There are plenty of threads where I've opined on who the Blazers should target, but I thought this JQuick tidbit was interesting enough to start a quick thread about. I tweeted to ask him to confirm our projected cap space given the 58.5 figure assuming no major cuts and keeping our lottery pick. He replied 11.6 to which I replied that it was a nice fit for a Tyreke Evans/Jermaine O'Neal offseason (because that's the drum I'm beating all over town these days). I didn't expect a reply, but instead got "Good thing you aren't GM of the Blazers Those are horrible options." Bahahaha, fair enough JQ, no offense taken. But man this is definitely making me hope even harder the Blazers follow the TB plan. If they do and it works out, I'm showing him the tweet!
The TB plan sucks....sorry. If we use 11.6 on Tyreke Evans and Jermaine O'Neal we have failed miserably. I Like both, but neither one is what we need right now.
I'm not an Evans fan, but Jerm is a guy you get on the exceptions after you use your cap space. I want him on the team, but not as part of the 11.6m.
I hope we get either Evans or Shabazz (or Oladipo, but seems less likely) as our 6th man. I don't want Jerm. But if he's our 3rd C making the vet min I wouldn't hate it. (Okay, I'd hate it a little.)
I just feel like Evans doesn't help us that much. I feel like we're already a pretty good scoring team and he doesn't help much in many other areas. I feel like our big problem is defense and rebounding, which he does nothing for us. If we blow all our cap space on a swing man and then we're left with a gaping hole at center we'll be worse than we were last year.
I hear what you're saying - but bringing Evans off the bench would be a huge boost to our team. Sure, it doesn't address defense/rebounding, but he alone (assuming Maynor is retained) would make our bench unit go from worst to at least middle of the pack. We shouldn't spend our entire (or close to it) cap space on Evans, because we still need a few million to add a C. But if you split it 60/40 between Evans and, say, Dalembert, then I think those are both reasonable contracts that would greatly improve the team. Still not contender status, but a better move for the future than blowing the #10 and cap space on Gortat.
I think we definitely need an upgrade at the starting SG spot. I like Wes a lot but we need more scoring and another threat on the wing. Hedging our bets on a former ROY would be a good bet. He handles the ball very well as well. We must add another guy on the wing who can create for himself and others. Other guys who can do this are Monte Ellis and Eric Gordon. We can get by on a mediocre starting center if the remaining 4 starters are very good. I would go after that wing player with our cap space and find a guy who is flying under the radar for that center spot, either by draft and or free agency.
So, to be clear, you're OK with spending 4-5M on Dalembert and 3M on Freeland, but you're not OK with spending 7.7M on Gortat--because the #10 pick is involved. Who that will be available at #10 is going to be the difference between us topping out at Nuggets level and becoming a contender?
I know I personally would rather spend the entire amount on a PG or PF that was an elite type player than splitting it between 2-3 role players at positions of need
We already have an elite PG & PF. Why the hell would you blow the salary cap on a position that is filled already?
The trade would actually give us a 4.5 mil gortat since they absorb freeland. I don't see a single player; even in the draft that can give you gortat production. Also, the #10 pick is on a guaranteed salary. Isn't it like 2+ mil at 10? That would save an additional 2 mil to offer another player
Yeah, "okay" about sums it up. I'd rather NOT spend $3M on Freeland, but that's already done. I'm also not wild about Dalembert, but think he would essentially have the same impact that Gortat would have (as in our record would be about the same) and at half the cost...I'd also consider Kaman and Pachulia as cheaper "replacements" for Gortat. I'd MUCH rather take a chance on Shabazz than give that up for Gortat. Yes, perhaps Gortat would make our team better than Shabazz in the short-term, but (a) he doesn't make us good enough to matter, and (b) it's somewhat likely that the player picked at #10 will be more valuable than Gortat in 2 years. I just don't see any point in giving away assets that will be useful to us a couple years* down the line for a player who only makes us a middle-of-the-pack pretender for a year. *That's a worst case scenario - surely Shabazz or whoever we pick at #10 will improve our bench immediately. They probably wouldn't have the impact that a starting C would have, but it'll at least be an improvement over last season.
Well, to answer for MM, since he said elite type talent, better to have elite talent(BPA) and find a way to fit it in than to get two mediocre guys who fit better
Thank you. I'd much rather have Chris Paul and Damian Lillard than Lillard, Pachulia and Redick....for example
If they blew the cap space on one player, how many could they get after that? One cap exemption and unlimited vet minimums?
1. Jermaine O'Neal should retire. 2. If he doesn't, we are about the last team that should sign him. If he makes any difference it will be small, it will mean our young players aren't getting experience, and it will mean we're less likely to get a high pick. 3. In conclusion, you've made me agree with Quick. I feel dirty.
