no problem posting the entire exchange as it's just q&a stuff)
WOW. Props to KP. Ice water in his veins for walking away from numerous deals with his hand on the trigger with the clock ticking down from :30 on the trade clock. jeez!
I personally wanted a deal; what i'm trying to say is not too many people, especially those who are involved in Portland Blazer basketball, in his situation would've walked away from the table empty-handed.
I missed that point, but now I get it. Basically, it might have taken more guts not to pull off a trade since everyone was expecting/hoping for one. I don't know if I buy that . . . but I see where you are coming from.
geez... he said so many lines verbatim (or pretty darned close) to things I've been saying/siting all week speculating why they might not make a move. A few favs... STOMP
This is what I like. Yes they didn't pull the trigger on anything today, but they sure have in the past and they sure will in the future. We have an incredibly lucky combo of a billionaire owner who wants to go for it all and a front office that is incredibly creative and intelligent. I have no doubt that when the time is right, when our core is arriving in their prime, that they'll make the moves to get the team to the next level. Can't complain about that... what am I thinking, of course we can.
Yes: Paul Allen I think Paul makes many basketball decisions for this team. You even read KP state, "we (Mr. Allen and I) don't always agree on everthing...." And there you go. I'll bet Paul likes Travis for example. Just last night, Travis was on the receiving end of an alley oop, performed quite the act at handling the ball in mid air and layed it off the glass. The cameras went (for a split second) to Paul's face. I tell you, I saw exhuberance in those eyes! Paul loves Travis, I tell ya. And I'll just be some interesting deals may have went down if it had not been for Paul telling KP - "I just don't want to give up Travis." I also believe (guess) that Paul loves Roy, LA and Rudy. I'm just really hoping that he doesn't have a man-crush on Sergio! LOL
Q: Just nothing feasible for you? KP: Nothing that we didn't have to give up on something that we believe in. US (Believers vs. Them) Haters Bake It
On the other hand, coming away with an expiring contract giving us a lot of wiggle room for an off season trade may be the most shrewed of moves.
No, meaning we're still young. I still abide by my pre-season theory that if this team wins 50 games, it will have been a successful season. There's nothing at this point telling me otherwise.
I don't get it, how does letting Raef's contract expire give us more wiggle room in off season trades? I get that we get cap space to go after FA's . . . but can we still trade Raef's contract this summer?
1. If he thinks the team is "overachieving", why not change things? You sell HIGH, not low. If the team (meaning individuals) are outperforming where the management expected them to be, why not cash in a few of those chips? Is it better to wait, as Chicago and so many other teams before them have done, for assets to stop overachieving before you trade them? 2. Culture doesn't win basketball games. Players do. If the team thought it could get better players, I believe it should have done so. If the current group of players is more valuable than what they might have received (and I think that this IS possible), then "culture" isn't relevant. I'm not advocating bringing in criminals or bad people, but putting this group of players in a bubble where the core is untouched isn't really very realistic unless things go perfectly. I dunno. I can see what he's saying and I don't have all the facts. I just wish we knew more. Ed O.
We can basically make an "uneven" trade in terms of salary cap ratio because of how much we are under the cap. So if we are in the ballpark of 7m of capspace then we could conceivably trade travis (4m/yr) for someone making 11m/yr. Also, don't forget the TE we have too. We can also use that in a "separate transaction"
Thank you. I knew about the TE, but not the rule about being under the cap allows a trade where you don't have to match salaries.
Agree. I think that is why everyone is going in circles here . . . all we know is teams were actively seeking Raef and the Blazers didn't make a move. We won't ever know, but if we knew what was turned down, tehre might be more of a consensus (one way or another) on the non-move(s).
Is this the problem with other posters today? I assumed that people knew this? This summer will be a buyer's market like no other, and the Blazers can take on a nice, juicy contract if they choose to without busting up the rotation. Plus an additional $4 million from insurance in the budget because of RLEC. Which is why I've been saying that making anything other than a lopsided deal today made no sense.
basically, the blazers can have all the same potential trade targets in the summer because they don't need to match salaries. and while that means the blazers (likely) won't be able to take a bad contract off of someone's hands in the deal, they will be able to give that team immediate savings if the blazers decide to go that route.
