I wouldn't expect you to, but a nod in passing to the fact that it's not apples to apples to look at current salaries vs production would be good.
Actually, we had quite a bit of depth at SG - just not experience. We had NO depth at SF. If we had to make a risky trade with DEN we should have insisted on Chandler. I wouldn't have much liked that trade either, but it was the better trade at the time. Only in hindsight, with Wes going down, does Afflalo make more sense...and even then, I'm not sure it does. We had the following who could play SG: Wes CJ Barton Blake Crabbe Nic Versus the following who could play SF: Nic Dorrel (blech!)
I'll try to include a head nod for any/all possible contingents anyone might think of. As per the follow up, Barton has more production per $ even if their salaries were exactly the same.
These two sentences contradict themselves. He got no offer, so 10 MM per is what he took. Nobody in their right mind is gonna turn away 10 per when no other offers are out there. There's nothing in this post OR the article to suggest that we would've paid him more had we not signed Turner and matched Crabbe.
There's a balance point for a young player like Harkless between taking the security of a contract at less than what he thinks he may get next year if he just accepts the one year Qualifying Offer. Hard to say where the break point is, but I think it's fair to say that the Blazers didn't want to test it and gave him the most that they could.
Meyers got paid first. Harkless got paid the most the Blazers could give him without risking going into the luxury tax threshold. By any reasonable societal measure, all NBA players are compensated pretty damned well.
It's a contract that's good for both sides. Your argument that he would've been paid more sans the Crabbe/Turner signings doesn't hold water though. Would you say he's better/more valuable than Crabbe? How come Crabbe got the huge offer and none for Mo?
Three-point shooting is the new hotness. A prime Steve Kerr would get a $60M offer today. I do think Harkless is better/more valuable than Crabbe. Of course, some of that is because Harkless is...shooting threes competently this year. GMs couldn't know that he would and it may not even last.
I think he stayed because Stotts believed in him...he just left the bench in Orlando and I think he waited so the Blazers could try and make moves before the deadline knowing he'd sign here anyway....Olshey and Mo seem to be on the same page
And it would've been a dick move after he gave Leonard 10M per. THAT'S the MF who should have the 8M per contract...
He was a starter on a playoff team about to make 40MM coming off his rookie deal. It's a fair contract and s lovely situation. Harkless will never come off the bench again.
Moe was a victim of circumstances. To maximize their ability to use their cap space to best advantage, the Blazers wanted to sign a FA (Turner) before dealing with their own restricted free agents (Crabbe, Leonard and Harkless). Rightly or wrongly, they burned $16.4M per year on Turner. Crabbe managed to get an offer from Brooklyn for a crazy amount of money ($18.5M this year) as the Nets tried to bid more than they hoped the Blazers would pay for Crabbe. Olshey matched rather than lose Crabbe for nothing. Harkless was still holding out hope that another team would make him an inflated offer so the Blazers went to work on Leonard's deal and signed him at a starting salary of $9.2M this year. That left around $9M under the luxury tax threshold for the Blazers to offer Harkless once he came to the realization that no other team was going to offer him more this year. His choice was either to take that 4 year $40M contract, which reportedly has another $2M in performance incentives, or take the one year Qualifying Offer deal that the Blazers put up to retain his restricted status, play out this season, hopefully avoiding injury and having a breakout year, and cash in big next summer. He chose security. Olshey roughly split his remaining money between Leonard and Harkless. I think he would have done that up to the luxury tax threshold even if Crabbe's and/or Turner's deals had been cheaper so there was more money left on the table. Olshey was going to spend up to the tax threshold last summer regardless, IMO. Is Harkless worth more than Crabbe? Arguably he's been the Blazers' third best player this season. He's a starter, while Crabbe and Turner come off the bench. He's averaged 12 ppg and 5 rebounds in 31 mpg to Crabbe's 9.9 ppg and 3 rebounds in 29 mpg. I can't think of any metric you could use looking at their relative stats and game impact to say that Crabbe or Turner are worth approximately double what Harkless is getting.
I'm just sayin' that NO had a number he couldn't go over and he spent just about every penny he could on Mo. As generous as he could be in the circumstance. Mo held out, and that likely cost him.
$40,000,000 4 year contract, averaging $10 million per year is the contract Harkless signed with the Blazers. I believe that is a very fair contract for both Mo and the Blazers. The obnoxious large amounts Crabbe and Turner signed for are the problems, not Mo’s contract. Crabbe’s offer from the Nets should NOT HAVE BEEN MATCHED. And Olshey should have done more due diligence before offering a contract to Turner. From the very first day Olshey took the Blazer’s GM job, we have been asking what his plan is. He said his plan was a secret. Now we know Olshey’s plan, he never had one other than to slick talk every topic. His lack of planning is why Olshey will be in cap space hell for the next few years, and with very few options to improve the team.
You're aware I witnessed all of that right? Maybe not. Thanks for the refresher though... All of that and nothing to suggest that we would've signed him for more sans Crabbe/Turner contracts.
Nor have you offered anything to support your contention that they wouldn't have. I guess, like most things where we're not on the inside of the discussion, all we have is our opinions. Mine is that Paul Allen gave Olshey the go ahead to sign a good FA and to spend up to the LT to retain the rest of the crew. He did that. It just didn't get distributed as evenly as it should have.
You seem to have this wrong. I don't have to disapprove what you say. You said it. The burden of proof is on you. Until you do, just like @Sinobas said, bullshit.
