I heard what Zach Lowe said, but no one knows if he's right. We'll find out in August. Also, I'd like someone to list some numbers. What's midlevel going to be, $8.5M (a figure I heard someone throw out)? If so, that's not much higher than what Biebs and Harkless are being paid, and it's more than Davis and Aminu.
NO is one of the ones who set the market. That is a dangerous place to be. Also, I agree that Turner is not a bad player, but OVERPAID. Also, Harkless is on a reasonable contract. However, in no way is Meyers or Crabbe worth the contracts they got last summer.... without even considering this years' crap fest. Even as a starter, Crabbe is significantly OVERPAID.
Shooting is more than raw percentage on wide-open shots. The moment there's any defender within five feet of him, he's unwilling to pull to trigger because he doesn't feel comfortable with shots that are at all contested. He's also mostly (but not entirely) a spot-up shooter. He has some ability to come off screens and hit shots, but he's not a major threat. A spot-up shooter who needs to be wide open and doesn't do anything else well (and is especially bad on defense) is not that valuable. He needs that big jump in his game to be a decent NBA starter or to come close to deserving what he's paid.
Kyle Korver has average 10.0 PPG for his career. This year, he's averaging 10.1. It doesn't matter whether you or I are impressed or not. It only matters if he is tradeable. I'm optimistic, but I understand that not everyone is. However, to make it sound like optimism here is foolhearty is untenable.
sorry but that's a crock, Meyers is simply a bad player at any price - especially a 40 mil yr deal, ET is overpaid by at least 4-5 mil, Carbbe is overpaid big time. We have our two best players who are guards who will combined make about 50 mil per starting nest season, with that known you simply can't then pay decent rotation players the kind of money we threw at them last summer - you just cannot, and we are finding out it just does not work
But I thought "it's stupid to let 'assets' go for nothing" which is why it was absolutely crucial Portland overpaid Crabbe and Meyers? Have a meme to resolve that?
and d and did Kyle Korver ever make the kind of money Crabbe is making in ANY CBA environment? He made SIX mil per the past 4 years - as a % of the cap that is WAY less then Crabbe gets - do the math
It IS stupid to let assets go for nothing.... which is why we traded Plumlee for a younger center who actually has an offensive game.
Yeah, but you were saying Portland wouldn't/shouldn't have re-signed him even had he not been traded.
1) Now you're changing your argument 2) I agree that matching Crabbe was controversial, but the jury is still out on that one. 3) Re: "Do the Math" - STFU
why should I STFU,LOL, cause you can'r refute it, he way fukkin overpaid for the player he currently is and I don't care how you try to slice it
Wrong. You said we had to let Plumlee go because we couldn't afford him as a result of the contracts from last summer. I'm saying he was never going to be worth the contract in the first place. It didn't matter if we could afford him or not. So I have been saying we need to trade Plumlee since last summer (you can look it up.)
Right, so you were saying, in the absence of a trade, that Portland shouldn't be extending him (therefore, being able to afford him didn't matter).
Exactly. What is this "cap flexibility" thing? I've never heard of it. If you are within $1 of the cap, you need an exception of some kind to go over. I'm talking cap, not the luxury tax threshold, which is much higher than the cap. You can make a trade, but only for a player who is relatively close in salary to the one you're sending out. If we were $1 under the cap, we couldn't sign a FA for more than the MLE or BAE or vet minimum. That's not much flexibility. But if you have $1 less than the LT in salaries, you have all that flexibility - to trade contracts of assorted sizes, no matter how much over the cap you are (but under the LT).
In absence of a trade, Plumlee could break his knee in half because he was playing too much DDR. Or maybe he would decide that he wants to go into male modeling. That's not the point of this discussion. We are debating why the Blazers didn't keep Plumlee. You attributed it to the contracts that were signed and I'm attributing it to the fact that they were never going to keep him in the first place. If he had gotten to free agency, I suspect they would have let him walk, but he didn't. Neil did the right thing and traded him for valuable assets.
We didn't keep Plums because we traded him for a much better player. If that deal wasn't there to be had, maybe Neil would sign him in the summer at a huge price. We'll never know.
No, we aren't actually. That was never my point. I wasn't saying that Olshey made the trade only because he couldn't afford Plumlee. I was saying that if a trade had not materialized (trades are never guaranteed, even if you want to move a guy), Portland would have had to let Plumlee go because of those contracts. And while Plumlee may or may not be worth what he'll get, he's more worth the money than Crabbe or Leonard is. Also, I provided another example--that Portland couldn't enter the Noel bidding, because they couldn't possibly have afforded to re-sign him. Again, the point is not whether you believe they should have gone after him or not. Pretend Noel is a player you actually would like (if you don't like him). My point should be clear: you DO have opportunity cost by overpaying Crabbe and Leonard, even if that wasn't cap space you could roll over to the next season.
