Not to mention that even if they continue to not live up to their contracts, they still hold the potential of being usable expiring contracts next year. Stretching either over 5 seasons would really be counter-productive.
When I saw the tweet a couple of days ago I thought it was moronic. Really not sure why @Labinot41 made a thread out of it.
Yeah I agree with this. I would not stretch them. If this team is doing poorly at the trade deadline I would dump whoever is wanted by another team (Mo, Aminu, ET, ML) They all will have short contracts by then.
Because he's realistic about the Cap? Do you really think PA pays Luxury Tax for a 500. Team ? He did not do it last year, why should he do it Next year? All moves portland made since 2016 were to safe Pauls Money, he isn't that 'aggressive'. Neil is a liar and you know that
Do you think I based my opinion off of one tweet? The guy spins every single thing in a negative way. He once wrote an article about the benefits of creating trade exceptions and then the Crabbe trade happened and he went off about how dumb trade exceptions are. As for the tax, Baldwin would have to be cut in July. That mere fact makes this whole plan of waiting to see how the team does first impossible. We also don't know if teams will have cap space to absorb Aminu or if those who do would even want to. It's not even close to last year when we literally could've traded several different players and gotten under the tax.
I don't like the stretch at all there chance maybe unload a player during the deadline if things not going well and I think Paul handle a year going over the cap.
POR is not a .500 team (49-33). He didn't pay the luxury tax last year because it didn't make any sense to enter year 1 of repeater tax status knowing that resigning Nurk would push us over the tax threshold for 2017-18. It was a smart move as it didn't impact our success on the court in any way (all it cost us was dumping a player who wasn't even in the rotation). You do realize, there is much more to the repeater tax penalties than money, right? Once you become a repeat offender, it makes it much more difficult to make roster moves. There are reasons, other than save Paul Allen some money, to avoid becoming a repeat offender. If all Paul wanted to do was save money, Neil would have forced Nurk to play one year at the qualifying offer, then let him walk for nothing and declare Collins as our center of the future. But he didn't. He gave Nurk $48 million of Paul's money. That cheap bastard! BNM
Yep, it's the repeat offender penalties you want to avoid. Which why dumping Vonleh at the trade deadline was 100% the right thing to do. He wasn't even playing, and with Nurk's extension looming, it would have been stupid and irresponsible not to do so. I would have been Doc Rivers stupid (like overpaying his own kid by several million to push the team into tax payer status by a couple hundred grand). There are reasons why Doc is no longer (and never should have been ) an NBA GM. Irresponsible cap management is the most glaring. Just look at the Clippers now. They have lost all of their stars, are still $10 million over the cap and are paying Damilo Galinari $22 million a year for the next two seasons. BNM
What is it they say about throwing stones while living in a glass house? Neil isn't exactly the epitome of super cap manager. He's paying Leonard/ET/Harkless $40 million and has $5 mil in dead cap. We have one of the worst managed salary caps in the league. Just because we avoided the tax last year doesn't immediately qualify us as a well managed team.
Where did I say that? Being better than the worst isn't the same thing as being the best, or even good, at something. I was just pointing out it's stupid (Doc Rivers stupid) to enter year 1 of a repeat offender situation when it's easily avoidable. BNM