Ah, well rhetorically speaking, how was sinobas's assertion that "if Neil would have done nothing but resign Harkless this offseason, we'd still have had enough to offer a near max contract to someone this offseason" any less bullshit than my statement? Both are opinions based on our individual understanding of the dynamics involved. He creates a nice little narrative in his mind where Harkless signs on the cheap and leaves Olshey money for next summer and implies Olshey is a putz for not accomplishing this brilliant plan. Sorry, but I don't buy it and so I gave my opinion to the contrary. Shit. Who really gives a crap?
I don't subscribe to his notion either. I just know Hark wasn't getting any offers and he got what everyone feels is a fair deal. The deal I don't really like it's Leonard's deal. (Or Crabbe's. Don't really mind Turner's)
I don't suppose that either of us knows whether everyone feels his deal is "fair". I think that fairness is a moving target in the NBA. Crabbe's deal is definitely absurd relative to his contributions, but it was purely market driven. Harkless couldn't find any suitors to drive his price up so he had to "settle" fora $40 million deal. Life's tough like that sometimes.
This is where we agree. I guess what we disagree on is whether Harkless would've had to settle for the deal he got if the Blazers had more to offer.
I just think that $10M is pretty cheap for a new contract for a talented young starter in today's NBA market. I would have to do some research to show comparables. Maybe tomorrow.
In my opinion it doesn't make sense to say that the Blazers (if Crabbe's and Turner's contracts were cheaper) would give more money to Harkless and up to the luxury tax threshold because this would mean they would be paying much more when CJ's new contract starts. What's the point in it? Just paying luxury tax money for fun? The more they offered to Harkless the more they would pay next year for taxes so you try and save as much as you can, you don't give him all the available money regardless. I agree that his contract could have been bigger if you compare it with other players, but I don't agree that the Blazers would give him more money if they had more available. No other team valued him more so the Blazers had the upper hand.
This is not hard to deduce from what actually happened. The strategy was quite obvious and played out to perfection. The CBA doesn't make much for a free market for talent, so the allocation of salary wasn't done entirely by merit. That's life.
Yup. Crabbe can send the Nets flowers for their role in his big payday. Harkless will just have to squeak by on his $10 mil.
Not that I'm a qualified GM, but having followed the sport and the front offices and the CBA type dealings, I wouldn't have done it any different. A real jerk of a GM would have told the guys to go get their best offer and we'd match that. He didn't have to pay Leonard $10M, Mo $40M/4, etc. That he did is a sign of the generosity of the owner and the GM being a players' GM. For all the talk of firing the guy, I think it's pretty silly. We're not going to find anyone who's better than NO because there aren't many. No GM is perfect, unless LeBron says he'll sign with the team. Realize that when you don't attract the elite free agents, for whatever reasons (it's not money), you have to go with the guys you draft and develop and get lucky trading for guys who break out after the trade. It becomes moneyball, and this is what a moneyball team looks like. Lots of underrated talent that put together translate to wins. That didn't prevent NO from taking the home run cut at bringing in a top tier FA. I don't know how he could have played it any better, without hindsight. Nobody can accurately predict the future.
Huh? My statement was mathematical in nature. Which is nothing like yours, which was speculation based upon an illogical foundation. But it's ok, believe what you want, it doesn't matter. =)
Yeah, having the 2nd most expensive roster in the league, to buy your fans and owner a sub .500 team, that is great work! Neil came in here as a slick talker, speaking of moving the needle etc, and I think it's pretty clear all his plans have gone for shit. Portland's only hope now is to get VERY lucky in the draft.
As is, the Blazers' salaries for 2017-18 is $134,395,849 before re-signing Plums. Minus Crabbe $18.5M, Turner $17.1M, Leonard $9.9M, and Ezili $7.7M $81.2M The CAP is projected to be $102M. That is enough to make a max offer, but we'd only be able to go over the cap by re-signing Plums to a big enough contract. Assuming we would sign a star FA with the ~$21M, our roster would look something like: Dame, CJ, FA, Plums, Mo, Aminu, Davis, Napier, Connaughton, Layman, Quarterman, our draft picks, and vet minimum players. If we don't sign that star FA, maybe we get lucky and sign someone as good as ET, or sign two or more even lesser players. The downside is huge. The upside is a big risk. NO did the right thing.
How do you minus Crabbe, Turner Leronard & Ezili? OK, Ezili is easy, a non-guaranteed year, gone. Leonard, we might find a team that would take him for a late first or second round pick, maybe, but I will work with you on this and go with it. Crabbe and Turner are huge liabilities, they are not assets. To trade them NO will need to add a first round pick or more just to get their value to even par. With the huge and talented free agent class next off-season, and a draft class that is projected to be very good and deep, we are going to have a very hard time trading Leonard, and next to impossible time trading Crabbe & Turner. NO might be able to trim the salaries back to $116.8 million (using your numbers). He could save another $2 million if he does not pick up Pat’s & Tim’s contracts. But to think NO can get under the cap is not being realistic, given what he has to work with, and the options the other GM’s have.
The presumption is we'd be better off if we only re-signed Mo, so we'd have money to throw at a UFA again next summer. My assumption is NO weighs the value of paying the LT (it's not so much the tax money but the penalties). He weighs the value of re-signing Plums, keeping Ezeli, etc. In the end, if he chooses not to pay the LT, he will make a move or two to get under. Of that I am quite confident. We are not stuck with this roster - it's not the same roster as last year, even (we have ET, Ezeli, Layman?...)
I also want to qualify my figuring as not necessarily 100% accurate. For example, there's the spread provision used on Verajao's that reduces that $21M figure by ~$2M. There may be more.
