Not exactly true. They have Damian Lillard to show for it. If Roy and Oden were still around and able to play at a high level, the Blazers wouldn't have been in a position to draft Lillard. But, yeah, losing Aldridge for nothing but cap space would suck...which is why Olshey has undoubtedly had a talk with LMA about their respective perspectives on the Blazers' and Aldridge's future aspirations. Aldridge has said as much...saying that NO told him he wouldn't trade Aldridge, would try to bring in pieces this summer and next that would put the Blazers into contention, that the Blazers would be decent next season and good the one thereafter. Obviously, if that doesn't happen then both sides are going to have to look to their own interests. Given that the Blazers will hold Aldridge's Bird Rights and that LMA, should he decide he wants to leave, would want to go to a contender, there's a pretty good chance that a sign-and-trade could be worked out. Regardless of that, barring some team offering the moon for LMA, I don't see any reason to look to make a move before seeing what improvements can be made this off-season.
They were gone because of injuries. Last time I checked; Aldridge has been the least likely to get injured. (Knock on wood)
Other than it's the choice you seem to prefer, what makes option 1 have the highest ceiling? I understand you just want to be negative about option 3, and make assumptions that all we bring in is a big stiff, and that's it this offseason, but because of your bias againsst it, you really seem to give this option the lowest floor because of the way you present it, when it can very easily have the highest ceiling of the group.
I appreciate the post (while respectfully disagreeing), but I mentioned this point so thought I would address that. I don't think Freeland is a good example why the #1 pick is worth the money. Freeland will make 2.8 next year and many consider him overpaid for that. Freeland is probably untradable because of his contract and I think Olshey would gladly have the cap space than Freeland, and again that is at almost half the price of #1 pick. In fact Freeland is an example of how a draft pick can work against a team. Wes, on the other hand, is a proven commodity and a value at his contract level. You can justify anyone's salary by saying the team has other players they pay that amount, but that really isn't the issue. The question is if there is a player in the draft worth 5 million a yr (probably yes) and what are the odds the Blazers pick that player with the #1 pick. With the new CBA (and obviously you know this since you are the source on the board), how much a rookie makes, I think becomes an issue. (look at Houston trying to dump a rookie salary to try and get more cap space.) I get if you think there is a player the Blazers can lock up at #1 who is worth 5 million/yr. Personally I think this is one of those rare years that the #1 pick is not the ideal spot. With no consensus #1 andd the #1 set to make 5 million/yr, I like the 4-6 spot . . .very likely can get your team's top choice at a lower salary/yr . . . and underpaid players are a huge asset in the NBA these days. If you swing and miss at say the #6 spot, it cost you about 2 million less than the #1 spot . . . which will help pay 2/3rd of Freeland's salary.
Unless I'm wrong LaMarcus would net more income playing for a Texas team in that scenario because their income tax is significantly less. Portland has to "overpay" just to stay even with other teams for more reasons than one.
LOL, it's an analysis. How do you think I came to the conclusion that I've been trying to explain for a couple of weeks now? What makes it the highest ceiling is that, to reach the ceiling, you'd need the stuff coming back from LMA and the additional 5-11M in cap space to make the team better/be better than what LMA and the stiff center (who do you think is coming who isn't? Even LMA said he doesn't plan on the guy playing a lot.) Seriously, name someone you can get without trading the Core Four. If we roll the dice on Bynum, forget I said anything. He's potentially the one player who could make Option 3 pretty good. I don't need to go into risk analysis there. So, on to ceiling. Who do you think has a higher ceiling? LMA at 28/29 years old and someone like Jordan/Asik/Pekovic/Kaman/etc, or 9 years of a #1 pick, #10 pick, last year's #4 pick, and potentially either a late-first (#19) or a future 1st? That's why the ceiling is higher. Noel's ceiling isn't much different than Anthony Davis. Oladipo is being mentioned in the same breath as Jordan (whatever) and Wade. Someone like Shabazz or Zeller or whoever could be there at 10. Having an extra pick next year (in addition to possibly keeping our own) in a solid draft could net that. What analysis of yours shows that LMA would stay, or that we can bring in a needle-mover without further stripping the team? I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to something like trading Batum for a good center and then trying to fill in the SF hole, but where are your preferred choices and why you think they have high ceilings and are worth the gamble?
Fair enough, ToB. I understand what you're saying, but I take a slightly different approach. (BTW, you were right. I was going off memory to get Freeland at 3.1M next year, but he's not) We're not in cap hell, or in need of a piece that would be competitive for a championship immediately (if we do the trade). If the L*kers were to pay a rookie 3M more than they needed just b/c they got him at 1 instead of a similar player at 10, that would start to hurt ($3.25 in tax for every $1 in salary at their current level, and worse next year if they're repeaters). We don't really have to spend a lot of assets to get the #1 this year (for instance, a team might not want to give up the haul this year to get from #6 to #1 like anyone would've done last year, only to pay almost double for a similar player). So for us, it's basically a cash layout. Yes, it'll remove dollar-for-dollar our ability to get FA's, but the only way that's a big problem is if LMA is still here. If he's traded for #1 + whatever, then you actually will most likely end up with more space than you have now this summer. Where my philosophy is a bit different is that, once you have the rights to a player, the actual salary is based on the team's players, not on your class of contract. For instance, I don't consider LMA "overpaid", but he's going to take up about 1/3 of the team's payroll this summer. You can get away with that if you have rookies performing above their status on their rookie contract. Similarly, I don't have any problem paying Oladipo (for instance) 2M+ less than I pay Wes if I make him the #1 pick, because my SG's still only make ~11M combined. That's not horrendous. This wasn't super-coherent, partially b/c it's 1230am here, and partially because it's still not completely fleshed out. But I think that rookie contracts are almost always worth it--the talent level if you choose correctly will outperform contract value, which is a lot of what you're asking for in capped sports.
Noel's ceiling is a lot different than Davis. If it was similar, there wouldn't be any questions about who'd go #1 in the draft. And, of course, you factor in that he just tore his ACL. My issue with your analysis is you seem to be looking best case scenario primarily with the option you like the most, and worst case scenario with the option you like the least. That's fine if that's the way you want to come to your conclusion on what to do. I'm unsure where you're coming up with 5-11 million in additional cap space, also. 11? From moving LMA for 1, 19 and Thompson? #1 will make a little over 5 next season. Thompson will make 4. 19 will make about 1.5. We'd get an additional 4-5 million or so in cap space from moving him.
If you get Thompson with the package you end up with 5 more in space. If you just get picks (which was another rumor) then you're at 10+ more. That's all. Right now there's still little question about who'll go #1, and that's with a dude with an ACL injury. A) Did you think he was a prospect on par with Davis before the injury? B) How much of his game will be robbed by a recovery from it? You're getting the timing backwards. I didn't go into this thinking "I like Option 1, so I'll skew the results". I didn't go into it saying "I hate LMA--let's get rid of him." It was because so many people were saying that there's no way we should trade him that I started looking at if that really should be the case. As you can see, it's not. As you can see, there's a pretty decent case to be made that he should be traded if CLE is offering the package they're rumored to. (At least, to my thinking. Your mileage may vary).
No, and I don't think anybody else did either. Everyone wanted to compare the two of course. Same school, similar build, etc. But everyone discussed Davis in the same breath as Duncan, KG, an ELITE prospect whose offense would come. Nobody was talking about Noel like that. Most of his comparisons are to very good to great defensive players. Dikembe, Larry Sanders, Theo Ratliff. Nobody is mentioning him the way they did Davis, rightfully so. I don't think the ACL will destroy his prospects. But it is a concern. So that right there immediately knocks down scenario #1, where you've moved Aldridge for Noel as the primary piece, as having the lowest floor, when you go worst case scenario. Because there's the potential he can be troubled forever with his knee issues. His best case scenarios, combined with Thompson, still don't give you anyone that projects as a low post threat. So we'd be a very perimeter oriented team. When the 3s are falling, great. If not..... And then there's tanking for Wiggins, Parker, etc. People wanted to tank for Shabazz. How's that working out? People wanted to tank for Barnes. Wiggings looks good. I'm not saying he'll slightly bust in college like them. But there's that possibility. And, of course, the strong possibility that Lillard makes a big jump and, combined with Wes, Batum, Thompson, Noel, we're just not good enough to get a top pick. So we're stuck late lotto, and the prospects of giving up our pick the next year. There's also the chance that adding Jordan, McGee, Robin Lopez, etc. turns out to be a large benefit to our team, and to our defense. The options seems as much a possibility as Noel becoming an elite C, IMO.Hell, there's a chance that Lillard takes a similar career arch as Brandon did, or even Rose, with a good jump from 1-2, and then a huge jump from season 2-3. That huge jump aligning with that defensive C and whoever else we added to our bench, plus the MLE from the following season. All that is of course ignoring trade opportunities, and thinking that :eeyore: all we have to add is a MLE to that bummer of a team:/eeyore:
Let him walk when? When he signed his extension, Roy was an All-Star. Plus, had they let Roy "walk", I assume they would have signed someone else is my guess. Also, unless you advocated letting Roy walk and can prove it, all you're doing is 20/20 hindsight nonsense. Imagine if the Blazers had drafted Josh Smith instead of Telfair, and then had listened to KP and drafted Chris Paul in 2005 instead of Webster. We'd never have to even worry about Roy, Oden, or even LMA, possibly.
