I imagine he would have if that were an option. He was trying to get that done the following day, and it didn't happen even then, until the following morning. Perhaps that was part of the holdup on the CJ trade?
"We were able to accomplish all of our goals in those three transactions.". What goals? Making the Clippers better and getting pennies on the dollar in a fire sale? Also why was almost every guy we got of note in the 6'5" range?
If you have a ton of options to duck the tax and can't handle a GM trying to leverage against you with you being in the tax as a seller is the sign of someone that has no idea how to negotiate properly. We had the commodity that teams wanted. Traded said commodity to any number of teams would likely be in a trade to duck the tax. There's no way that should've been leveraged against him. The fact that he says it was is damning evidence that this dude doesn't have what it takes to be a good GM.
LOL @ the excuse of being held hostage by other GM's because we were over the luxury tax. Here's how to counter it, "I'm going to make this other deal to get under it. If you don't want to meet my price, someone else will." He reminds me of the guy who walks onto a used car lot and pays sticker price.
Yes, this clearly is a non-biased fact: "- Talks about pushing Portland's trade chips all-in when Portland's ONLY legitimate trade chips are their 1st this year and a pick from New Orleans that could potentially wind up being Milwaukee's 2025 1st round pick (not good)..."
It's clear the only goal was to get under the tax. These transactions weren't about present or future talent, but about maximizing value. The team will be sold and that ownership group will make the decision on Dame. His marketability is the only reason he isn't gone for a bag of chips.
We are remodeling our main bathroom now. I can assure you I have no idea how to determine if a builder is capable or not after the demo - only after he had time to build. If you are capable of than that, you are better than me. Congrats.
I can assure you I do. That doesn't mean I'm better than you, it's just the clues are all there. They should be neat, orderly, lay down protection and salvage materials for future use. Construction skills are construction skills. You can tell a lot by seeing what wasn't done in a demo by how a room will be rebuilt.
Our remodel is of a house that was built in the 70s - there is nothing to salvage from what was demoed - and we are less constrained by a cap than the Blazers are. (As in, we are probably going to go about 30% over the initial estimate - which I would treat as the cap, the Blazers going 30% over the cap given their repeater tax offender would be like 60%). I think that your valuation of the stuff that was demoed was higher than the valuation that the organization had - and they were not willing to risk being stuck with these assets trying to pursue what they considered less likely deals. As I said, I am just happy there is a real plan and action to achieve it. We can argue from here until forever how close the execution is to optimal - but without more details, it is just speculation.
If he leaves you change team as well? Seems you only care about what's happening with Nurk and if he ll get enough money.
They literally can't trade any of their future 1sts right now. Simons is a free agent and they're obviously planning on him being a part of the future. Hart isn't close to enough value to bring back a good starter by himself. Neither is Johnson. Neither is Little. If Cronin can't get anything back for Norm and RoCo, what makes you think he can flip a 3rd year guy who's out for the year who's only shown flashes? I'm talking about assets that can bring back a good starter.
Needed to get under the tax for potential other deals. Seems legit. Someone was going to take advantage of that, and he STILL got a young first round talent back in the deal
They are still chips (and Anfernee still could be after re-signing, especially if this is beyond a one-year process). And it'd wouldn't take all that much to clear the protections with Chicago, if that's the direction they want to go (heck, they do the exact same thing that NOP just did). I'm certainly not suggesting that the Blazers are flush with notable assets, but your take was clearly not an unbiased recap.
Okay, the analogy here is you could've sold the house built in the 70s for $250K to put towards a newer house but got leveraged in negotiations all the way down to $90K and now you don't have enough money to buy a newer house and might have to rent an apartment instead.
