this "quote" was probably cherry picked out of context. Lillard is a gem, and was probably having fun with a reporter
au contraire, it is very debatable because how many 10 year vets who are top-15 in the NBA make 20% of the cap? my guess is absolutely NONE, EVER Milwaukee is paying Giannis the same as Portland was paying Dame. They are paying Middleton and Lopez about the same as Portland is paying Simons and Grant. The Milwaukee metro population is half that of Portland. And yet the Bucks still found a way, and the will, to add Dame's talent, and salary. I'll say again: Dame's salary did not have any impact on Portland not building a contender. It was shitty management....period. Denver won a championship because in part, while Portland was trading for RoCo and Nance, they were trading for Gordon and Caldwell-Pope; while Portland was using a 10th pick on Zach Collins, Denver was using a 14th pick on Porter Jr. Blazers were mismanaged; Denver wasn't you're talking a pie-in-the-sky theory about some mythical team being able to talk some mythical top-1o player into agreeing to take 20M/year less than he was eligible for so his team, that never signs any good free agents, and never trades for all-stars, and doesn't have lottery picks, can build some mythical contending roster around that player....with the hypothetical 20M in savings. rabbit hole I'd also point out that in Dame's 2nd contract he actually signed for less than the max so Olshey had some extra margin. He didn't repeat that mistake
Wow... incredible use of your imagination here. I never said management was good or without fault. And you are comparing building around a 6'2" all-star with a 6'10" MVP, which is makes no sense to me, but either way is independent of the point I made. Anyway, there have been REALLY REALLY good teams that have not had max players, but that also was off topic. You asked the question though, for some reason, so I'd assume since there has been, that would take away from whatever point you were trying to make. If you think salary cap space and roster management doesn't make any difference in ability to build a supporting cast, then I guess we disagree. I think Olshey sucked big time, but to say anyone involved deserves 100% of the responsibility of how things turned out is silly to me.
man wanted luxury life and climate of miami, banging sluts (not that he cant do it while traveling with the team), but joe cronin really said: "buddy, brace yourself, were sending your ass to milwaukee"
quit trying to twist what I'm saying to fit your weird argument. When was it I said that cap-management wasn't important? you said if Portland had paid Dame 20% of the cap instead of 35% they'd have had more room to maneuver and manipulate the roster. OK...fine but I'm not joining you in that fantasy-land. Dame was not going to sign for 20M/year less so Olshey could throw more money at Derrick Jones or Cronin could throw more money at Gary Payton Jr. No top-15 player in the league was going to sign for 20% of the cap when they were eligible for 35%. None ever have. Some have settled for 5-10% less than their max, and Dame was one of those (8.3% less in 2017). But again, NOBODY at the top of their game is going to agree to play for 43% less than their max. the mechanism you are arguing for doesn't exist in the real world
Reminds me of Aladdin: His personality flaws Give me adequate cause To send him packing on a one-way trip So his prospects take a terminal dip His assets frozen The venue chosen It's the ends of the earth, whoopee So long, ex-prince Ali
LOL, when you ask for a trade there is no guarantee where you are going, he gets to play with one of the greats in Giannis, too bad he is "lonely" collecting 50mil per year, I'm sorry but no sympathy from me
As if Dame can't afford to gave half a dozen of Milwaukee's finest at his pad doing whatever he wants, whenever he wants. I'm not sure that's what he's missing.
I believe you were the one trying to twist what I was saying to fit your weird argument, so I assumed you would be ok with me doing the same. We continue to agree Olshey did a piss poor job building around Dame and that Dame was unwilling to take less money to give management additional assets to build a roster around him. And I repeat, I don't blame Dame one bit for not leaving money on the table. Nothing wrong with doing what is best for you and not the organization because as we've seen, the organization is likely to do what is best for them vs the player. Though like the "who's fault is it" debate, I don't think that is an all-or-none situation either.
you said 'Dame's decision to accept a max deal hurt Portland's ability to put a contender around him'. You offered no evidence that was true; just an assumption that if he would have taken 5-10M less a year that would have changed the talent level of the team. How? my argument is that it wasn't Dame's 25-40M max salaries impeding Portland it was paying CJ 25-30M and Crabbe+Turner 35M and Meyers+Harkless 20M and Powell+RoCo 25M. It was settling for and overpaying role players that killed the Blazers in the Dame era; and that's still happening this year
You're still moving off of what I said and making the case that because Olshey made other bad moves (which I continue to agree with), that it means additional salary flexibility would not matter. If you feel that way, then we disagree. If you do think it matters, then I can't see how you're objecting with my statement. There is no way to go back in time and know 100% what would've happened. I believe having additional cap space and/or being under the tax is an advantage when it comes to signing free agents or getting ownership to buy off on adding salary. Do you think a teams payroll has no impact on their ability to make moves?
"additional salary flexibility". tell me, realistically, how much salary you actually expected Dame to give back. 3M/year? 7M/year? play for a minimum? Dame did not have a max contract for the first 9 years of his career. He agreed to 8.3% less than max on his 2nd contract (he was eligible for the 30% max instead of the 25%, but split the difference and settled for 27.5%). Over 5 years he 'gave back' about 11-12M to the Blazers instead of keeping it for himself the point I'm making is it would be purely dumb to argue Dame should have played for 20M less a year. I think 10M less a year is a dumb suggestion as well because no max level player is going to make that kind of sacrifice over a 4-5 year contract. Dame spent two seasons in Portland on a max deal. He made 31.6M on the last year of his 2nd contract; and 39.3M in the first year of his max extension (2021-22). If he would have taken 10% less than his max it would have been 3.9M less. 20% would have been 7.8M less. Hedge toward the high number and say Dame agreed to take 15% less than his max. Call it 6M (which would have been a 25M haircut over 4 years). What the hell difference would 6M have made for a payroll that started out over the tax line and ended up at 122M by the end of the season? That wasn't even at the level of an MLE contract. It wasn't even 5% of the ending payroll why do you keep asking me that goofy question? Do you think I'm a moron? Does a bear defecate in arboreal regions? you seem to want to debate some generic theoretical point. Yes, it could have made a difference if Dame played for 20M/year less; all he had to do was leave 140M dollars on the table and Olshey might have built a contender. If you want to argue that absurd hypothetical, knock yourself out. I won't participate anymore. meanwhile, I'll say there was no realistic reduction in Dame's salary that would have made a damn bit of difference.
I think that was a lot of words to say you don't disagree with my original statement and we continue to agree a lot of what happened around Dame was a total failure. I think you want me to take some hard stance that I think the Blazers never winning a title is mainly Dame's fault, but I don't believe that. You imply (or said) I'm arguing "Dame should have played for $20m less a year" but let me copy and paste what I've said in previous posts about if Dame should've given up money: "Do I blame him for getting his money? Absolutely not" " I think Dame's #1 priority was getting paid and making sure his guys (CJ for example) got paid. And I repeat, I don't blame them for it being their #1 priority, it should be." So no, I don't think he should have played for $20m less a year. And no, I don't think you're a moron. I won't call you dumb or your ideas dumb either. I have zero issue with you and I think you bring a great perspective to this board.
The problem here is the assumption that Dame taking less would have allowed "additional salary flexibility". Given the constraints of the rest of the roster, that assumption is dubious at best.
