Maybe this was already posted? https://basketball.realgm.com/wiret...Like-To-Remain-With-Blazers-For-Entire-Career “That would be an honor to be a lifetime Blazer,” Lillard told The Athletic at the NBA 2K launch in New York. “Not a lot of guys get to play for one organization for their entire career. Obviously, I love playing for the Blazers. I love living in the city. I feel like I’ve established a connection with the people and the culture of the city just as much as I’ve done on the basketball court, so that’s important. But, as we know, it’s a business and a lot of times organizations have other plans, and sometimes players change their stance on that. But to be a lifetime Blazer, that would be great. I’m all on board for it.”
it’s a business and a lot of times organizations have other plans, and sometimes players change their stance on that I wonder when Dame will change his stance on this topic? Don't get too comfortable.
Next year, isn't Lillard due an extension called a Super-Max? It will pay him $30M per year to the age of 35? Did I get it close, CBA experts? That will constrain the team budget even more. Or, if they hesitate, motivate him to consider his options.
He has the right mindset. He knows things can change, and he know he might. He gave himself an out, which is more than we can say about someone else I trust Dame way more than that other guy.
Hmmm...$3 million...A low-paid player like another Ed Davis? A raise which makes the difference between another Nurkic leaving or staying? (CBA experts--is my $3 million estimate close?)
Interesting logic. So you oppose all future roster improvements. Just give any money which would have been spent on future roster improvements to Lillard. Continuing your logic to its bitter end, why not waive all players except him? Okay, returning to my question to those knowledgeable about the Super-max rule, (maybe they don't want to be called CBA experts), will this happen (I don't know), and how much? Thanks. (I didn't say it would necessarily be bad, just that it might, and even then, maybe only a little. I simply asked for clarification.) (I'm having to type a lot of words to ask a simple question, to dance around objections from Bones.)
Well it seems like you pretty much have to give your stars the money, building a roster around them is usually the ‘easy’ part. Could that mean you don’t get a good role player? Well my answer is no. Every great team has a guy or two making a ton of money, a good gm finds pieces to fill in around them, gets creative with the pieces he has, makes good trades to get role players that fit around the highly paid players. They should give Dame a super max if he wants it, because he is really good. They should also get a GM who’s going to make good roster moves around him...
Decision will need to be made and all cost considered. Money is not capital, the asset that produces hopefully is capital. The CNC machine is capitol Chalk for teacher is capitol. Dame for the Trailblazers is capital. Capitol investments should produce a positive payback. The wild card is that Corporations and other business's can right off loses in some ways.
If either of you think Dame is cut from the same cloth as that fuckin turncoat, something is wrong with you.
I only see Dame ever leaving if its at the end of his career and whoever the GM is asks him hey can we send you to a contender so you can get a ring. I think there is very little chance Dame leaves though.
i dont think he is going to leave, but im not going to get my hopes up for him to stay. dont get me wrong, i would love it if he was a blazer for life, but im not counting on it. pretty sure we have never had one of those.
