Lillard's extension has absolutely zero bearing on this summer or next summer. So no it has no effect on the ability to sign Kanter.
I don't think he understands the dynamics involved with this? Just the idea alone would be crazy for Lillard to take that kind of risk?
Okie Dokie. Does Dame “love” Portland? Probably, is it the same as say how he loves his mom and his brother, or his child? No. No one believes it is either, when he says he loves Portlands he’s speaking of an appreciation for the city, and of the Trail Blazers franchise. Dame has already said he wants to win but there are other priorities to his life and you know what, thats perfectly ok, thats what makes him a special player, and a special person, is how well grounded he is, in whats important. Dame could've waited to super max and that would've cost the Blazers more. He could've demanded a trade like AD or Butler with the wolves last year or PG13, he could've screwed over the franchise in ways that would set them back for even more than the length of his contract, but he didnt. He’s going to end up with the best Blazer career in the history of the franchise, he’s done everything they have asked of him, he’s been a great employee, a great person and that allowed him to qualify for the super max, Id love it if he said oh no, Ill work for 10m a year so we can sign other guys, but thats not realistic, and as a fan I am absolutely ok with how he’s handling himself and his contract. Also, As has been mentioned I dont believe you know how the CBA and capholds work.
Did you read my posts? Its about the next 3-5 years. Of course it has no bearing on signing Kanter now, but we can get him cheap now and pay him more down the road with an offsetting contract. We will not have money to resign these guys to keep it going. The rookies will go elsewhere. Kanter will leave after his 2 year cheap contract we sign him for(hopefully) now. It will handcuff us down the road. You also didn't specify the necessarily,l which means its a possibility to use the money we don't give to Dame.
OB, love ya man but this is completely wrong. If Kanter signed a 1-year deal this summer we could pay him up to $10 million next year. If he signs this year and next year then we could pay him whatever we want after the 2nd year including a max contract. Bazemore we can pay whatever we want next summer if we want to keep them. All players on rookie deals we can pay whatever we want at the end. Hood we could pay $10 million next year if he opts out or whatever we want the year after that if he picks up his option. Leonard and Harkless we can pay whatever we want next summer. When CJ and Nurk's deals are up we can pay them whatever we want. None of that has anything to do with how much Lillard makes.
do not those signings require possibly going over the cap, but if Dame makes 10- mill less then we dot need to go over the cap? Its not just about Kanter, he was maybe a poor example. Its about having the money to keep our guys down the road when the max kicks in without going so far over the cap we are screwed. You specifically omitted the players I have mentioned that are a key to resigning to maintain success. Collins and Simons, other than we can sign them at the end buy by going over the cap .
Honestly, the team is in a good spot right now. Giving Dame the super max doesn’t change anything. The blazers are not hard capped (as of yet) and should have a little space this summer. Best thing about it is an uneven trade is still possible. Think about it, not every contract/transaction/trade is going to work out this season, so we just have to get one of those unhappy stars to add to our team. Best case scenarios can’t happen for every team. Their has to be a winner and a loser, no ties. Also the NBA has only 1 champion and lots of losers. The one advantage the blazers have this season is the core is still intact, they just trimmed around it a little and kept the window open. So even if blazers lose they have so far set themselves up to be winners later and having trade flexibility with this core is good to have. I will bet the universe their will be some disgruntled star or young talented player wanting out, they might just be who the team needs. (added some spacing, after looking at in on PC)
Huh? I seriously don't understand what you are saying I'm omitting. Little, Skal, Layman, Simons, Collins, CJ, Hood now, Whiteside, Nurk, Bazemore, and Trent are all able to be re-signed and this Lillard deal doesn't matter one bit for any of them. So I don't get what I'm ignoring?
I don't know shit about how the CBA and the cap works and I'm not trying to pretend I do. I just read what knowledgeable posters says is possible money-wise and make my decisions of what I would like to happen or what players I would like based on that. I don't try to make up way to get cap space and ability to give big contract, because I have no clue how it works, what is possible and what is not. A certain poster here should really do the same as me.
Really? Probably because of this.... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/walm...-off-money-losing-online-units-155210117.html Walmart is a fad. And bad for the economy as a whole. If you lower prices far enough one of two things usually happens to compensate. Companies hire slave labor overseas to reduce their labor costs, Products take a severe dip in quality.
I kind of disagree. Walmart is a fad? If so I wish I had gotten in on that "fad" because that family is ridiculously rich. I think you have the order of operations incorrect. Companies go overseas to reduce labor costs so that they can compete on price. Then other companies do the same thing so they can lower the price. Companies who compete on price eventually have bad products and low quality but it doesn't usually take out the high end. I've helped develop products for Aerospace companies like JPL and Blue Origin and they will pay a lot more for literally the same product just because they need their products to show that they can pass higher standards of tests than say apple making an iPhone. Walmart wasn't the problem, it's that there are always those who compete on price and will do anything to shave pennies that's what most chain retailers go after because that's what most consumers can afford to buy. It doesn't prohibit companies from competing on quality, or trying to mix in "cheaper prices" and "medium quality", it's just that the more expensive the brand the, the higher quality you want the more you limit who your consumers are. Walmart isn't "bad" for the economy, because if Walmart didn't exist all those types of companies who compete on price would still exist they would just sell their products somewhere else, because as long as economics exist and consumers have a choice and different incomes there will always be the "cheap", "average" and "expensive". In fact, Amazon has basically done the same thing everything you decide you want and go to amazon for there's always like 500+ sellers, selling different qualities of that item, amazon just beat Walmart and Target and Krogers to the online marketplace.
