Nope. I just asked people to practice some patience. Looks like you rushed to judgements. Maybe you shouldn't be so reactionary.
I don't think he fucked over Utah. Assuming they can get over the initial liquidation issue, they will have their starting power forward locked up for a pretty good price. The Blazers were willing to spend that much money on him as a BACKUP... you don't think they'll be pleased to have him as a starter for that? I also don't think that adding "quality players in Claver and Cunningham" is much of a much. Claver might be something in a few years, but it's a big question mark for a mid-first rounder, and Cunningham still probably won't even crack the rotation for the Blazers. Not to say that KP tucking in his shirt is relevant to much, either, but I don't buy the spin that this has been a good summer. Ed O.
Dude... are you really doing a series of "I told you so's" after the Blazers pulled off Plan C? Ed O.
No I don't think they are. I don't think they are sure he is the long term starter. And now he is a high priced back up. At least that has been the discussion on the radio. (Fans and media)
In the end, we moved Zach Randolph and Sergio Rodriguez for Andre Miller, Rudy Fernandez, and James Jones. Fruitless? All the while increasing in wins every season since Zach's departure, maintaining a responsible salary structure, and retaining many young prospects. Oden looks dramatically better. This is the sort of internal improvement I'm speaking of.
This is a discussion board, right? What has transpired since this discussion started is directly related to it. Why does this annoy you? People were so quick to turn on Pritchard.
Adding an 18-19 PER player at their position of greatest need and on a contract very favourable to the team, without having to give up any talent, does not make this a "good summer?" We clearly have completely different ideas of success for this off-season. What were you expecting?
Ok. One. We did fuck over Utah. Portland and OKC were the only teams that could help them out of their ordeal. I'm assuming they hesitated. We signed Millsap to a higher contract amount than they had planned on. They're now left dealing with OKC, who I don't believe will help, or the more likely scenario, dealing Boozer away for a contract that's 25% less or to Memphis (who doesn't need him now) for about $4M in savings. If they had dealt with us they save a boat load. Now, they eat tax up the wazoo! We fucked 'um. And to be honest, it feels good.
Utah is now forced to have to move Boozer. Everyone knows it. They can say what they want, but he will be moved before the trade deadline, and I predict much sooner. Portland and OKC were the only teams that get them out of this gigantic pickle. Neither team, well for sure not POR, seems to want to help them. Wallace isn't being moved to Utah. He's now a free agent. So, that medically-insured contract won't help them. They're going to have to settle on moving Boozer for a contract that's 25% less or to Memphis, who I believe still have about $4M in spending dollars. Either way, they're going to be paying a lot more tax (A LOT MORE) because of what Portland did. Your opinion I suppose. Given POR's eye for talent though, I'm guessing Claver is another Rudy Fernandez rather than Tskitsdkfajdfdfdkjti. Cunningham didn't just impress me throughout the season and at the Summer League. A lot of experts, including the ones over at Draft Express, fell in love with the guy. I believe he made their 2nd-Team for Rookies. Some guys are late bloomers. I'll have to check his stats, but Dante's made some incredible strides over the past two years, especially given the Wildcats team make-up. He's on an upward path. Anyway, there's nothing I can say to sway you. I know this.
I don't understand how we screwed them in the least. They WANTED to keep Millsap. $8m a year is a very, very reasonable salary for a starting power forward. As we both know (and as I said before): the Blazers were willing to pay him that to be a BACKUP. Even considering the difference between the wealth of the Jazz ownership and Paul Allen, I think that the Jazz are going to be perfectly content to have him locked in at that level. Ed O.
I agree and was going to post something similar, but it wasn't my debate. Utah has to get rid of Boozer regardless if they want anything for him before he leaves, and Millsap was always going to be matched, or so it appears. Does Utah run the risk of not being able to unload Boozer and having to pay luxury tax? I suppose, but even if they do that, they make up for it financially by having a very productive PF in Millsap at a very reasonable rate over the next 4 years instead of paying a Boozer-type contract, like they've done for the past 5 years (or whatever length it is). I don't see how Portland screwed Utah, other than making them take out a short loan, on what I imagine is a very solid line of credit, for a month or two to put some cash at Millsap last week.
Yes... and to clarify: I don't BLAME the Blazers for doing it. I think it was a fine move. It would have been awesome to add Millsap. But we didn't screw the Jazz in our efforts to acquire PM. Ed O.
I agree the salary amount is way reasonable. What I'm talking about is the position UTA has put themselves in by not working with Portland on a three-way deal PRIOR to our offer sheet. By allowing us to facilitate a deal with someone, let's say Chicago, to move Boozer out, they would be left with one less suitor for Millsap. They likely still get Millsap at a reasonable, and more likely, even more reasonable contract for Millsap. Plus, none to very little luxury tax. They wouldn't, at least that's how I understood it. And, we put pressure on them by forcing them to sign Millsap, keep Boozer, and have less advantageous options for ridding themselves of Boozer. They will be paying more luxury tax because they didn't deal with us. Which is too bad. I bet we would've gotten Hinrich.
But if it's the Jazz that decided not to do it, and you think that they got fucked by not doing it, didn't they fuck themselves? Ed O.
Had they gotten rid of Boozer in a three-way with us, as was plastered over the internets, they save a ton of money. They didn't. We punished them. They're going to pay a lot in tax because of it, which also could affect future decisions. At least this is how I feel it all went down. You didn't think Portland was preferring to gain something out of facilitating a deal to bring back whatever Boozer would fetch? As of now, they're going to be paying $11M in tax. That's $11,000,000. They're not a contending team any longer, IMO. I completely disagree with you that this isn't a big deal.
No. They had a hand in it, but we were the driving force behind the fucking. The fucking began when they decided they didn't want to deal with us, but after thinking about it, it peaked when we signed Andre Miller. At that point, using up our salary cap space, taking us away as a trade partner, screwed them.
We seem to have a fundamental difference in how we view things. I take internet rumors as being worth nothing and literally of no value; you seem to be more willing to believe them. There is no correct way to view them, so we're both right, yet we both won't agree. I have no idea if they were or were not. I'm not going to argue about something that may or may not be true. If they have the money, which apparently they do, why is paying the tax for a year a big deal? They resigned Okur knowing that this could happen, didn't they? I'm guessing they took everything into consideration when extending Okur prior to knowing anything about Millsap's situation. At least, that's how I would approach the situation.
Is it also possible that Utah felt that potentially paying some luxury tax was a plus as opposed to helping a division rival get better?
