Maybe we shouldn't trade Crabbe yet?

So Toronto gives up two 1st round Draft picks for Plumlee.....who may leave? Even though they are later picks, that seems like a lot on their side.

 

....except for Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Lopez, Afflalo, Matthews.....and Luis Montero.

 

Tyson Chandler?

 

I would disagree with calling Oden an "asset" by the time he left

 

It's standard variation. An 11 PER player will naturally vary slightly above and below that.

Those are the same things, unless you generally expect things to go against the odds.

 

We should stop acting like it was rational to give Crabbe the moon because otherwise "we'd lose him for nothing" and "that space was use it or lose it anyway." Unless you think Paul Allen will run an infinite payroll and go way over the luxury tax (which seems clearly untrue, since Portland worked to remain just under it), all the "space" between the cap and the luxury tax is opportunity cost. Portland currently is likely to lose Plumlee "for nothing" because paying him market rate would push them way into the luxury tax. Maybe Allen would do that if Plumlee were Durant, but I doubt he's doing it for Plumlee. If Portland hadn't signed Crabbe, they'd have that space under the luxury tax to re-sign Plumlee even if they wouldn't have conventional cap space.

Plumlee, at least in my opinion, is a significantly better player than Crabbe even if he's no star. But, more to the point, Allen didn't "avoid losing a player for nothing" by matching on Crabbe. He simply chose, via opportunity cost, Crabbe over Plumlee. Unless they do some creative trading, Portland will be losing players for nothing next off-season.

 

It could very well be that he fought to stay under this year knowing we'd be over next year, and not wanting to pay repeater.

 

Plumlees a RFA, so he wouldn't leave if they kept him. They need a backup C, and Plumlee would be a great get for that team.

 

I don't think you get to make that determination yet. There are still two scenarios where "giving him the moon" would work out just fine for us.

1) We trade him and get good value in return. In which case, giving him that contract was justified because we ended up getting compensation for him.

2) We keep Crabbe and trade CJ, thus moving Crabbe into the starting role. This is obviously subject to Crabbe playing up to his contract, but if he were to end up being a solid starter, his contact would not seem nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

It is way too early to make any determinations one way or the other.

 

I'm curious, why do people believe Portland can't afford to resign Plumlee?
He's a restricted free agent this off-season & Potland has his bird rights. Meaning Portland can go over the soft cap to resign him.
Allen might not want to pay the LT, but that has nothing to do with Portland's ability to resign RFA's who they own bird rights on.
Portland isn't even close to the Hard cap.(which is the one that can't be exceeded for any reason)
Should they want to, there is nothing holding back Portland from resigning Plumlee.

 

It's not so much about affording it, it's that he's going to get overpaid and frankly I think a lot of people don't believe he's worth the pay increase.

 

Because we need to improve that position. In signing him, we push ourselves over, thus giving us little room to make any other moves to improve the roster.
Trading him now in a package for a needle mover is more valuable than he is to this roster if we are gonna go over. So if we are gonna go over, then lets to it for something that improves the team nad not keeps us where we are at.
Its a not that we cant, I think its just foolish to do so. UNLESS he is willing to take much less as a backup C for Noel or Whiteside.

 

Sure it is technically possible but not realistic. I would have no problem keeping and paying Plumlee provided we traded Crabbe for contracts that totaled 12 MIL less than he makes. That isn't going to happen though. The only team that could even do that (within cap rules) is PHI.

 

To add to this, the variables are different every night. This is why fantasy football is so popular. You can look at who a player is going against, weather conditions, injury reports, and a myriad of other things to determine who you want to start. The issues are the same with basketball. Some nights the defense will key on one player. Some nights they'll go against a particularly horrible defender. Some nights they will be fighting a nagging injury. If the conditions were 100% the same every night, it might be easier to attribute odds, but it's never 100% the same. Sometimes Stotts will adjust his offense because he believes one of his players will have more success against that team.

 

For discussion only, let’s assume the Blazers are right at the LT and re-sign Plumlee to a $15 million per year extension, all of which is in the LT.

The tax on the first $5 million is $7.5 million
The tax on the second $5 million is $8.75 million
The tax on the last $5 million is $12.5 million.

Total LT would be $28.75 million & $15 million salary. Plumlee would cost the Blazers $43.75 million his first season on a new contract.

The second season and beyond, the repeater tax kicks in. Plumlee’s contract would cost an additional $15 million in repeater tax for a total of $58.75 million per season.

Lots of assumptions in this example, but hope this gives you an idea of what might happen, and why something has to happen to make re-signing Plumlee a good business decision.

 

Yes, there are eventualities in which the contract is fine. I wasn't arguing that there was no way Crabbe could live up to the deal. I was arguing against, "Matching carried zero cost because that space was 'use it or lose it.' " It still carried an opportunity cost unless, as RR7 suggests, Allen is perfectly willing to go well over the tax line for Plumlee and others. If, in fact, Allen has an infinite payroll, then sure, matching doesn't really matter. I doubt he does, but we'll see.

 

Of course they do--that's statistical variance. That doesn't mean that if a player underperforms for half a season, you should then expect overperformance in the second half to "even things out." If Crabbe is, let's say, a "true talent" 20 PER player (I don't think he is, obviously, but for the sake of argument)--the fact that he played at a 10 PER level for the first ~50% of the season doesn't mean we should now expect him to play at close to a 30 PER level for the second half to get to 20 PER by the end of the season. We should expect him to play at a 20 PER level in the second half. The first half is lost and will just hurt his season numbers.

Personally, I think Crabbe is an 11-12 PER player and he played a bit below that level for most of this first half. That wouldn't be anything unusual--players always vary a bit from their average over time, both up and down.

It's always possible for an athlete to jump to a new level of performance. If he's simply gotten much better than his past career numbers suggest (and, at his age, it wouldn't be shocking), then he might have a stronger second half. Not to "even out" underperformance but because he got better.

 

That's completely logical, to think he's not worth the pay increase. I'm not even a big fan of Plumlee, never have been.
But people are saying Portland can't afford it all over these boards... When they technically can.
NBA isn't the NFL where a cap means you're screwed. NBA has a soft & a hard cap. One can be exceeded, while the other can't be for any reason.

Without a new contract for Plumlee Portland is right at the soft cap or already over. Contracts will have to be close to matching regardless.
According to sporac there is a 26k difference before Portland hits the soft cap.(if I read that correctly)
I think it would be more foolish to let him walk for nothing.
Which until there are trade announced, the only thing that is 100% on the table is resign, or walk.
I'd trade Plumlee, but not due to his pending new contract. Due to the fact that I don't believe you can win a championship with him in the rotation.

Letting a productive player walk for nothing, or trading him for peanuts is a bad business decision.
However
It's not about good or bad business decisions.
It's about weather or not Portland has the $ to resign him if they want to.(which was my original question)

Due to the soft cap, and hard cap of the NBA. Portland is able to resign Plumlee if they want to. They have the available money to do so.
People are up in arms about the LT, however no one on this board knows if Allen is willing to pay it or isn't.
Portland has a history of not wanting players to leave for nothing, or so that's what has been reported.
I'd say that is more telling of what will happen if Plumlee isn't traded and Portland has the option of to let him walk, or max.