You talked yourself into the point of my post. We don't have a player like that on the Blazers today. All of those players are available later in the draft and don't require us to tank for a top5 pick. In fact Kyrie is the only player to have won a title for the team that got him in the top5 in that span vs the 10 players I listed. So 10x as likely to get that stud after pick 10 as in the top5.
Which small market team tanked to get a star in the top5 and led a team to a title from your list? Tatum and Brown were trades. Aaron Gordon was a trade You've literally backed up my point that teams haven't build a title contender by tanking for stars. Thanks.
That's the thing, you fail to understand there was no firm requirement to spend 90%. If you read an article saying such it was wrong. Go read Larry coons old CBA FAQ or even the CBA itself. I've started threads on this board posting the actual CBA. If a team spent less than 90% the difference went to the players on the roster at the end of the season.
and you're wrong, and have been told so several times. No team, including the Blazers, was "required" to be at the floor. Teams could be under the floor if they wanted during the season. They just needed to be at the floor by the last game of the regular season, otherwise they would need to distribute the difference between their payroll and the floor to their players. But during the season, teams could use that space for trades or signings. So your statement that there was "no other option" is not correct I forget which team it was but one was about 15M under the floor when the season started. At the trade deadline they used the space to trade for an expiring contract player that just barely, put them over the floor. They traded a top-55 protected 2nd round pick and got back two 2nds for their trouble while helping the other team get under the tax line. And since the trade deadline was about 63% thru the season, they got full credit for a 15M contract, but only had to pay a bit less than 40% of his salary. The other team had already paid the rest that option is no longer available because, as already mentioned, Teams need to be at the floor by the beginning of the season, otherwise they are ineligible for tax disbursements and their cap is adjusted up to the floor. In the new CBA the most cap-space any team can carry into the season is 10% of the cap
This seems like a pretty clear cut case of moving the goal posts. Your first post said - So first of all, you didn't say anything about tanking. You just said losing in the top 5. But to go back and answer your question of teams that have won championships with their best player being taken in the top 5: Bulls in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998 with Jordan and Pippen. Bulls finished 27-55 that season (3rd worst) when they drafted Jordan. Rockets in 1994 and 1995 with Hakeem. Rockets finished 29-53 (4th worst) when they drafted Hakeem. Cavs in 2016 with LeBron. Cavs finished 16-65 and tied for the worst record when they drafted him. They were CLEARLY tanking to get LeBron. Spurs in 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2014 with Duncan. They were 20-62 and had the 3rd worst record when they drafted Duncan. Also CLEARLY tanking to get Duncan and now Wemby. That's 14 championships in the last 34 years from teams that were in the bottom 5 in terms of record when they selected their star. But my main point wasn't about finishing bottom 5. It was that you NEED as many top 5 picks as you can get on your team because it drastically increases your chances of getting a superstar. You can either draft them, which most teams did, you can trade for them, or you can sign them. The Blazers aren't signing one and it's extremely difficult to trade for them (unless you're the Lakers.) So we need to draft them. With the exception of a handful of teams in the past 30+ years, most titles are won by guys taken in the top 10.
Yup. You either have to draft, sign, or trade for a superstar. We damn sure ain't signing one, and it's hard to trade for one, so we really can only draft one.
Thought-provoking article from Blazers Edge https://www.blazersedge.com/2025/2/...blazers-nba-draft-lottery-odds-tank-fix-ideas
The article was wrong, but you're not? lol. There was a requirement man, it was in CBA contract lol. "There was a new TV contract that brought a massive amount more of extra money. The owners wanted to layer the extra money into the cap over a couple of years. They still would have received the same amount of money by the time the layering was complete. For whatever reason the players wouldn't agree and wanted all the money all at once. The thing that really messed things up is the league also has a salary floor that FORCED teams to spend all the extra money all in that one year. So not only were teams FORCED to spend money but since just about all teams had money it created a lot of competition and gave the leverage to mediocre players" Once again another article stating the such, I made the FORCED party bold for you so you could understand....lol
Your clearly wrong as multiple knowledge posters on this board have explained. It's in section 14 of Larry coons CBA FAQ as well. http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm
I've never moved over anything, I've had consistent comments in this thread. Yes Jordan Hakeem Robinson were all drafted about 40 years ago, I didn't go back that far. Their drafts were closer to Walton or non 3pt era than today's game. Since then Kyrie Duncan Wade are the only top6 picks to have won titles for the team that drafted them with their own pick. There are many more players drafted after pick10 that got their team who drafted them titles in that span. Just shocked me when looking that up and I've relayed that information as much as I could. Now I'm not opposed to having some losses for a top pick, but it does make me question if a team can build a contender primarily through drafting at the top of the lottery. Even those Duncan/Wade/Kyrie teams acquired start talent help through other means.
That is different, we had to spend money either in the off season or before the last game of the season due to the massive increase in salary cap. many articles are stating the same, yet you guys still dismiss it. You guys are working in the nba just going off what you read, I’m going off what I read and I remember summer of 2016 very well and what everyone talked about and teams had to spend money. the fact that many articles are posting that but yet you dismissing it then I don’t know what to tell you. Go look at all the teams that made signings that year and the contracts people got. the point being from what you rambled on and talked shit about is I wasn’t defending Neil point blank even though you want to spin it that way. Not the first time I seen you spin something on here to fit your narrative.
I think you're missing that guys drafted higher in the draft are also traded for pieces to help build championship teams. Raptors traded #5 pick Jonas Valančiūnas for Marc Gasol to help put them over the top. You're simply more likely to get more valuable assets the higher you pick, and less likely to get a bust. Especially in loaded drafts like this year.
no, it's not different I'll try one more time: you keep defending what Olshey did in 2016 by saying the Blazers were "required" to be over the salary floor. They were only required to be over after the season was complete and they could accomplish what was required by simply distributing the differential to their players but here's the thing: the salary cap in 2016 was 94M. That meant the floor was a shade under 85M. The tax line in 2016 was 113.3M. Portland's total guaranteed salary was nearly 113M. That was the beginning of the Blazers constantly battling with the tax line. Olshey overspent the salary floor by 28M, which was an amount about equal to about 30% of the salary cap and 33% of the floor the following season, Portland was only about 3M under the tax line but that was only because they traded Crabbe and his 18M salary for Andrew Nicholson, who they immediately stretched over 7 years at 2.844M/year. If they hadn't have made that trade, they would have been 15M over the tax line which dovetails into the 2018-19 season when the Blazers DID go 15M over the line because all their players under existing contracts got their step raises, plus having to give Nurkic a new deal and making an unbalanced Stauskas for Rodney Hood trade. And they were 5M over the tax line the next season Paul Allen died at the beginning of the 2018-19 season. That was easily the best Blazer team of the Dame/CJ era and it took being in the luxury tax to have that team. When Jody and the Vulcans took over the Blazers were essentially committed to being in the tax for that season and the next. That commitment was made in 2016, not 2018. Olshey's idiotic spending spree in 2016 was a ghost that haunted the Blazers for years. And it is the specter of that ghost that has made the Vulcans insist on no luxury tax and you can track the residue of that spending spree thru the years right up until the 2022 trade deadline when Cronin dismantled Olshey's albatross roster there is no defense of what Olshey did in 2016....none. Evan Turner himself even talked about how dumbfounded he was by the size of the offer Olshey gave him. Olshey had a bad habit of bidding against himself when signing FA's or re-signing his players. And then he'd turn around and massively overvalue those players in trade discussions. I think Cronin may have adopted some of Olshey's bad habits
I think the Rockets are a perfect example of a team that pulled out of a tank too soon. They’re not very dissimilar to us. Lots of length and defense. No superstar. Who on that team is gonna be THE GUY.
If we lose out rest of the way, what is best case scenario for us? Ideally, that's what I wanna see us do
