The "lose assets for nothing" argument has been debunked over and over, but I'm tired of explaining why it's stupid.
I know everybody hates Meyers, but he's not an albatross contract. Now that Crabbe and Turner are (kinda) producing, we don't have any albatross contracts. We may not have many guys who have high value compared to their contract (Harkless is the only one, IMO), but we at least have a lot of tradeable players so that we can shuffle things around and hope for the best.
I dont blame him! I just hate it when I have to walk a few steps in the rain. It just plays hell with my beautiful hair. I can only imagine what it does to Neil's.........
Olshey has been upfront about his 3 year plan...with this group as I've mentioned..it's beginning of year 2 with Dame as leader. Sure we're our own D league right now but thinking we'd go far in the playoffs even after last season wasn't realistic.....the youth of this team says a lot. Right now we're sucking on defense but Stotts has a good record of developing young players...unfortunately Meyers has been disappointing...this is the year he was supposed to get it..I'm starting to get nostalgic for the old core already this season....we miss Batum guarding Lebron or KD...we miss Lamarcus midrange jumper..we miss Rolo's rim protection...this Blazer roster isn't anywhere near the old core who for the most part played 5-9 year together. It's a work in progress. Great year to find out which young guys are keepers...
An "Albatross" to me is a highly compensated player who is under-performing his contract, and doesn't have a lot of upside left. Meyers is probably who he is going to be (more or less) he's not cheap anymore, and he is paid a lot of money to produce not a lot. Which GMs are going to be eager to take on his deal with what he produces? My guess is precious few.
$10 mil per year for a young mid-career 7-footer is nothing in this league. By the end of his 4 year contract, it's going to look like peanuts. GMs and coaches around the league certainly know his shortcomings as a player, but I'd bet that a lot of them are going to also see his shooting and athletic ability as indicators that maybe he can succeed in a different situation than he's been put into here in Portland.
They guy can't play. We're in what, year five? How much better is he likely to get? He looks like the same spastic marshmallow he was when he entered the league.
The problem with "not losing assets for nothing" is that they cease to be assets as soon you massively overpay them to avoid losing them for nothing.
Massive overpay is a definition constantly changing though. Most of us shit our pants a couple years ago at rolo getting 13 million a year, and now that contract would be great.
Here's a list of mid-level centers and their salaries: Most of those guys are old and likely to be out of the league in 3-4 years. I'm not saying that Meyers alone is going to get much value in return. I think that the Blazers will have to eat someone else's bad contract and that Meyers will work as filler to make salaries match.
Which one is overpayed? Leonard is getting paid like a bench player. Crabbe is overpayed only because of his current role, but there are teams out there that would have no issue making him a starter where his contract would look standard. Harkless is a steal. So who's overpayed again?
Eating bad contracts might be the way he moves, but that still doesn't change the fact that Meyers is a net negative asset; a pile of crap that has to be dumped, and not a net positive asset that other teams find desirable, ergo an "albatross." Definition of albatross plural albatross or albatrosses 1: any of a family (Diomedeidae) of large web-footed seabirds that have long slender wings, are excellent gliders, and include the largest seabirds 2a : something that causes persistent deep concern or anxietyb : something that greatly hinders accomplishment : encumbrance
True, but sometimes having an albatross as a salary placeholder is better than having no salary room at all.
